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.

Comment on Andrew Lansley MP

Dave Reynolds attended yesterday’s Politics Society talk with current Conservative MP and Leader of the House of Commons Andrew Lansley. Here’s what he made of it all.

Andew Lansley, current Leader of the House of Commons and former Secretary of State for Health gave a talk yesterday named “Life in Government”. Lansley is a former Politics student of the University of Exeter. He was also elected President of the Guild of Students during his time here.

“Throughout the questioning, it must be said that Lansley remained a calm and collected speaker, answering confidently on a wide range of issues.”
Photo Credits: Politics Society

He talked about his experiences as one of the most important members of the cabinet. He cited the media, judicial reviews, the strength of the civil service and Europe as the main reasons why politics has changed so much since the 1980s.

Without naming names, he believed that some politicians were in it purely for themselves but he wasn’t one of these.  In an unrelated story, in the parliamentary expenses scandal in 2009, Lansley was accused of flipping his second home, claiming thousands of pounds of tax payers’ money on furniture. All of this however, was well within the rules at the time.

While shadow health secretary, he accepted a donation of £21,000 from the chairman of a private healthcare provider. Such companies stood to be the largest beneficiaries of Lansley’s NHS bill.

The talk wasn’t the real reason why everyone attended. The Q&A session was always going to be the fun part. When asked for his views on the European Union, he categorically stated that he would be voting to stay in the EU in the proposed 2017 referendum. He stated that Europe being involved in our policy making process was a positive and that it would be wrong to make policy in isolation. However, he was sceptical of any more political integration between European states. He does not want to see a United States of Europe.

If he wasn’t a politician, he said that his preferred job would be as an archaeologist.

Responding to one of the questions regarding the NHS, Andrew Lansley told an audience member to read the Conservatives’ 2010 Manifesto. While this may be possible, it is very sad that the Conservative Party have deleted all press releases and speeches between 2000 and 2010 from their website and have also been hidden from search engines.  At the time of writing, Labour have announced that they plan to do the same. All a bit odd!

Throughout the questioning, it must be said that Lansley remained a calm and collected speaker, answering confidently on a wide range of issues.

Audience reaction from the talk was mixed. 3^rd year Economics and Politics student Nick Best thought “…the talk was really good. He dealt with the questions on the NHS from the members of Labour students with ease.”

VP of Politics Society Duncan Steadman said, “It was a great talk and I really enjoyed it. Hopefully we can get some more high profile speakers down to Exeter soon.”

John Chilvers was not so complimentary. He said, “[Andrew Lansley] didn’t answer the questions correctly. He tried to get around every question by avoiding the core issues. There’s a video of him saying that he wants to reorganise the NHS and yet today he says that he didn’t say that.  It’s very good of him to come down here but unfortunately he didn’t answer any of our questions and he was very patronising to the audience.

Scott Pepe thought, “… it was a very interesting talk. It’s great to get an Exeter alumnus down and a government minister. It was good to hear a full diversity of opinions represented in the audience and as President of DebSoc that obviously is what I really like to see”.

A big thank you to the Politics Society for organising the event. They are delighted to announce that you can now buy Winter Ball tickets online. Follow this link to the Guild website.

Dave Reynolds

Did you attend the talk? Is this a fair version of events? We’d love to hear from you. Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

We Need To Talk About: Michael Gove

Features’ Online columnist William Cafferky discusses Michael Gove’s impact on the education system.

Politicians are an unpopular breed; nonetheless few provoke the almost unanimous discord Michael Gove does. The Conservative Education secretary has weathered numerous political storms conjured following the sweeping reform of the UK education system. Most recently, Gove ushered in a departure from modular a levels in favor of linear assessment and in the process, reared restless head of Britain’s Teacher’s Unions.

For many within education, Gove embodies the problem with politicized schooling. As with many leading politicians, the awarding of Gove’s ministerial post seemed largely unconnected to any prior experience in his given department. A lack of relevant expertise has long been a criticism of career politicians, as high profile posts are often bestowed upon ‘yes-men’ willing to tow the party line. This precedent inevitably promotes legislative scrutiny amongst those who do possess the relevant knowledge, and this has certainly been the case for Gove.

Image Credits: THINKSTOCK

The coalition’s crusade on modern education has been characterized by a desire to return to traditional values – where meritocratic teaching and conventional subject matter rule the roost. In a sense, such policy is openly dismissive of the progress teaching has made, and thus its unpopularity within the academic community is unsurprising. Advocates of less established subjects, particularly the arts, will likely be fearful that the new emphasis on conventional academia will actively discourage students from pursuing less orthodox interests.

Many have already highlighted the risk posed by a more meritocratic education system. Recent government proposals have suggested the ranking of children nationally from an age as early as 11. Whilst the policy did prove popular amongst parents, it is not hard to see the difficulties it could pose. It openly places a value upon each child encouraging them to be aware of their ranking amongst their classmates. At such an age, any academic ability is likely to be the result of their winning of the genetic lottery. Thus encouraging such positioning is debatably similar to telling them who is more attractive, something which children are viciously efficient at doing themselves.

There are benefits to knowing the progress of children relative to others, it allows their teaching to be tailored to suit their needs, and alerts their parents to the progress of their child. Nonetheless, this is arguably only useful within the context of a flexible curriculum, which allows children to play to their strengths and passions – not the structured and standardized model advocated by Gove.

From the perspective of a current student, I can’t help but observe that these reforms appear to be the antithesis of university education. Firstly, the change to a linear program is undoubtedly a departure from the modular set up of university courses. Perhaps more crucially, the emphasis on factual intake is a far cry from the interpretive and inquisitive style that is so heavily pedaled at degree level. Equally, weighting more conventional subjects ahead of others further discourages such inquisition.

For myself, the most noticeable step up from a level to university was a stylistic one. Prominence is placed upon personalized research and response, whilst regurgitating facts is certainly seen as secondary. The changes being made to secondary and further education will quite plausibly increase the step up to university for a number of students. It is important for me to acknowledge that this is being written from the perspective of a politics student, and whilst there may be parity between my account and other humanities based subjects, the difference for science-based subjects perhaps varies slightly.

Much as with NHS reform, the coalition has made few allies in its grand quest to restructure education. It is easy to see why Gove’s policies could be called regressive. The Conservative party wants to make Britain competitive on the world’s academic stage, looking to traditional educational values for the answer in a progressive academic marketplace. However, as the party defaults to its competitive philosophy it is easy to forget the most critical component of education – the students.

William Cafferky, Features Online Columnist 

 

Where next for British politics?

Image credits: tolomea

Head, as ever, up in the political clouds, Online Features Editor Imogen Watson anticipates the General Election 2015.

It has been a funny old these last three-and-a-bit years since the current coalition government was elected to power back in May 2010.

We have seen the rapid decrease in the Liberal Democrats already-muted popularity, a sad surge in support for the United Kingdom Independence Party, ministers hurried in to and shepherded out from the Cabinet and more politicians making stupid comments, and some of them intentionally. Sadly the latter is not something that can only be attributed to Britain, but neither are our elected representatives succeeding in blazoning a path towards common sense.

The Conservative-led government has become quite the talented driver, performing incredible numbers of U-turns at rapid speeds. It has become quite the disappointment, too, that is if anyone was expecting anything impressive from them by now.

Granted, regardless of political affiliation, the situation
the government inherited was not far short of terrible; economies beginning to collapse worldwide and ordinary people worrying about what future was to come, at a loss to explain quite how this had happened. Since hitting recession under the last Labour government in 2008, only a few will have been lucky to have avoided the effects. I, for one, have only really had any money of my own since the recession began, and so having got used to the current situation hope that there will be a day in the future where my money stretches a lot further than it does now. One can dream.

 

Image credits: The Prime Minister’s Office

But there is a window for improvement, and the government has missed it. The UK, not having been as badly affected as certain other European economies, is one of the last to pull itself towards the vague light of recovery, after more than three years of a new government. “Pull” is, perhaps, the wrong verb here. Let us go instead for “drag”. The latest news of hope that the economy is heading in the right direction is pretty pathetic. We ought to have been receiving this news along with the United States, instead of watching our credit rating being downgraded and hearing warnings of a triple-dip recession. How embarrassing, somebody get a grip.

As I pointed out, however, life should be looking up, after all four thousand fewer people were unemployed last month than in June, and David Cameron says that this is “encouraging”.

What he neglected to comment on is that actually youth unemployment is up, again, and the number of people undergoing long-term unemployment is up too – again. Unemployment in the West Midlands? That’s up too, to just a smidgen under one in ten people, a region which once employed so many in manufacturing and industry and is now in danger of serious neglect. I wish one could even say this particular region’s figures were the worst of the bunch, but one cannot. Encouraging? David Cameron, I am afraid, is simply out of touch.

The Coalition has been prone, as most governments are, to hurl the blame backwards in time to the Labour Party – in politics, where the diciest of relationships occur, it most certainly is always a case of “it’s not me, it’s you”. This attitude sticks for a while, but nearly three and a half years down the line, is it not time a government started taking responsibility for its actions, when numerous experts have openly criticised spending plans because they do not look to have the right, or indeed any, effect?

The problems are not only economic. Recently certain boroughs of London were treated to the sight of vans scaremongering both legal British citizens and illegal immigrants alike: go home or face arrest. It was Vince Cable – a Liberal Democrat partner in the Coalition – to stand out from the government and point out that actually, “We have a problem but it’s not a vast one. It’s got to be dealt with in a measured way dealing with the underlying causes.” According to the New Statesman, David Cameron may not have even been aware of the campaign before it happened.

Numerous issues are damaging this government – I could continue for hours. Not through misfortune, but through poor decisions, and a great (meaning large, not fantastic) game of blame and pass-the-buck. The problem is that viable alternatives are not currently waiting in the wings.

We need a good, honest (I cannot stress that enough), thorough debate on the issues. We do not need more coalitions, failed promises and people wondering what they are paying politicians for. It is fair to say that the Liberal Democrats, like beforehand, are in no likely position to be forming a stable government any time soon, nor even the largest party. The UKIP fun and laughter is dying down or at least beginning to flatline, and heaven forbid it should increase again as more and more of their candidates out themselves as bigoted and xenophobic ignoramuses. Even if they were to surprise me in 2015, their support will be the Lib Dems’ old problem – spread too thinly across the nation to gain any great number of seats.

Labour really needs to pull its act together. Although lots of people continue to struggle through benefit changes,

“Fresh ideas”? Where are they?
Image credits: EdMiliband

lack of jobs to go around, increased student fees, rising debt, payday loans and more, there is an indication that life is looking up and it is an indication to which public feeling has latched on at least a little. Labour policies are lacking in response, and even my mother is considering not voting in 2015 (trust me, that means something). The Party shed its bigwigs and party elders – perhaps they should bring them back again. There is a mini squabble going on at the top of the Labour Party which is helping nobody’s public image, and instead of coming out fighting, united, there is a whole lot of nothing coupled with one or two mishaps to fill the gap and get everybody talking – about the wrong thing.

Something tells me that since Andy Burnham (Shadow Secretary of State for Health) piped up in the not too distant past, Labour policy may be just around the corner. I hope so, and I hope the wait has made it good, or it might be too little, too late.

Imogen Watson, Online Features Editor

The UKIP effect – the aftermath

William Cafferky discusses UKIP’s current political position, and where it could lead.

UKIP has risen from the ashes of European economic collapse – emerging as an increasingly formidable party political force in the UK. The slump of the single currency, and increased scrutiny of political decision makers in Brussels may provide obvious rationale behind the growth of anti-European parties both in a domestic and foreign capacity throughout the EU. However, national issues, rather than the struggles of the EU, perhaps best explain UKIP’s success.

Image credit: Jennifer Jane Mills

UKIP is anti-systemic, and it is within this role that it maybe garners most of its support. Since the controversy of the Thatcher era, the Conservatives have preached a message of compassion and pragmatism. It epitomized the evolution of UK party politics from grass-roots polarized ideologies towards centrist pragmatism.

Under John Major, and now under Cameron, the Conservative party finds itself divided. Some feel that the party has strayed too far from its right-wing heritage, increasingly becoming merely a cog in the political machine. UKIP has presented apathetic Tory voters with an opportunity to jump ship. Their hardline anti-immigration policies, socially conservative and nationalist policies embody Thatcherite politics.

It was arguably merely a matter of time until the squeezed middle of party politics produced an extremist ideological party. UKIP itself hasn’t really had to fight too hard for electoral success. Nonetheless, the party faces a defining moment in its political history come the 2015 general election. Should Farage climb eagerly in to bed with Cameron in a new coalition, he runs the risk of his party fading into the back benches.

Conversely, should UKIP shy away from coalition, there’s a high chance their populist bubble could burst, and the party could fade into the background. Whilst the country may be divided over its European membership, as previously mentioned, this isn’t in fact the defining component of UKIP’s success.

What sets UKIP apart from the 3 main parties is decisiveness. Whilst their goals are questionable there is no denying their existence. Whilst Milliband, Cameron and Clegg find themselves in a perpetual u-turn on significant policy issues, UKIP is defiantly anti-state, anti-EU, anti-immigration and anti-tax.

Ultimately the growth of UKIP is a worrying sight for Labour and Socialists alike. Comparisons between UKIP and the BNP are perhaps exaggerated, however the reality is almost equally harrowing. Parties such as UKIP perpetuate the myth that immigration is the greatest villain in the war on unemployment. Furthermore, whilst many have bemoaned the coalitions attack on the welfare state, in reality it pales in significance next to the prospect of UKIP-Conservative coalition. Such a government could signal the end of the NHS in its current format, and a return to the hierarchical Thatcherite policies that were arguably to blame for the recent collapse of the banks, and the alienation of the poorer members of society.

This is a somewhat apocalyptic forecast, which is arguably exaggerated and undoubtedly subjective. Regardless of the supposed progress, the UKIP party is still very much in its infancy. There is a distinct possibility that it may suffer the same fate as “Cleggomania” and underperform at the general election. Furthermore, even if it gains more than twenty seats, coalition may ultimately damage the party’s anti-systemic reputation.

There are multiple hoops for Farage and his followers to jump through in the path to the political main stage. The greatest hope for the political left is that they fall before they reach there. Regardless of political allegiance however, UKIP currently presents us with a genuine challenge to the status quo of mainstream politics. It is impossible to presently predict whether the party will spread its proverbial wings, or return to the ashes of mediocrity.

William Cafferky

Aftermath of the Council Elections: the State of the Parties

Following the recent Council Elections, online comment editor Dave Reynolds assesses the position of the key political parties, and their standing for the General Election in 2015.

With more than 2300 county seats up for grabs across England, recent Council Election results leave the main political parties with much to ponder, with the General Election in 2015 fast approaching. The Conservatives lost well over 300 seats across England and see their nationwide support down at about 32% in Yougov polls. This is largely down to some typical Conservative voters turning to the Nigel Farage party (aka UKIP).

Many say that the Conservatives should take UKIP seriously, but I believe that Tories currently voting for UKIP out of protest will come home to the party in time for the general election in 2015 and support for UKIP will dwindle. Farage will still be happier than he was at the 2010 Election; he will have a higher vote share and possibly a seat in parliament, as long as he doesn’t crash his plane again! Despite making small gains across England in the county council elections, Labour need to do far more to appeal to the ‘working man’ if they have any plans of governing in 2015.

Image Credits- BBC

The Conservatives are faced with a very difficult dilemma. Should Cameron seek a more right wing agenda and take a tougher stance on immigration, EU and law an order in an attempt to lure dissatisfied voters back from UKIP? That is what he is doing. But I believe it is the wrong way to go.

We shouldn’t be listening to UKIP. These angry Tories seeking to protest in a mid-term election will come back to the Conservatives at the general election as they will come to their senses and see that a split right will pave the way for Ed Miliband and the Labour Party to walk back into power. David Cameron needs to stick to the ‘modernising’ plan he had when first elected leader of the Conservatives in 2005.  In order to win the 2015 election he needs to be wooing voters on the centre ground, not concentrating on the far right. They will come back to you, Dave!

Looking at the Labour Party, all economic indicators suggest they should be way ahead in the polls. With growth flat-lining, living standards falling and inequality in the UK at an all-time high, Ed Miliband should be preparing his victory speech for 2015. But unfortunately, he has not been brave enough to really say anything. Nobody knows what his economic plan is. While a fiscal stimulus (for example a VAT cut or an increase in government spending on infrastructure) is a credible option, he is too afraid to say it as he fears admitting to more borrowing would be political suicide. It wouldn’t even necessarily increase the budget deficit.

We’re spending so much money on welfare because unemployment is still stubbornly high, a fiscal stimulus that gets more people into work would obviously cut welfare payments as unemployment will fall and tax receipts would rise. But he’s too afraid to admit the deficit would rise in the short run. I can’t imagine that global markets really care if our debt is 1.3 trillion or 1.4 trillion. The numbers are beyond belief anyway! It’s growth that we need and in the short run, we just have to take that risk on the deficit. A fresh economic approach is needed for the Labour Party and this could be made by removing Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor and bringing in the former Chancellor Alistair Darling – the man who arguably saved us from a depression.

With the two main parties both failing to take the initiative, another hung parliament looks the most likely outcome of the 2015 General Election. Therefore, the party who can be most confident of being in the next government is the Liberal Democrats, despite a massive drop in popularity due to the broken promise on abolishing tuition fees and no longer being a protest vote. All in all, these council election results are going to be depressing for all three of the main parties. It’s time for all of them to up their game.

Dave Reynolds, Online Comment Editor

Devon County Council election results announced

Turnout at the election was only 32.9 percent. Image credit: BBC

The Devon County Council election results have been announced this afternoon, with the Conservatives retaining overall control of the body. Of the nine Exeter wards, seven were claimed by Labour.

Across the county 313 candidates were fighting for 62 seats, with the Tories winning 38. Labour did not add any seats to their seven in Exeter, as UKIP won four, the Greens one and three independents were elected.

Neither Labour nor UKIP could gain the Conservative held University ward, Duryard & Pennsylvania, which was won by Percy Prowse with a 21 percent majority over second placed Labour.

St David’s & St James, home to a large proportion of Exeter students, was won by Labour’s Jill Owen.

Both areas suffered from low turnout – around 10 percent below the lowly 33 percent average, which was down from 44 percent in 2009.

The coalition parties both registered overall losses, with three less Conservatives and four less Lib Dem councillors being elected.

The election results will be viewed by some as a reflection on national politics, with Liberal Democrat ratings in opinions polls remaining at low levels, in contrast to the recent rise of UKIP.

A referendum in the Exeter St James area asking: “Do you want Exeter City Council to use the neighbourhood plan for Exeter St James to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?” was emphatically accepted, with 92 % voting yes.

James Roberts and Carlus Hudson were amongst a number of University students standing in the election, but neither were elected.

Roberts came in fifth place for the Conservatives in the St David’s & St James area, whilst Hudson polled only 29 votes in Newtown & Polsloe.

To find out who your local councillor is, click here.

Harrison Jones, Online News Editor

Follow @Exepose News on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Margaret Thatcher: The Cult of Personality?

Photo Credits: BBC

Following Margaret Thatcher’s death, Dominic Madar discusses her legacy.

I for one was glad to hear that Margaret Thatcher had passed away on Monday 8^th April. For too long she had struggled on in pain against the inevitable; at least the end was quiet and peaceful.

The reaction on social media however was anything but, as a stream of tributes and foul mouthed jibes flooded every inch of the web. Few British figures in recent decades have simultaneously inspired such hatred and vitriol against such unashamed love and affection.

For a 90s kid, the legacy of Thatcher has passed into the realms of myth and legend: Lady T the heroic saviour of Great Britain and global freedom fighter, champion of prosperity and development; or the tyrannical Iron Lady, who single-handedly destroyed our nation, tearing apart the livelihoods of communities and elevated an evil ideology on the world stage. Not even Marmite divides opinion quite like Thatcher.

She grew up the daughter of a greengrocer, before graduating from Oxford, becoming a barrister and eventually joining and ascending the ranks of the Conservatives. In 1974 she became party leader and went on to achieve an unprecedented hat-trick of election victories from 1979 to 1987; she left office in 1990 as the longest serving – and to date, first and only female – Prime Minister of the 20^th century. Even her fiercest critics begrudgingly acknowledge her phenomenal success, lasting influence and formidable character in a climate dominated by bland and uninspiring politicians.

There’s little point in a detailed dissection of her economic policy, given that almost everybody has already made their mind up (not that most people have a thorough understanding of economics anyway). The hard evidence shows relatively healthy levels of economic growth and crucially stabilising levels of inflation. It also, less pleasingly, displays a growing rich poor divide and consistent budget deficits. Encouraging aspiration and removing draconian levels of income tax, as well as tackling the overly indulgent Trade Unions, rank among her biggest economic successes. Implementing the poll tax and failing to regenerate growth in more areas of the country stand out as her greatest domestic failures.

Similarly, in foreign affairs Thatcher’s status swings (depending on whom you speak to) from an imperialist war lord to a bountiful heroine staunchly defending the free world. Her refusal to back the proposed sanctions over apartheid in South Africa and her support of destructive South American dictators were areas of great controversy – pounced on by her critics as proof of her lack of compassion. Her efforts in protecting the defenceless Falklands Islands that desired to remain British (check out the recent referendum results), detoxifying Cold War negotiations with Gorbachev, acceptance of climate change and spirited rejection of the death and calamity of Communism suggest otherwise.

So much resentment of Thatcher revolves solely on emotion and anecdotes. The evidence doesn’t back up the pathetic claims levelled by those too stubborn to seriously analyse or too lazy to properly research her policies. It’s hard to appreciate capitalism when most of us have never been exposed to the genuine tragedy and suffering of Communism and tyranny. Thankfully in this country poverty is relative and not absolute. Ed Miliband and Tony Blair openly admit some of what she did was right and graciously credit her principled and diligent demeanour. For some however that’s simply too much – so they attack her humanity and chortle at her death – rather hypocritical for those insisting it was Thatcher who lacked the compassion.

The alternative at the time was a deeply protectionist Labour Party, verging on Communism and in the vice of Trade Unions. Thatcher and her policies weren’t always successful; there is plenty in her tenure to be criticised, but she was a hell of a lot better than anything else at the time. She forced the Left to reform; we no longer debate over the virtues of a 90% top rate of income tax. The USSR and its horrific legacy collapsed, while China has transformed from a country of starvation to a land of growing prosperity as a consequence of economic liberalisation. Tony Benn and Michael Foot will rightly be swallowed up by history – their dangerous ideologies driven into the ground by Thatcher and the surrounding empirical evidence. As Peter Mandelson said, “we are all Thatcherites now”.

Then again, maybe I’m just a middle class university kid who’s been hoodwinked by the media and the establishment; maybe my comrades are right; maybe Maggie Thatcher is the ultimate cult of personality. I somehow doubt it. But at least we cared. I cannot imagine Tony Blair, David Cameron or anyone else stirring quite so much passion (whether good or bad) in our apathetic electorate. And I’m not surprised – compared to her they all lack balls.

Dominic Madar

Halfway there: the Midterm Review of the Coalition

Dominic Madar looks back at the past two and a half years since the Coalition came to power, and reminds us of how far it has come and how far it has to go until it’s time for us to hire or fire them.

Coalitions aren’t really Britain’s thing. We normally leave that kind of horse-trading and cooperative style politics to our neighbours on the Continent. It was to everybody’s surprise therefore when Nick Clegg and some very reluctant Liberal Democrats cozied up with Cameron and his Conservative Party back in May 2010. Considering that and the enormity of cuts proposed to take place it’s a minor miracle in itself that the government is still standing (just about) and Labour hasn’t already sewn up a 2015 election victory.

Photo credits to The Prime Minister’s Office

The backdrop of 2010 was very simple: the UK had been left a gaping budget deficit thanks to a combination of the 2008 global financial crisis and Labour’s profligacy. After five years of fiscal prudence Gordon Brown ditched the stereotypical reputation of a stingy Scot and set off in 2002 on a disastrous spending rampage that would later come back to haunt him. The Tories (and Lib Dems) were voted in to do what they do best: clean up the economic mess left behind by a financially irresponsible Labour Party. Looking back over the last two and half years, a few successes stand out amongst the general doom and gloom. The most significant of these include raising the threshold at which income tax is paid for the lowest earners and maintaining a triple A credit rating amidst the chaos experienced by many other EU members.

The first major incident came in the shape of a much publicised broken promise: If sharing a bed with the Tories was treacherous enough for the Lib Dems, then propping up their trebling of university tuition fees – akin to sleeping with the devil himself – was electoral suicide. Although hardly a supporter of paid higher education, the money has to come from somewhere and just maybe university graduates should contribute more to a system that gives them a good shot at significantly higher earnings in the future (I’m still glad I don’t have to pay those astronomical £9,000 fees though).

As time has gone on it has become increasingly evident that Cameron and Clegg are both at odds with plenty within their own parties. The Lib Dems have recently been overtaken by UKIP in recent opinion polls and look set to experience political wipe-out in 2015. They face a no win situation: heavy scrutiny for supporting any unpopular Tory-led policy and minimal credit for anything vaguely in the realms of success. Clegg may even be overthrown before we get that far, leaving the coalition in mass disarray.

The Tories meanwhile are clinging on by the skins of their teeth to Labour’s coat tails, in the hope that a more sizable gap doesn’t open up in the polls. For Cameron the major dilemma lies in whether to take the easy path and lurch to the right in a bid to silence UKIP and satisfy his far more conservative backbenchers, or take the bolder and more difficult route and stick to the centre-right to keep the Labour Party at bay. Tony Blair had the guts, arrogance and audacity to take his own party on, stick by his convictions and win three elections on the spin. The political climate is far tougher for Cameron but to have any hope of winning and keep what remains of his tarnished reputation he shouldn’t give in to growing party pressure.

Ultimately, how much of the deficit can be slashed (with as little impact as possible) and how much the economy will grow will have a pivotal impact on the 2015 election. Unfortunately for Cameron much of that depends on the global economy and in particular what shape the spluttering EU is in. Those on the left should give Cameron more credit for continuing to take strong stances in favour of socially liberal issues such as gay marriage against the wishes of most of his party. With his (relatively) pro-business mantra, cautious approach to an overbearing and increasingly dictatorial EU and recent support of free press (unlike Clegg and Miliband), Cameron could arguably be the most liberal mainstream party leader. I fear at this moment in time however that a combination of Western economic sluggishness, coalition infighting and Tory backbencher rebellion will leave him as a one-term PM.