INVENIRE

Democracy, usually in its representative form, is something of a sacred cow in Western societies. One of the primary arguments made by Brexiteers following the European Union referendum in 2016 is that leaving the EU is simply respecting democracy; respecting the will of the people, and fundamentally, the people themselves. Advocates for lowering the voting age to 16 argue that this will expand and strengthen democracy. But why do we hold it so sacredly? It doesn't guarantee better debate, or better decision-making. I will argue that democracy reduces the standard of democratic debate, ultimately reducing the possibility of good ideas being shared in the political arena. It is incredibly contradictory for us to both value the rigorous debate of political ideologies while also valuing democracy. The two are mutually exclusive. During election campaigns, politicians often compete (compete, not converse) in live, televised debates. Following the debate, we often hear complaints that

Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party have defeated Labour in a convincing victory in the early hours of this morning, forcing Corbyn to announce future plans for resignation. The Labour Party lost a number of votes in leave-voting constituencies, due to their ambiguous stance on Brexit, in addition to Jeremy Corbyn's general unlikability. We will examine how devastating Corbyn might have been, had he won the election. The Conservatives have kept one of their campaign promises: Corbyn neutral by Christmas. In the tradition of all great socialists, Corbyn and the Labour Party have framed their economic policy as "social justice", attempting to appear somewhat moral. Nevertheless, Labour's policies, founded upon greed and economic ignorance, would hurt businesses severely. A strong example of this is their plan to give company profits to workers. Of course, they argue that they are giving workers "a share of the profits they help create". This statement, a

Aristocracy has become a dirty word; I would argue rightly so, given its association with the landed gentry, unearned seats in government and regressive social hierarchies, such as pre-revolutionary France and  pre-Reform Act Britain . However, in its first usage, it referred to its literal definition; rule by the excellent. In theory, it refers to rule by an individual, or group of individuals, chosen for their excellence. All states are at some point aristocracies; the best of a people are chosen to be military and political leaders in times of crisis.  In The Republic, Plato describes rule by a philosopher-king, chosen for his wisdom and logical thinking. He defends the concept of vesting so much power in one person with his famous Ship of State analogy. The leader of the state is represented by the captain of the ship. Plato describes the current captain as being "a little deaf and having a little infirmity in sight". Consequently, the men on the ship begin to quarrel a

One of the major drawbacks of democratic countries is that they are susceptible to the potential ignorance of the people. There are two antidotes to this, one of which has long been ignored. The parliamentary system, in which the electorate chooses representatives, is the first. This, to some extent, eliminates ignorance, as less-informed candidates are less likely to be elected to hold office. The second antidote, an antidote that has been ignored, is cultural literacy. The term was first coined by American educator E.D. Hirsch, and it describes the cultural and historical knowledge required to function as a citizen of a particular country. Hirsch has correctly identified that Western curricula place too little emphasis on the learning of facts, and rather that they inaccurately assume that children will naturally acquire knowledge as they increase in their critical thinking skills. Hirsch first devised this concept in the early 1990s as a college lecturer in Richmond, Virginia. He

We hear it all the time: our tax system is unfair. It is, supposedly, stacked against the working classes; it's engineered to benefit the rich and hurt the poor. I ardently disagree with this notion and I believe that those who believe that the richest individuals do not contribute enough are either unaware of the facts, or are more dishonest and therefore choose to ignore them. The majority of us agree that equality of outcome is not a good idea. A student who had invested a great deal of time and effort into preparing for an exam would be rightly annoyed if, after the exam, the marks were equally distributed. Similarly, individuals in a family of four would not each eat the same amount of food in the spirit of equality; food would be distributed in accordance to need. We also, almost unanimously, agree that proportion is just. This is evident in the way we respond to tragedies. We express frustration and anger over news that, due to bad weather, farmer's harvest has failed

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of British history is familiar with the Magna Carta. First signed by King John in 1215, it is the birth of constitutionalism in England. However, there is another equally important document that receives much less attention, both from general society and from our schools. Although it failed to respect the inherent right of Catholics to worship as they saw fit, it was a strong message in forcing monarchs to accept that they were not divinely chosen and could therefore not act executively without the consent of Parliament. Its relatives? The Magna Carta, the Provisions of Oxford and the far more famous US Bill of Rights. The document is the English Bill of Rights. The English Bill of Rights was presented to William and Mary at their coronation, after King James II, the previous King, was forced to abdicate the throne after the Glorious Revolution. The document addressed their grievances with the former monarch and clearly outlined that the civ

Who benefits from an increased minimum wage? It certainly isn't unskilled workers. The over-25s rate is currently £8.21 per hour, and is set to rise to £8.67. Both major parties agree that the minimum wage should be higher; this is evident as the concept of a “National Living Wage” was first proposed by Chancellor and Conservative politician, George Osborne. However, at the last General Election, Labour pledged to increase it by considerably more if they came into power. I strongly believe that these decisions make little economic sense, and are simply cases of politicians pandering to uninformed voter bases that have not considered the consequences of a hike in minimum wage laws. In this piece, I'll argue why minimum wage laws are inherently bad for the economy, with unskilled workers being the primary victims. Proponents of the minimum wage often argue that an increase in the minimum wage will mean that workers will no longer have to rely on government assistance. They reason