Best of the rest

In our quest to give you the best, not every interview makes the cut. Here’s some of the unlucky few who didn’t make it to Exeposé Features in 2013.

#1 – Alan Johnson

Alan Johnson
Image credits: catch21productions

We met with Johnson in his plush Parliamentary office, with the shadow of Big Ben pouring in through the window. A former postman that made it to the top table of government, Johnson is a first-class champion for social mobility. “It’s really worrying that there’s a treadmill into modern politics,” he sighs, “do PPE at Oxford, then spend a little time poncing around in communications or journalism.” Johnson has worked hard to crack down on unpaid internships in MPs offices, much to the annoyance of a steady stream of Exeter graduates. Since starting his own political career, his straight-talking conviction has provided a rare relief compared to his spin-talking colleagues, including when we ask him about the government’s welfare policies. He doesn’t pull his punches: “Labour has to fight this ‘shirkers versus workers’ image that Osborne is peddling. Saying that people are claiming benefits while lying on the sofa in a string-vest watching TV, but most claimants in London are cleaners going to work in the morning on low wages”. Without a doubt, the former postman wants many coalition policies returned to sender. After resigning from the Shadow Cabinet in 2011, Johnson’s tell-it-like-it-is style landed him a spot as a regular guest on the cult political show This Week. “It’s amazing that it gets 1 ½ million viewers at 11.30pm at night,” he chuckles, “the guests get a surprise sometimes though – Andrew Neil [the presenter] has taken up the mantle of Paxman, but they often aren’t expecting to be verbally assaulted by Andrew at midnight on a Thursday night”. Nonetheless, he has thrived on the show and is now poised to return to the top. Indeed, Alan Johnson is the postman-turned politician who always delivers.

 

#2 – Jacob Rees-Mogg

A self-described Vox Populi, Rees-Mogg is the man of a very different group of people. The son of a Lord and eminent Old Etonian, and nicknamed the ‘MP for the Early 20th Century’, he asked to meet us for tea in Parliament. “Jolly nice to see you,” he exclaims as we arrive, with a jovial handshake, “I do hope you haven’t come too far.” Since becoming an MP in 2010, Rees-Mogg has made quite an impact, having already secured his political legacy by using the longest word in parliamentary history. “You’ll always have people saying oratory isn’t what it was, though ‘Floccinaucinihilipilification’ is all I have to say to that.” Beyond his rhetorical revivalism, Rees-Mogg has proven extremely independently minded, often unafraid of lavishing praise on his political opponents. Peering over his glasses, he explains: “Oh indeed, I take UKIP very seriously. They produce a very attractive manifesto.” He’s equally quick to pay homage to his Labour colleagues. “Ed Miliband was very dignified when he made his tribute to Lady Thatcher,” he notes solemnly. His father had known Margaret Thatcher since university, and Jacob is clearly affected when conversation turns to her death. “There’s a special place in history for her,” he laments, “becoming the first female Prime Minister was an achievement of singular power.” Nonetheless, his own involvement with women in politics has been quite different; he famously brought his childhood nanny to campaign with him in 1997. Despite his eccentricity, Jacob Rees-Mogg is respected for his honesty, integrity and charm. Perhaps, with people crying out for a better class of politician, Rees-Mogg may become the type of MP we need for the 21st Century.

 

#3 – The Hamiltons

The disgraced MP and TV regular Neil and Christine Hamilton have been slowly reinventing themselves as UKIP’s showbiz couple. After Neil was forced out of Parliament in 1997, the pair began their media spree, appearing on Have I Got News For You immediately following his defeat. “Very few politicians can do HIGNFY as they take themselves too seriously,” Christine explains, with Neil dryly adding, “they’re all far too boring”.Admittedly, the thick-skinned pair survived notably well on the hit satirical show. “Unless you’re bonkers, you know you’re there for them to bounce jokes off you,” she jests, “you can’t outwit Merton and Hislop, so all you can do is keep your head up.” Christine followed this up by appearing on the first series of I’m A Celebrity, which cemented her reputation as a larger than life, middle-class battle-axe. “My basic rule is if it’s legal, fun and faintly decent I’m up for it,” she exclaims loudly, “actually if it’s fun I’m doubly up for it!” Neil seems less thrilled: “we’ve had a lot of fun,” he murmurs. When Neil re-entered politics in 2011, the duo cut back on their TV work and jumped into politicking, with the personal backing of Nigel Farage. “Nigel is head and shoulders above everybody else, including me,” Neil exclaims, with the same excitement as Christine moments earlier. Indeed, it’s clear that politics is to him what TV is to her. Without a doubt, they are quite different people, but their joint status as a plucky personality double-act has kept them safely afloat. And, with UKIP’s ongoing rise, we can expect to see much more of the king and queen of political comebacks.

 

#4 – Lord Howe

We interviewed Lord Howe, Tory grandee, following a scholarly and rather profound article for The Independent, decrying the Conservative scepticism on Europe and the unruliness of their backbenchers. Grandee is certainly an accurate term; Lord Howe was a key figure in the Thatcher administration, and clearly had, as we discovered, a sharp political mind, despite being nearly five times as old as his interviewers. After breezing into the House of Lords with surprising ease (apparently all you need is a name and an appointment time), we ended up cloistered in a strange little room on the upper floors, facing a man who had held nearly every position worth having in the British government. And while in person he was less tightly focused than in print (aren’t we all), his analysis showed the same sharp political acumen. In the hour he kindly gave us, we discussed British foreign policy, the House of Lords itself, the EU and his extensive work with the UK Metric Association, as well as an amusing diversion about ties.

Speaking only a month after the death of Lady Thatcher, we were initially quite keen to press the man some would say instigated her downfall on his opinion of her legacy. His reluctance to speak about the topic, however, was clear. Whether unwilling to speak again about a woman with whom he is forever linked, or out of genuine respect for a towering political colleague, we moved quite quickly on to other topics. Perhaps it was for the best; Lord Howe clearly has more to offer than simple reminiscences, and his advice on politics today is still important enough to come out of the shadow of the past.

James Roberts and Alex Carden, Features Editors

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

5 election gaffes for 2014's Sabb Candidates to avoid

With this year’s Sabb Elections approaching in early February, Online Editor Liam Trim points out some of the recent political gaffes student candidates could learn from…

Image Credit: mommasaid.net

Whether you’re Nick Clegg, Barack Obama or the next Guild President, everyone makes mistakes. But the difference between an honest slip-up and a humiliating gaffe can be especially important in the world of political campaigning.

Hopefully the following gaffes can serve as helpful cautionary tales for this year’s batch of eager wannabe Sabbs. And if it all goes wrong regardless then don’t worry, surely it’s ok for us students to make little errors while we’re young? These experienced politicians don’t have that excuse!

1) DON’T forget to be nice to your voters at all times, as it’s always easy to overlook a microphone…

 

2) DO keep your promises. Especially to students. They have good memories…

3) DON’T opt for an expensive, airbrushed poster campaign. Airbrushing + misleading slogans = recipe for mockery…

4) DON’T insult your friends. In a week of competitive campaigning, you’ll need support and rest with allies, so don’t stress or get too big for your boots…

5) DO accept you will make mistakes. With so many rules and protocols gaffes will happen without you even realising it…

 

Don’t forget to like Exeposé on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for all the latest Sabb Elections coverage, including news, photos and opinion.

Liam Trim, Online Editor

Chuka Umunna MP – waiting in the Shadows?

During a recent trip to Exeter, Harrison Jones, Online News Editor met Chuka Umunna, Labour MP for Streatham and Labour’s Shadow Business Secretary. Here, he tells us all about it…

Image credits: The Guardian

Oddly located yet modern and bright, there is an obscure building on Streatham Campus called the Innovation Centre, and standing in the spacious lobby, deep in thought, is a man tipped by some as a future Prime Minister.

Chuka Umunna’s body language is open, his persona calm and head tilted to attention: he’s listening.

The Labour MP for Streatham certainly looks the part, but perhaps in somewhat unconventional fashion – The Daily Mail has labelled him the ‘Black Blair,’ others the ‘British Obama.’

Whilst Umunna tucks into a generous helping from the buffet laid on for the event, Exeter’s MP, Ben Bradshaw, is also the focus of some attention in the corner of the room, chatting away to various suited males who seem to think that they are important. The pair are here for an event with businesses from across the South West, with Shadow Business Secretary Umunna discussing how to return growth to the region.

As the two MPs interact it is striking that despite public cries of “they’re all the same,” these two politicians represent success stories for British minority groups. Sure, they are middle class and male, but Bradshaw is also one of very few openly homosexual MPs. Umunna, meanwhile, comes from a business/legal background and just like Bradshaw, is not Oxbridge-educated. Perhaps more importantly though, the 35-year-old hails from a multicultural background, being of Nigerian and Irish descent.

“We have a democratic crisis in this country,” he opens gravely, in a confident fashion belying his age.

“I believe people are more political than they have been for a long time – they’ve never felt so distant from politics and politicians. People like me need to get out more and talk to people, so I seek to do that.”

Hands clasped together, he laughs before casually swotting away the obvious question about any future leadership of the Labour party.

“You don’t go into politics for praise and adulation, you go into politics to change things. You don’t go into politics to get a particular role, you go into politics to effect some real, positive change for lots of people.”

Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw and Chuka Umunna, MP for Streatham and Labour’s Shadow Business Secretary
Image credits: Harrison Jones

Its quickly becoming obvious that Umunna is a master of getting his pre-prepared message across no matter what the question and, with his assistant already twitchy about timings, that he is particularly talented at talking – seemingly ceaselessly.

“I campaigned really hard for my friend Ed Miliband to become the leader of our party,” he continues. Perhaps tellingly, he then subtly adds: “We can have hypothetical conversations about things in 20 years but what really matters is what happens now.”

Umunna’s narrative of the current climate is far from rosy, as he pays heed to Labour’s new economic criticism of the government which now centres around living standards.

“The British public are coming out of three years of flatlining growth – i.e., no growth – I don’t think they will be turning around and patting George Osborne on the back. The question is, you know, what is actually happening in people’s pay packets? And in 39 of the last 40 months, you’ve seen prices rising faster than wages, and on average British workers have sustained a £1,600 pay cut since the coalition have come to government.”

“The real question is: do people feel better off now than they did in 2010? And they don’t. They feel: ‘I’ve been working harder than ever before, I’m getting paid less, and things cost more.’”

Its a similar message to Ed Balls’, but the delivery is noticeably different. Informal and measured – yet still cutting – Umunna has a reflective quality to his speech, he pauses, he smiles, he’s expressive: when he speaks people listen. That is not evident in most politicians. And though it is a stretch to label him a ‘maverick,’ he manages to tick all the boxes whilst retaining a unique style.

Open to talking about things others avoid, Umunna – like his leader – is unafraid of using the ‘S’ word: “I’m quite happy to be described as a democratic socialist or a social democrat,” he says. Though when you consider that Tony Blair – perhaps the most right-wing Labour leader in history – was the first leader to call Labour a socialist party, the claim does not necessarily mean much.

Indeed, the ideological comparison with Blair has been noted by many. Umunna would not hesitate to send his children to private school, he values the market and says he is relaxed about “people getting filthy rich.” He even has a close relationship with the former prime minister, alongside the likes of Peter Mandelson and Michael Hesseltine.

Interesting then, that Ed Miliband – who has little in common with ‘New Labour’ values – would help Umunna to become an MP and then appoint him to the shadow cabinet, just 18 months after being elected.

But it is a sign of how much Umunna stands out, managing to balance the perception of a serious, thoughtful MP, with a relaxed and suave 30-something; whose accent slides between estuary English and polished private school tones. In an era when the perpetual cry of “they’re all the same” ring about a politically disenchanted public, Umunna’s appearance, name and background are refreshingly different, making him the perfect retort for that flawed statement.

Such credentials make him a prime candidate for Labour leadership – and possibly more. But whilst British politics needs change and Umunna represents people other MPs can not, it is his ideological similarity to some parliamentarians – namely Tony Blair – which could be far more ominous than those politicians who are “all the same.”

Harrison Jones, Online News Editor

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

Do Conservatives ever change their spots?

Image credits: Financial Times photos

You thought politicians would learn what to say and what not to say, what to do and what not to do, or at least pay someone reliable to consider these things for them. In the wake of recent Tory slip-ups, Online Features Editor Imogen Watson examines the latest round of their problems.

With Boris Johnson speaking out of turn and Exeter alumnus and government minister Andrew Lansley MP being called out for poor expenses claims on dozens of seemingly unnecessary hotel stays, it has arguably been a bad couple of days for the Conservative Party.

To begin, everybody’s favourite London Mayor, Boris Johnson, has been at it again, suggesting last week that we ought not to spend too much time or too many resources on promoting equality within our society. Whilst apparently 16 per cent of “our species” have an IQ of less than 85, approximately two per cent has one over 130, and, during a speech about the benefits of inequality (which fosters “the spirit of envy”), it was the implied message of the Mayor of the Big Smoke that the state ought to use more of our resources for this latter group. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, whilst praising Johnson for being “a funny guy”, Chancellor George Osborne and the Prime Minister alike have distanced themselves from the Conservative Mayor, who is considered to be very high-ranking and a well-known member of their own party.  Experts have expressed that correlations between high IQs and educational attainment are existent but slight and probabilistic.

In the meantime, Exeter University’s own Andrew Lansley MP (who recently visited the Streatham Campus and an interview with whom you can read here) has been found to be using the taxpayer’s money to pay for stays in London hotels, despite owning properties both in London itself – a mile from Parliament – and near the village of Royston in his not-too-distant constituency of South Cambridgeshire. MPs are able to claim for a second home where appropriate for working either in London or in their constituency; yet Lansley has racked up a bill of £5950 since April 2012, although his million-pound flat is just in Pimlico. Although a family member is apparently living there (so Lansley can’t).

Granted, one must remember not to act in the moral high ground too much, as the number of employees stealing from their place of work is also on the increase, and at least this time we are not witnessing receipts for duck houses and the cleaning of moats. With Parliament having brought in the apparently Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in the wake of the previous expenses scandal, it is questionable how such claims made it through the scrutiny, but it also does rather beg the question – do politicians ever change?

Politicians’ PR managers must have constant nightmares and demand constant pay rises, but there is a bigger debate at the heart of such comments and such actions. The political world is already a game for the elite, but politicians seem to be going out of their way to make it worse by annoying the public just a little bit more every time they open their mouths.

Image credits: NHS Confederation

After the last expenses scandal, trust in politicians as a whole dipped to an all-time low of 2.3 from its high of 3.5… out of a possible ten. If politicians are so aware of how much the public does not approve of their job performance, their natural reaction ought to be to be on high alert, ready to publicise something positive that they do, ready to avoid such gaffes. Clearly, however, they are not. For the Leader of the House of Commons to set such a poor example, we really should be shocked but instead I found myself sighing disapprovingly and rolling my eyes. What a great state of affairs. Not all politicians are awful, but the ones that are mar the others.

As for the Conservative Party more specifically, its reputation as “the Nasty Party”, rife with scandal and sleaze, is what made it lose the election of 1997 so badly. Boris Johnson may be in contention for the leader of the Party when David Cameron should choose to step down, but his humorous ways and amusing bumbling persona on the international Olympic stage will do him no good if he does not refrain from poor errors of judgement in public affairs that are inherently personal and offensive to large swathes of the population. It is this kind of error that sidelined the Tories for thirteen years, and it will do so again if left unchecked.

Imogen Watson, Online Features Editor

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

Just what the doctor ordered

Protestors outside the Department of Health
Image credits: 38 Degrees

During a recent homecoming, former Health Secretary and Exeter Alumnus Andrew Lansley spoke to James Roberts, Features Editor, about the Guild, government and a picture of his brain 

Andrew Lansley is the former Health Secretary, who prescribed harsh treatment for the NHS and was duly struck off. After just over a year shrouded in the relative safety of a minor Cabinet position, Lansley’s name still inspires unrelenting rage in fogeyish surgeons and militant revolutionaries alike. As we sit in the Amory building awaiting his arrival, it’s clear from the hastily printed A4 flyers being thrust under the audience’s noses that many on campus have not forgotten the man that tried to ‘privatise the NHS’.

Despite the obvious pockets of ire, it’s immediately clear that he feels back on home turf at Exeter. “It has changed a lot since the late 1970s,” he observes, “but it’s nice to be back”. Lansley hasn’t visited as much as some of our other prominent alumni, but Exeter remains his political birthplace.  “I was elected Guild President and won by 12 votes,” he recalls with a wistful air, “I won mainly because of a lack of appropriate candidates”.  Perhaps less has changed than he might imagine. Indeed, in his time at Exeter, he may have had much in common with those currently stuffing Amory with anti-government WordArt. “I remember a sit-in protest that we did at Northcote House – I slept under the Vice-Chancellor’s desk,” Lansley chuckles. It might be only fitting then that the rebellious Guild President turned Conservative Health Secretary is given a taste of his own medicine.

Outside of his political activism, Lansley suggests he didn’t particularly shine as an undergraduate. “I was lucky to get in,” Lansley explains, “I didn’t get the grades but I got in anyway. I got C, D and E at A-Level, but (Professor of Political Theory then and now) Iain Hampshire Monk interviewed me and I got a place”. In spite of this, Lansley can’t help admitting that “political theory wasn’t so important, but my degree did teach me some good stuff about government and politics”. His degree did just that, taking Lansley all the way up the Civil Service food chain before his switch into politics. For many, it is his extensive time working behind the scenes which has given Lansley the eye for detail which has thrust him forward in frontline politics.

As a senior government bureaucrat, he decided to jump ship to work for the Conservative Party. “I was a civil servant,” he recounts, referencing revered political sitcom Yes Minister, “and I had to decide whether I wanted to be Sir Humphrey or Jim Hacker, and I wanted to be on the pitch playing the game rather than watching it from the stands”. Starting his new career playing political football, Lansley emerged from the tunnel to find himself facing the biggest match of his career, in the 1992 General Election. The stunning and undoubtedly unexpected Conservative victory rewarded Lansley with a place on the Tory A-list, a CBE and a minor stroke. “I was given a picture of my brain,” Lansley exclaims with alarming glee, “having pictures of your body parts is one of the weird parts of being a politician”.

While working for the Conservatives, Lansley remembers a young David Cameron working for him in his research department. Is it strange now to think that Cameron has asked Lansley to serve under him? “I can’t have been a bad boss then,” Lansley jests, with an almost uncomfortable chuckle. One cannot help but wonder if this extraordinary role reversal occurred to Lansley when Cameron replaced him with a new Health Secretary in late 2012.

Image credits: NHSE

Lansley’s time as Health Secretary has defined his place British politics. While Labour was in office, he spent six years shadowing the job yet lasted only two contentious years in government. “Politicians should do their jobs for a while and it makes sense for a shadow to do that job before they take it on in government,” he explains, at the same time noting of his own departure that “the ideas that one person could stay on as the Conservative health spokesman for a decade or more is ridiculous”. As the subject of scattered personal attacks, including the ‘Andrew Lansley rap’ and a relentless heckling from an elderly woman outside of Downing Street, hatred for the former Health Secretary has gone viral. Somewhat exasperatedly, he asserts that, “every Health Secretary has wanted to do what the same thing that I did”. His face slowly reddening, voice breaking into frustrated incredulity, he continues, “it is extremely irritating. Other Health Secretaries don’t get the ‘selling the NHS’ nonsense. If I’d done what other Health Secretaries have done, they’d be burning effigies of me!” Though Lansley has considerable knowledge of the symptoms and believes his reforms were exactly what the doctor ordered, the prognosis from the public was not positive.

As the only Permanent Secretary in the Civil Service to become a Cabinet Minister, and with the conscientious approach to match, does he resent his vilification in the media? “You have to be resilient,” he insists, “when you’re sitting round the Cabinet table, everyone has had this kind of attack. It’s not a matter of if, but when”. Unsurprisingly then, Lansley, himself going from Guild to government, is full of discouragement regarding a career in politics, warning simply, “Don’t do it. People go into politics for the celebrity aspect now, but people are used to having a go at celebrities”. While he’s no celebrity, Lansley has become regrettably accustomed to the chores of unending media attention and varying degrees of public venom, despite what we have found to be a decent, considered and mild manner. “Do politics because you believe in it, because you have the political virus,” the former Health Secretary pleads, “politics is not about self-interest, it’s about having inspirational ideas to try and make things better”. Lansley certainly understands those things better than most. For him, his attempted NHS reforms seem to be the culmination of a career founded in radicalism and guided by meticulous public service. Perhaps then, when our next Health Secretary is inevitably accused to trying to ‘sell off the NHS’, spare a thought for the former Health Secretary that was dead on arrival.

James Roberts, Features Editor

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

Packaged up and shipped off…

Image credits: didbygraham

Now that Royal Mail has largely been transferred into private hands, Alexander Bonner evaluates the realities of the Great British letter industry.

 

It is important to refer to Vince Cable’s justification behind the choice to sell the shares at £3.30 each. Cable, who argues that the ‘threat of industrial action by Royal Mail’s staff had influenced the price-setting process’; meaning the decision to sell was perhaps warranted in these troubled conditions. If such a risk of striking was in the equation, the decision to sell at £3.30 per share would not seem as foolish as initially envisaged, as a strike would have had adverse effects on the share prices. However, industry experts, particularly those involved in the investment banking industry, valued the shares of the Royal Mail as 50 per cent higher than at which they were sold, clearly indicating that the timing of the sale could have come as a surprise to some.

Selling 62 per cent of the company’s shares provided a perfect opportunity for investors to take a risk on the company’s share prices. A rise of £1.70 per share suggests that such a risk was warranted, and would have resulted in a tidy return for those willing to take the risk. As a wannabe investor myself, I studied the rising share prices with interest.

The decision to sell such a large proportion of the Royal Mail could have greater symbolism than foreseen, as the sale could represent a much wider decline in the industry. The technological age has been around for a number of years and has subsequently replaced the older forms of communication, mainly the form of letter communication. Sites such as Facebook, Hotmail and Twitter now provide a form of instant communication without the need to take time to gather the required resources to compose a hand – written letter. Using social media is also free, so there are also cost based factors that could explain the decline in letter – writing. I myself have not sent a letter in a considerable period of time, as the likes of Facebook and Twitter are now all too accessible and convenient. I would wager that you are of a similar vein.

The rapid decline in the postal industry means that the government’s decision to sell that 62 per cent share of the Royal Mail should have come to no surprise to industry experts. For example, in 2011, global domestic mail volumes contracted by 3.7 per cent, a 1.2 per cent decrease from 2010. Such a trend is apparent within the British postal industry, providing a justification for the government’s choice of action. It came as no surprise to me, as the letter industry in particular had been facing a sharp decline since the early 2000s. What surprised me in this saga, however, was the timing of the decision, especially as forecasts had predicted shares to rise substantially from the base price of £3.30.

What now lies ahead for the future of the Royal Mail and its customers? Following the sale, the boss of Royal Mail appeared to pave the way for increases to the price of first-class stamps as the newly-privatised company’s soaring shares valued it at nearly £5 billion. Such a decision is a controversial one as consumers, already burdened with rising costs in other industries, will now be even less inclined to purchase stamps. Such a decision is likely to adversely affect the letter industry, as people, when one considers the accessibility of social media, will probably be much less willing to send letters as a result of a price increase.

Image credits: EEPaul

Privatisation is not a new phenomenon and has been subject to substantial debate in recent years. The Royal Mail, now with such a clear majority not owned and controlled by the government, may go down a similar route to previously privatised companies. No one would argue that the privatisation of British Rail in the 1990s was a bad move, as such a decision led to an improvement in railway efficiency and railway standards. It is not yet known whether the government’s decision to sell of a majority of the Royal Mail will lead to such an improvement, although what I can tell you is that efficiency within the Royal Mail needs addressing.

There will always be critics over government policy and decisions, that’s what makes a modern day democracy tick over. Such criticism is no different with this case, despite some criticism being unfounded. It should come as no surprise that the government chose to sell a majority share hold in the company; the industry has been declining for many years and the company needed to improve its efficiency. Critics will tell you that the rise in share prices meant the government sold their shares too early on, and I will have to concur with this assessment. Such a decision means the future of the letter industry remains in the balance. If efficiency is improved, its future could be restored. However, actions to improve the Royal Mail’s efficiency could be seen as counterintuitive. The decision to raise stamp prices illustrates this point, meaning a resurgence in the art of letter writing is unlikely to come about.

Alexander Bonner

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

We Need To Talk About: Russell Brand

Columnist William Cafferky discusses Russell Brand’s recent interview with Jeremy Paxman.

Modern political society is rife with heightened levels of apathy and antipathy towards everyday politics. Nevertheless, every now and then, something stirs them from their political slumber. On this occasion, the setting was Newsnight, as a smug and bearded Jeremy Paxman reclined in a chair in the corner of a London hotel. However, it was not his new facial hair that attracted media attention, but his interviewee: Russell Brand.

There are those who always seem to steal a show, and this was far from Brand’s first heist. Were he still capable of causing raised eyebrows, they would have been suitably aloft when it was announced last year that Brand would compere the Manchester leg of the Dalai Lama’s world tour. Neither was this his first political venture, as recent campaigns have seen him speak out critically about the government’s role in the London Riots of 2011, and Israel’s attack on Gaza back in 2009.

Image Credits: BBC

Nonetheless, this presented a slightly different environment to what Brand has been used to in the past. Paxman is no Dalai Llama, and there was limited opportunity for the comedian to revert to his usual “charm offensive”; though this did not prevent him from lavishly praising the stone faced interviewer’s stubble.  Just as the scenario was perhaps unfamiliar, so was Brand’s subject of choice. Whilst initially being grilled about his suitability for the role of guest editor at the “New Statesman” publication; the conversation soon turned to Brand’s politics, and it was perhaps for this reason that his interview gained such significant notoriety.

At first glance, there is a definite appeal to Brand’s rhetoric. He, like many, is dissatisfied with a system that protects the status quo of the world’s richest; whilst leaving behind what he labels an impoverished “underclass”. His linguistic flexibility also left many slack-jawed – Paxman included – and from my perspective, this was perhaps the most enjoyable aspect of the interview. Whilst Paxman is famed for provoking squirm-inducing stutters from Westminster’s coolest customers, Brand’s dancing between trivial compliment and scathing political commentary undoubtedly flummoxed him.

All this being said, upon reflection, the more immediate enjoyment I found in Brand’s interview was soon replaced with an underlying sense of unease. Brand complained towards the end of his discussion, that it was unfair for people to dismiss his politics on account of his career as an actor. Whilst I agree that no one has the right to suppress his freedom of speech, on the whole I cannot help but feel his rant will have done more harm to his cause than good. It is not for me to question the honesty in what Brand promotes as politics, yet it is easy to become skeptical about his motives.

A recent world tour entitled “The Messiah Complex” saw Brand publicise his campaign using a photoshopped image of himself, in the likeness of famous socialist revolutionary Che Guevera. Brand argued in the 4,500 word “manifesto” on the New Statesman website, that revolutionary Socialism has been taking itself too seriously. However, one has to question whether Brand’s belief in his cause is genuine, or in fact just a sideline to the vehicle of his celebrity.

Notoriously eccentric, Brand’s backing of the revolutionary socialist cause does little to aid its credentials. As a movement, this particular brand of politics is (perhaps accurately) represented as the reserve of the most radical and idealist members of society. In fact, it was this label that formed a majority of the basis for Paxman’s counter argument to Russell Brand. He agreed with Brand’s condemnation of the present state of politics, but he was skeptical as to how it could be countered.

There is a definite credence to the argument that a systemic problem, such as the one Brand highlights, can only be conquered from outside its own parameters, and it for this reason that he claims he does not vote. Nonetheless, from a systemic position, Brand poses little threat. His eccentricity merely serves to perpetuate the stereotype of left-wing fanaticism; his politics can be dismissed as idealist and unrealistic.

In a time in which both our present government and those before it have spoken about pragmatism and harsh realities in the wake economic meltdown, what the socialist movement really needs is assurance that not only is another system possible, but that it is plausible. Brand does not represent plausibility: he represents an anecdote, an anomaly on the political agenda.

William Cafferky, Online Features Columnist

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

Foreign Aid: Saving The World Or Forgetting England?

Naomi Poltier discusses the state of Britain’s economy, and whether providing foreign aid is a positive move.

Last year I remember busking in the streets of Exeter for one of the university’s campaign groups, when an old man had me pause and asked me why I was raising money for another country, when England was in such a state of need. I politely replied that contrary to what most people believe, the UK only spends about 0.5% of their budget on foreign aid, and the conversation quickly died out.

The exact percentage figure of foreign spending for 2012 is 0.56% (BBC News). It turns out that even with this decimal percentage, the United Kingdom came second to the United States of America in overseas aid spending in 2012, paying out a total of £9 billion. Britain’s overseas aid spending has overtaken Germany’s, despite their GDP being approximately 30% greater than the UK’s.

David Cameron at the G8 Summit.
Photo Credits: Matt Cardy/AP

Whilst for some this is bad news, for others it is an accomplishment of pride. George Osborne commented on the United Kingdom’s second place status in overseas aid spending by saying: “We should all take pride, as I do, in this historic achievement.” It is also very gratifying to look at some of the good the UK has been able to do in the world recently. Some most recent accomplishments include the government’s funding of £10 million to back the fight against Polio in Somalia and Kenya with vaccinations, where the first outbreak since 2007 has occurred.

Thanks to the UK, 285,000 civilians a month who are caught up in the Syrian crisis are also getting food. Moreover, during the G8 conference this summer, David Cameron announced that the UK will pledge a further £175 million for the Syrian crisis which is, according to the International Department of Development, the largest single funding commitment ever made by the UK in response to a humanitarian disaster. The department also claims that: “We know that help is getting through, that it is saving lives. The UK, as a G8 member, has one of the world’s largest economies. The government has a responsibility to aid poorer countries, especially during conflict.

Despite the vast benefits of supplying foreign aid, it has many drawbacks. As the Telegraph points out, the UK is facing a triple dip recession. The plans for the end of 2013 are to have increased the percentage of the budget spent on overseas aid to 0.7% from the previous 0.56%, while European countries often reduce money spent on aid during tough economic times. Douglas Carswell points out the negatives in this by stating that: “politicians hand over billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to subsidise governments, but cut back on local services.”

The main issue of poverty in England is child poverty. In June it was reported that “one out of every six children in the UK lives in relative poverty” (BBC News). Relative poverty is a poverty line that is used in comparison to the UK average income, and approximately 300,000 more children fell below this line compared to the year before. With issues like these arising, it is logical for Carswell to point out that people living in the UK are unfairly paying taxes which are being partially poured to other countries’ governments.

Personally, I am a great supporter of foreign aid. I have travelled to several under-developed countries, and seen countless slums which we could never count as acceptable conditions of living. No matter how cliché it sounds, we are immensely privileged. I think that an extra 0.5% or 0.7% of a budget spent will make less difference to us than it will to the lives it improves and saves around the world.

Living among the world’s richest,  it is our responsibility to give people access to basic human needs: food, health, and if possible, access to stimulating aspects of life like education. However, it is not right for people in the UK to suffer in relative poverty, especially as this number is growing and those people cannot be forgotten due to comparison with extreme poverty.

The solution is not to be found in spending money, but in managing society and how money is spent. The little extra percentage of money the UK would get by eliminating foreign aid will not make much of a difference, and especially not as much as re-thinking social strategies.

Jeffrey Sachs mentioned in his book How to End Poverty that much of feeling ‘poor’ also lies in a man or woman’s dignity. This is why people who are relatively poor in the UK would feel ‘rich’ if they moved to a slum in Lima, Peru. But, this aspect of dignity is one of the rare parts of eradicating poverty which can come free of charge. Jeffrey Sachs argues that this is a crucial part of taking communities out of poverty: to dignify and power the human mind.

I agree, to a certain extent, and do not think that the UK needs to reduce the amount of money spent on foreign aid. Like Osborne, I believe it should be a point of pride. The Coalition has a similar point of view regarding the need for money in helping the UK, as they report they aim to end child poverty in the UK by 2020 by finding the source of the problem with further research rather than by primarily giving aid money.

While the UK has its own poverty problems to fix, it is far ahead of many of the developing countries of the world. When the old man in the street interrupted my street singing I quickly labelled him as narrow-minded. We have much to learn in terms of open-mindedness from providing aid to the rest of the world, as well as in learning to fix problems of poverty within the UK with other means than money. As is widely claimed today, fixing poverty is not a single follow-through recipe, there is rather a different one for every single community that must be investigated. Money can only go so far.

Naomi Poltier

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

The Grass is always Greener…An Interview with Green party leader Natalie Bennett

Image credits: Niklas Rahmel

With Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party, making an appearance on Streatham Campus, Features Editors James Roberts and Imogen Watson talked to her about fracking, Australia and being a woman in politics. Scroll to the bottom to see the video interview in collaboration with XTV Online.

It’s a quiet Saturday afternoon and the Green Party are taking over campus. Natalie Bennett has shale gas on her mind, and is preparing to introduce a video starting Exeter’s fightback against fracking. “We’re on the path to catastrophic climate change,” Bennett explains with an urgency rarely seen outside the Green Party, “we have to leave at least half of our fossil fuels in the ground.” No doubt, Natalie Bennett is on a mission that’s far bigger than Queens LT1.

Bennett arrives early for our interview. Our unnecessary large and unthinkably excitable XTV camera crew are still hurriedly scurrying around with cables and lenses, yet Bennett seems utterly unphased. “If you think this is bad, you should try being in a BBC studio,” she says warmly, before beginning some gentle politician’s patter about our respective degree courses and her own experiences as a journalist and civil servant in Thailand. “I couldn’t speak to most people there,” she jokes, “I had to get into taxis with something written down and hope for the best.”

The first thing that strikes you when meeting the leader of Britain’s fifth largest party is her Australian accent. “My accent is classless,” Bennett explains, “it’s quite useful really.” She was born in Sydney, and worked for many years on provincial Australian newspapers before her big break in Bangkok. Was it in the Australian bush that she was first bitten by the political bug, we ask? “Australian country politics is mainly conservatives, and people who think conservatives are soft and wussy and not good enough on the death penalty. There wasn’t much politics to be involved with,” Bennett answers with a chuckle. She is surprisingly adamant about her own real world credentials for a civil servant-turned-journalist-turned-politician, perhaps aware of the particular public wrath reserved for the cloistered and the careerist. “I joined the Green Party on 1 January 2006,” she recounts with an intriguing mix of precision and surprise, “seven years later, here I am, leader of the Green Party!” Despite her genuine warmth, Bennett is clearly a cool political operator in British Green politics.

Currently the only female party leader in Britain, Bennett has a lot to say about the role of women in politics, explaining that her “first politics is feminism.” She is worried that, in 2013, women do not have enough of a role in decision making at the top tables. “There are very few women making decisions which run the country, outside Theresa May,” she points out with no small dose of exasperation, “and I think that really is a problem.” Bennett is acutely aware that her election as leader marked “the first time a woman leader had taken over from another woman leader in British political history.” Will she be handing over to another female party leader when she leaves office? For the time being, Bennett is committed to both running for a parliamentary seat and remaining as leader, unlike her predecessor and Exeter alumna Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion. “The seat I’m likely to stand in is in London,” says Bennett assuredly, “and it’s no more than twenty minutes from the Millbank studios of the BBC and Sky, so it’s quite handy.”

Presumably then, we can expect to see much more of Natalie Bennett on our television screens; much like Caroline Lucas herself, who was recently arrested at a protest against fracking in Balcombe. Bennett is startlingly forthright about the prospect of her party’s foremost eco-champion appearing in court. “The Green Party has always believed that sometimes non-violent direction action is an essential step because people just don’t hear otherwise,” Bennett states with rehearsed certainty. With an impish smile and knowing glance, she adds, “we were getting a lot more attention after she was arrested.” Clearly, then, despite her ambition to become a London MP, an attachment to the established political process has yet to manifest itself.

At the same time, Natalie Bennett seems both encouraged and off put by the recent success of their friends on the fringe, UKIP. “You can understand a number of reasons why UKIP is attractive,” she says, though quickly pointing out the considerable ideological differences between them, “a lot of [their supporters] just look back to some golden age of the 1950s that they think existed, and would like to go there.” Are there similarities between these two very different maverick movements? “A lot of UKIP voters are disillusioned Tories who think that the Tories are horribly incompetent in government,” Bennett explains, adding, “Which is true.” Beyond this, and the somewhat mischievous tendencies of their party leaders, one cannot help but feel that Bennett sees little else in common. On the attack, she deplores that “UKIP has what sounds like a superficially simple message that looks attractive to some people: if we just got out of the EU and stop immigration, everything would be wonderful, sweetness and light.” Her contempt for their policies seems as clear as her jealousy of their performance. Green with envy, indeed.

Caroline Lucas, Bennett’s predecessor.
Image credits: Robin Hood Tax

How then will the Green Party catapult themselves to a main part on the national stage? For Bennett, who spent much of her time as an understudy to Caroline Lucas’ rise to stardom, success lies in proving “the Green Party is more than an environmental party.” Policies like the campaign for a living wage, which recently attracted attention here on campus, form the basis of her drive to “absolutely change direction” in Britain. “We need to create jobs you can build a life on,” Bennett passionately pronounces, “and live within the limits of the one planet.” While these policies have yet to infiltrate politics proper, Bennett clearly seeing universities as a good place to start: “and the one that I always mention in universities: we believe in zero tuition fees.” Apparently, with a new Green Society on campus, Exeter maybe poised for its own Green revolution.

So what’s ahead for the Green Party in the 2015 election? “Brighton Pavilion did it, and any seat in the country could do it too,” Bennett prophesises. Change in the political climate or not, after 2015, the grass may be Greener on the other side.

James Roberts, Features Editor

Interviewed by James Roberts, Features Editor and Imogen Watson, Online Features Editor

What is… The European Union?

Better off in, better off out… the debate is endless, but public knowledge about this international organisation is not. Just what is the European Union?

the European Union Flag
Image credits: R/DV/RS

What we call today the European Union has existed in various forms since its creation. Currently, this political and economic partnership exists between twenty-eight countries which are, unsurprisingly, situated in Europe.

History

It all began after the Second World War, the idea being that countries which trade would be less likely to go to war with each other. By 1958, the European Economic Community (EEC) was established out of the 1951 European Coal and Steel Community between six initial countries – Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, France, Italy and the Netherlands –freeing up the borders between them to allow better trade links.

We, the United Kingdom (in case you were not so sure), have always been a bunch of sceptics, refusing to make the “Inner Six” a “Seven” in the beginning, and then later joining in 1973 (with a bit of persuasion from the USA and the Suez Crisis). Shockingly, or perhaps not at all, our [poor] relationship with the French meant it would take three attempts at membership and Charles de Gaulle’s departure from the French presidency for them, fearing too much US involvement, to finally stop saying non and ruining our chances.

Now

The EEC became the European Union (EU) in November 1993 under the Maastricht Treaty, establishing what are known as its “Three Pillars”: the European Community – removing the word “Economic” to show the wider policy range it now covers; Common Foreign and Security Policy; and Police and Judicial Co-Operation in Criminal Matters.  Although the latter two Pillars are largely based on international co-operation between member states with representatives working together on relevant issues, the first Pillar contains the supra-national institutions – those who have authority over individual national governments – and all of their work.

To begin, the European Commission is responsible for proposing legislation, upholding the Treaties they establish and running the EU from day to day. Each member state sends a single representative, making a total of twenty-eight members. The President of the European Commission is elected from these twenty-eight by the European Parliament. Don’t confuse this with the President of the European Union (who is actually the head of the European Council), currently President van Rompuy of Belgium!

The European Council has no strict power to make laws, but it is a body of the heads of government of each member state and is responsible for “the general political directions and priorities” of the EU according to the Lisbon Treaty. It acts as a body to be the presidency of the Union, and the head of the Council is its representative.

European Parliament, Strasbourg
Image credits: Salim Shadid

The next institution is the European Parliament. If you have ever voted for a Member of the European Parliament as we are charged to do every five years (the next time being in 2014), this is where the 766 of them elected across the Union work. Depending on their political opinions, they join forces with politicians of similar views to create larger voting blocs such as the Greens or the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. Its job is to debate and vote on legislation, although it can’t actually use its initiative to create it itself. It does, however, have the second largest electorate (or voting population) in the world after India, and the largest trans-national democratic electorate, with 376 million eligible voters at the last elections.

Despite its lack of initiative, it does share power over the budget with the Council, and has to hold the European Commission shares equal legislative and budgetary powers with the Council and, just to confuse you, has its own President – currently Martin Schulz.

Finally, there is the European High Court of Justice which is the highest court of the EU and based in Luxembourg. It is mainly responsible for making sure all EU law is applied fairly across the Union. Again, each member state sends one judge and so there are twenty-eight of them, although it’s uncommon for all of them to hear every single case.

The Euro

Coming fully into force in 2002, the euro is the currency of seventeen of the twenty-eight member states, also known as the eurozone. A better currency for trading purposes, as well as a sense of unity, the eurozone is estimated by the International Monetary Fund as the second largest economy in the world, and the euro is the most-traded currency after, of course, the US dollar. If you’re as strange as I am (and commiserations if you are), you may have noticed from your travels to the eurozone – perhaps Spain, France, Finland or Ireland – that each country has a different design on the back of coins initially introduced into that country. “RF” for “République Francaise” or the French Republic is stamped across the French euro coins, for example.

The euro has been the cause of much debate and controversy in the UK. You won’t need me to point out to you that we are still in possession of the Great British Pound Sterling for currency, but there has been past discussion amongst British politicians about abandoning it for the euro. Whilst the Maastricht Treaty establishing the EU compelled most member states to swap their pesetas, francs and deutschmarks (among many others) for the euro, Denmark and Britain both notably negotiated exceptions.

New Labour, elected to power in 1997, was cautiously optimistic about joining, dependent upon our passing five particular economic tests first although it was a relatively minor issue in the end, despite William Hague’s decision to run his 2001 election campaign based, bizarrely, almost entirely on keeping the pound. Of course, since the economic crisis and the euro descending into madness, any British subscription to the euro now seems unlikely.

So where should you stand on the EU?

Paying any significant attention to the news and current affairs will make you very much aware of strongly-held and strongly-fought opinions about the Union. Indeed, we have a whole political party dedicated to the cause: the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP.

If you have made it this far through the article, you will perhaps have noted one of the major, particularly British, complaints about the European Union: the bureaucracy is an apparent nightmare. The idea of creating institutions each with their own responsibilities might have seemed wondrous, but instead there are a thousand and one different jobs to do by different people and a fair few “Presidents” and “High Commissioners” to go with it.

Many of said leaders are unelected which is cause for concern for those who are worried that the EU is too close turning into a supra-nation, and generally speaking, election turnout is close to pathetic – so those who debate our laws are not really accountable at all; in the last election, 43 per cent of all European voters cast their ballot.

The one nation problem is another worry in itself. People are not keen to lose their national identities which have been so well forged across the centuries, and many have nothing like a “European” identity. Particularly in Britain, our island mentality restricts us from being too keen to get too involved, and makes us angry when statistics are thrown around about how many of our laws are passed down from the European Parliament.

Eurosceptic politicians shout very loudly however, and those who are pro-EU keep their mouths closed far too much in comparison.

In an increasingly globalised world, it is silly to isolate ourselves from co-operation and partnership. Granted, prosecuting shopkeepers who price goods in pounds and ounces and not grams and kilograms is rather a ridiculous preoccupation for the European Union and anger over it is understandable, as is trying to tell us that Cadbury’s is not real chocolate (come on!!). But without the EU, travelling between mainland European countries would not be as easy as it is – the Schengen Agreement stops you from having to pull out your passport and go through customs and immigration checks every time you cross a border; trade would be restricted; police investigations would be more difficult across borders.

Image credits: Francisco Antunes

Nor could you just go and get a job in an EU country like you can now (provided there are any). Having spent a year living and working in France, without the EU I would have had a much more difficult time trying to set up my residency status and getting healthcare coverage than I did, and would have wasted my time on that rather than learning a new culture and language (and eating cheese – to perpetuate a stereotype).

All in all, the European Union is not about infringing national sovereignty and imposing petty laws on people. Or it ought not to be. It ought to be about co-operation and achieving bigger goals. Politicians argue that we have too many immigrants now – conveniently forgetting or simply not mentioning our chances to go and experience these other countries – and that the EU it costs too much and we aren’t getting the benefit from it back in the UK and if that is true then it is because we are not making the most of our involvement and reaping the benefit we could have whilst we dither on the edge.

Closing borders simply turns us into bigger xenophobes than we already are.

And if none of this convinces you, well then I suppose it has allowed us to hear a fair few stupid quotes…

Top Eight Quotes from European Politicians

1. “Sod off, you prick.” – Nicolas Sarkozy to journalist
2. “[Mr Obama is] young, handsome and suntanned.” – Silvio Berlusconi
3.  Bonus: “Ah, Barack Obama. You won’t believe it, but the two of them sunbathe together, because the wife is also tanned.”) – Silvio Berlusconi
4. “You have all the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk and the question that I want to ask, that we all want to ask, is ‘Who are you?’” – UKIP’s Nigel Farage to the President of the European Council
5.  “You have lost a good opportunity to shut up.” – Nicolas Sarkozy to David Cameron
6.  “She says she’s on a diet and then helps herself to a second helping of cheese.” – Nicolas Sarkozy about Angela Merkel
7. “China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese.” – Charles de Gaulle
8. “In Italy, I am almost seen as German for my workaholism. Also I am from Milan, the city where people work the hardest. Work, work, work – I am almost German.” – Silvio Berlusconi (perhaps I ought not have spoken about stereotypes)

Imogen Watson, Online Features Editor