Letter from The Editor: Promises Made, Promises Delivered
Dear Reader,
When I was elected to the Editorship of The Strand Review I made three promises to the KCL Conservative Association. I now wish to review whether I have kept them.
1. Boost Journal Output by 500%
I am happy to report output has expanded by 525%, from 8 pieces last academic year to 51 pieces this year: I have kept my promise. Since last May the Review has garnered 8,266 page views, an average of 162 views per piece. Total viewership is up 37% on last year. However, it has not all been plain sailing, the viewership per piece has fallen significantly, and the number of unique visitors slightly to 2,598. I think this is attributable to the change in the name of the site. On a more positive note, a total of seventeen writers have contributed to the publication. I hope the next Editor can continue the trend of increasing output, and also tackling our viewership problem.
2. Changing the name of The 1828 Journal to The 1846 Journal
Although this may appear to be a broken promise, my manifesto made clear this was conditional on approval of the KCLCA Committee. Upon discussion with the President it was decided The 1846 Journal was sub-optimum, and it was better to offer the choice of the future name to the membership. Upon submitting a choice of three names to the members (The 1846 Journal, The Right Journal and The Strand Review) The Strand Review was overwhelmingly voted for. I think it is therefore appropriate to say this promise has been kept.
3. Termly Dinners
Although outside the area of the Editorship, the Association has delivered four dinners (two curry, two formal) throughout the year. I supported all these events at Committee stage. This promise has thus been kept.
In sum, each promise I made I have delivered on.
The General Vibe
Before closing it is worth noting the general position of the body of writing which has been produced over the last year. I am happy to report, as a libertarian, the majority of pieces have come from a classical liberal perspective, with a lesser number adopting definitively conservative positions. It should be said though, this composition is not through want of attracting conservative writers, or through turning down conservatives pieces. Indeed, in a sign of the editorial team's tolerance of all Right-wing views (and their ability to edit work not up to scratch), only a single piece of writing has been rejected. I hope this dominance of classical liberalism continues into the future (though not through editorial suppression of alternative Rightist ideologies)
Thank You
I would like to thank all the contributors to The Strand Review, without you it would have been almost impossible to deliver on the increased output I promised. Many of the pieces you have submitted have been a real pleasure to read, and some, such as Michał Tereszkowski-Kamiński's piece on gun control, have brought a real smile to my face. Two other works also warrant mention based on them being the best viewed articles of the year. Corentin Donatien's two-part work Ukraine: An Explanation, was a very well researched piece putting forward an interesting alternative take on the war in Ukraine. Reem Ibrahim's Against The NHS & Its Twitter Cult made a robust case for NHS privatisation, and also added a human interest angle by explaining what it's like to be descended on by Pro-NHS Twitter. So good was this piece, a member of the Guido Fawkes team suggested we should have sold the article to a larger publication.
Finally, I would like to thank my two Deputy Editors: Isaac Farnbank and Roberto White. Roberto has been fantastic at picking up spelling and grammar errors, and reconstructing word flows to improve their readability. His turn-around time has also been admirable, very often I'd email Roberto a piece to edit and it would be back before the next day. A special thanks must go to Isaac though. In addition to all the aforementioned attributes, Isaac has been incredibly helpful in significantly re-writing a number of articles. This has allowed budding writers to be published while maintaining the quality of the publication. His sheer volume of output, nine pieces, has also contributed to the success of the journal, demonstrating how seriously he has taken his role. To Roberto and Isaac I thank you once again, it's been a pleasure to work with you both.
Finally, I wish the next Editor-in-Chief the best of luck in continuing to build on my team's achievements.
Goodbye.
Yours faithfully,
Charles Amos
Editor-in-Chief