Most votes for Condemn and Remove but 'Blurred Lines' still avoids ban

Photo Credit: Robin Thicke via Madame Noire

·         Condemn and Remove – 286

·         No Change – 263

·         No Ban and Condemn – 202

‘Blurred Lines’ will not be banned at Exeter despite students voting in favour of the Condemn and Remove option, in this week’s referendum.

38.1 per cent voted for the motion, with No Action winning 35 per cent of the vote. No Ban and Condemn came third, taking 26. 9 per cent, in a vote which had only 752 participants.

It means that the Guild will now condemn and not ban the song, despite that option coming last.

In a break with previous referendums, First Past the Post was not employed to decide the outcome. Even though the option to ban the song won the most votes, it did not win an absolute majority, meaning the ban was not imposed.

However, with the combination of the two ‘condemn’ options winning a huge majority, it has been decided that the song will be condemned.

Robin Thicke’s song has provoked huge controversy on campus and around the country, thanks to an explicit video and seemingly sexist lyrics which appear to refer to rape. The summer hit has already been banned at various universities, including Kingston, Edinburgh, Derby, West Scotland and Leeds, and after an anonymous student suggested a motion, the Students’ Guild decided to hold a referendum at Exeter.

It follows a similar event last term which saw The Sun’s page three put under scrutiny. Though that vote had a far larger turnout, it too came out in favour of no ban and bucked the trend set by other universities.

This vote had three options, a change which split the ‘condemn’ vote in the eyes of some.

The ‘Condemn and Remove’ lobby argued that the song upholds and accepts ‘rape culture,’ arguing that it encourages the use of rape in everyday language. Campaigners suggested that lyrics such as ‘I hate these blurred lines’ and ‘I know you want it’ refer to the acceptance of rape, which could be considered offensive by the thousands of women who suffer sexual abuse every year.

Their angle will sit well with campaigners on a national level, who have criticised the song’s potential as a ‘trigger’ for rape victims. The women’s officers from the National Union of Students said: “We consider “Blurred Lines” to be deeply offensive and dangerous.  The idea that consent is a ‘blurry’ concept is outrageous. It reinforces the shameful way sexual assault is often represented in the media and wider popular culture.” The group also said “we want to see a society that recognises “no means no,” that doesn’t engage in victim blaming and doesn’t think that rape is a “blurry” concept.”

Organisers of the ‘no ban and condemn’ case agreed that the song contains negative and sexist qualities, but felt it should not be banned. The campaign was also concerned with censorship, saying that students should have the freedom to listen to the song if they wished. Their case stated “this song alone cannot be made a scapegoat for the entire music industry or our attitudes towards women in society as a whole.”

Meanwhile students in favour of ‘No change,’ who didn’t manage to muster a widespread campaign, felt that the song should not be banned or condemned by a Guild statement.

Hannah Barton, the Students’ Guild President, said: “A key purpose of the Students’ Guild is to support students to campaign on the issues close to their heart and it has been fantastic to see the student voice in action, with 488 students voting to condemn the song. Regardless of the outcome I think this campaign has raised awareness of an ongoing issue and, if students will now think more about issues ranging from rape culture to everyday sexism and ways to combat this, that is a very positive thing.”

But whilst the Guild will now make a statement condemning the song, it will continue to be played through University outlets around campus.

More coverage will follow in Tuesday’s edition of the paper.

Harrison Jones, Online News Editor

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

'Blurred Lines' student vote begins

Photo Credit: Robin Thicke via Madame Noire

The vote deciding whether Robin Thicke’s summer hit ‘Blurred Lines’ will be banned around campus has started today.

The lyrics, which can easily be perceived as sexist, explicit nature of the video and apparent references to rape, have caused significant controversy since its release earlier this year. After a complaint from an anonymous source, The Students’ Guild launched a vote to allow students to have their say.

It was reported in the latest print edition of Exeposé that the format of the vote was to change. In previous votes such as the campaign to ban The Sun, students could vote Yes or No. However, the ‘Blurred Lines’ referendum will give students the chance to select one of three options.

The ‘Condemn and Remove‘ case strongly believes that the song upholds and accepts ‘rape culture’, arguing that it encourages the use of rape in everyday language. It argues that lyrics such as ‘I hate these blurred lines’ and ‘you know you want it’ refer to the acceptance of rape, which could be considered offensive towards the thousands of women who suffer sexual abuse every year.

Alternatively, students have the option to vote for the ‘No ban and Condemn’ case, which firmly agrees that the song contains negative and sexist qualities, but does not believe that the song should be banned. This campaign is also concerned with the issues of censorship, saying that students should be able to listen and enjoy the song if they want to. The case states “this song alone cannot be made a scapegoat for the entire music industry or our attitudes towards women in society as a whole.”

Finally students can vote for ‘No change’, for those who feel that the song should not be banned and do not wish the Guild to make a statement condemning the lyrics.

The women’s officers from the National Union of Students said: “We consider “Blurred Lines” to be deeply offensive and dangerous.  The idea that consent is a ‘blurry’ concept is outrageous. It reinforces the shameful way sexual assault is often represented in the media and wider popular culture.” The group also said “we want to see a society that recognizes “no means no,” that doesn’t engage in victim blaming and doesn’t think that rape is a “blurry” concept.”

President of the Students’ Guild, Hannah Barton said: “I believe anything we can do to reduce sexism and sexual violence is paramount especially if concerns are raised by students. We are a student-led organisation here to represent student views.”

The song has been banned by other student unions, including Kingston, Edinburgh, Derby, West Scotland and Leeds; but Exeter has a history of voting differently to other student unions, with many expecting the split ‘condemn’ options to mean the song is not banned.

The vote has been open since 9am this morning and finishes at 4pm on Friday. Students can vote via the Guild website here and read Exeposé coverage throughout the week.

Rachel Gelormini, News Team

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Format of 'Blurred Lines' vote changed

Robin Thicke
Image credits: Kia Clay

On 21 October a vote will commence to determine whether Robin Thicke’s popular, though highly controversial hit, ‘Blurred Lines’ will be banned around campus. Recent changes passed by the Democracy Committee will change the way in which this vote will now operate and may ultimately alter the outcome.

In previous votes, such as last year’s vote on The Sun, students had the option to vote either YES or NO. In the upcoming vote on ‘Blurred Lines’ and those that follow in the future students will have the option to vote in three different ways. Firstly there will be the option to Ban ‘Blurred Lines’ from being played in all Guild outlets and across the official student media, an action will which also incorporate an official condemnation of the song. The next option will be to Condemn the song – the current NO campaign – which will result in the release of a press statement from the Guild condemning the objectionable lyrics but not an implementation of a ban. Finally students can vote for No Change leaving ‘Blurred Lines’ available to be played around campus and with no condemnation of the song’s content. There is currently no campaign group for this option.

President of Labour Students Daniel Richards commented that: “I am annoyed that such changes were rushed through without any consultation with students outside the Guild. These changes will have an impact on how campaigning societies run our campaigns on campus and we were only informed after they had gone through.”

Prior to the recent alterations, a single member of the student body was able to put forward a motion, but each proposal will now have to be followed by 25 signatures in support of the suggested motion. A third year English student commented: “I find the removal of anonymity problematic. This may result in students choosing not to act upon an issue important to them for fear of sharing their views openly”.

Conversely, Harry Chamberlain, President of Conservative Future has defended the changes: “I am happy that The Guild are offering a third voting option for students, primarily because, in past motions, the call to ban things polarised much of the support for the issues surrounding the vote. The Guild has enabled students to have a proper discussion about the more salient issue of sexism and the portrayal of women in both the media and music industry, rather than letting people get bogged down in an argument about censorship.” Chamberlain has also described the need for 25 signatures as a “vast improvement” on the previous system.

Next Wednesday the exact terms of the motion will be released before the commencement of the campaigns and vote in Week 5 of term. The vote will operate on a first past the post system, which means that the option with the most votes will be the motion that is ultimately passed.

Emily Tanner, Deputy Editor

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

 

St James neighbourhood plan wins huge support in referendum

The St James’ area. Image credit: Exeter City Council

Residents in the St James area overwhelmingly voted in favour of the St James Exeter Neighbourhood Plan in a recently held referendum.

Located between the University and the City Centre, approximately 52% of all residents in St James are believed to be students.

951 people voted “Yes” to the question: “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?” With only 64 people voting “No”, the overall approval rate of the Plan was 92%.

First discussed in May 2011, the Plan pledges to support the Council’s wishes to restrict the development of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). Such shared student housing is believed to cause an imbalance between student and local residents in the area.

Other plans will involve improving the aesthetic appeal of St James by implementing a street tree planting campaign, and by developing Queens Crescent into an urban park or play area. The document will also encourage the growth of small scale businesses around Well Street, King William Street and Longbrook Street. It will also consider the potential of a St James market to sell local produce.

The result was hailed as a success on the Exeter St James online Forum: “By bringing the residents’ associations, Students’ Guild and many individual residents together, it’s been a successful enjoyable community initiative… Now we can work together to achieve the vision for a balanced and vibrant neighbourhood.”

One student living on Victoria Street agrees with the move to place restrictions on HMO development: “It makes sense because there’s too many student houses going spare here anyway,” she said. “The house I’m living in now hasn’t managed to get occupants for next year. So if it helps the balance between locals and students, it’s a great thing.”

Jasmine Gardosi, News Team

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Students vote against banning The Sun

Image credit: Niklas Rahmel

62% of Exeter students have voted against banning sales of The Sun newspaper on University campus, in a record-breaking referendum.

This week’s motion to boycott the newspaper as part of a “No More Page 3” campaign saw thousands of students vote in what was the biggest student turnout in a referendum in recent years. 1504 voted against banning the paper, with 2441 students voting in total.

The campaign, which began in Summer 2012, argued that The Sun should be banned from all University outlets until the bare breasts that feature on Page 3 are removed. Originally a petition, “No More Page 3” now has over 10,000 likes on Facebook and has attracted attention from a number of universities.

The issue has sparked controversy across campus, with both yes and no campaigns being vocal in their support and condemnation. An Xpression FM debate yesterday evening provoked strong emotions and saw a large majority vote against banning The Sun.

Debate Show: The Sun/Page 3 Debate by Xpressionfm on Mixcloud

Virginia Walsh, a second year History student, raised the original complaint with the Students’ Guild. Walsh told Exeposé: “In my opinion this campaign is really important, because Page 3 perpetuates dangerous ideas about  women’s worth. It creates unattainable and unnatural images of women, which can have really negative effects on girls’ body image.”

Critics of the campaign raised concerns over the University’s necessity to protect students’ freedom of speech, arguing that banning a newspaper could be considered as censorship.

George Causer, a second year Politics student, said: “It’s not the job of the University to decide what is an approved publication. The University is meant to promote free speech, not repress it.”

The result goes against some student opinion around the country, with both the University of Cambridge and Durham University recently banning the publication alongside the likes of the LSE and Edinburgh University.

Extended coverage will follow in next week’s paper.

Tom Elliott and Harrison Jones, Online News Editors

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Banning The Sun: Twisted Feminism

Jasmine Moores looks at this week’s referendum to remove The Sun from Guild outlets and criticises the culture of shaming Page 3 models and other adult workers as unfeminist.

For years now I have witnessed the term “feminism” being abused.  Through my own experiences I began to build my own concept of feminism and what it meant to me, as all around me the notion of a “feminist woman” became distorted and twisted beyond recognition.  The debate over whether or not we should ban The Sun from Guild outlets brought these feelings to a boil.  This is what I felt was being overlooked in the dismissal of Page 3 modelling as nothing more than a derogatory example of sexism.

“These feelings are based on first hand experiences combined with those of many close friends who have worked as strippers, lapdancers, promo girls and, shock horror, Page 3 girls.”
Photo Credit: Amy Henry

My initial reaction to the banning of the paper was this; if you don’t want to see tits, don’t buy the paper.  If you buy the paper and moan because there are tits, you need to get a grip.  I don’t believe that students are really being presented with the facts.  Do the leaders of this boycott have a direct interview from a page 3 model documenting the hardships and oppression of her career?  Have they worked as a glamour model, experiencing first-hand the humiliating and derogatory nature of the job?  The answer is no.

When movements like this create a buzz even though it is allegedly started to support women, in fact it does the opposite.  The assumption that every woman at university believes that Page 3 modelling/lapdancing, is derogatory, unrealistic and insulting.

It seems no one has considered that maybe, just maybe, someone who attends university and has half a brain could be involved with such “demeaning” work.  In fact there is a completely opposing view based on personal experience, not constructed ideas of what feminism should apparently be.   The reality is, you may see it as an insult that papers with topless women are being sold on campus, but others may find it an insult that you condemn their line of work as inappropriate, making assumptions based on your own opinions and moral compass instead of considering women as a whole.

You may feel you are liberating your gender by taking a dim view on modelling, but that is one opinion among many, and removing the paper deprives others of the opportunity to make up their own mind.  If the intention is to give women a voice should this not also apply to the lapdancers and models of the world?  Does feminism exclude women who don’t have “worthy” jobs?   The voices of women in these careers are stifled beneath the overbearing and angry cries of the anti-Page 3 feminists.  That, my friends, is girl on girl sexism right there, and that is not cool.

If you believe human beings are all equal, and that women are human beings, you are a feminist.  There should be no ifs or buts about appearance or career choice, it should be based on feelings of equality.  The aversion to Page 3 suggests that if a woman chooses to wear revealing clothes or work as a model she is less of a women – that if you do the following things (wear short skirts/show off your body etc.) you are a wrong, you are not a feminist and you are setting women back hundreds of years.  Your opinion doesn’t count for anything because your outward appearance is not that of a “feminist” and even if you think you’re not being oppressed, you are, you just don’t realise it.

Am I missing something here?  The liberation of women allowed them to show flesh and be proud of their bodies and yet people are still under the outdated illusion that a desire to reveal flesh makes you a “victim of social construction” and that your behaviour is only to please men.  Well that’s bollocks.  Western society is the first to criticise the burka and hail it as a single emblem that encompasses the oppression of women within the Muslim faith, yet it seems that in order to embody this distorted idea of feminism we too should cover ourselves as this is the only way we can demonstrate self-respect.

These feelings are based on first hand experiences combined with those of many close friends who have worked as strippers, lapdancers, promo girls and, shock horror, Page 3 girls.  I have nothing but praise for the industry and even though I know everyone’s experiences differ, women who work in this industry are not degraded if they have chosen this as their line of work.  A lapdancer who doesn’t enjoy her job is no more oppressed than a receptionist who doesn’t enjoy her job.

The point is we should have the choice to do what we want, be it take our clothes off, drive a bus or work in Hooters.  If a girl wants to pose wearing nothing but a G-string made of jelly babies, not because she wants to pull, not because she’s being forced to, but because she wants to, then right on sister, pose away and good on you.  The amount of times I have heard, “look at that topless model/girl wearing a short skirt etc.  What a slut, she makes women everywhere look bad”.  We should be showing female solidarity and supporting our fellow woman who is proud of her body not attempting to degrade her.

Feminism is not a one size fits all concept.  I realise for every girl that recognises the importance of empowerment and self-respect there will be one who doesn’t have a clue.  But that is life.   Generalisations and assumptions made by women and about women are detrimental, regardless of whether or not they are based on the shaky and ambiguous grounds of feminism.  Instead of trying to make other women feel less feminist because they do not fit with preconceived ideas, we should be supporting one another regardless of occupation/clothing/ability to catch £10 notes in their cleavage.  F**k labels.  Clothed or unclothed – be proud to be a woman.

Jasmine Moores

For more from Jamine, visit her blog. Are there factions of feminism that do more harm than good to equality between the sexes? Is Page 3 work a responsible decision for those who could arguably be seen as role models for young women?Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Banning The Sun: A Certain Kind of Man

After this week’s heated debate concerning the fate of  The Sun at our University,  this piece of ‘new journalism’ written by former President of Exeter Gender Equality Society Rachel Brown gives a narrative which explores what stereotypes exist concerning The Sun’s male readership due to the presence of Page 3.

The little door opens, delinquent winds seize chance, throwing upon the innocent café entrance handfuls of rain and dust made fugitive from the cobbled square outside. As the remaining gusts quarrel with the tinny jingle of the doorbell, the discordant orchestration compels my gaze above the top of my book and toward the source where I observe your final wrestles against the wind.

As you triumphantly close the door, raindrops cling stubbornly to your coat and pull neglectfully at your hair. Sweeping the weather-beaten strands from your cheeks, your face is revealed like clouds parting for the sun.

“…I hoped: May you and your newspaper one day possess a more visionary male stereotype than just a certain kind of man.”
Photo Credit: An Untrained Eye via Flickr cc

I barter with luck while you survey the low-ceilinged café. Composed of typical West Country furniture, their blockish framework is so enduring that your grandchildren, buttery-faced, will probably swing their chubby legs from the same chairs as they gleefully tuck into their scones.

Fortune is mine, you sit at the neighbouring table and ask the waiter for a pot of Darjeeling tea. I inhale, and, trying not to disclose smiling joy at your choice, I briefly close my eyes to recall the virtues of your chosen tea:  “Its leaves decorate only rare heights and just one clime. Its texture rich, notes delicate and swansong sweet…”

I open my eyes. You have settled into your seat and assumed sovereign poise. Turned so slightly facing towards me, I bask in nature’s sweet coincidence — our equal purview of one another. Your posture is elegant, your plaid scarf wrapped as though arranged by birds in flight, your woollen coat sharp as a cliff’s edge and brogues that cannot silence unfailing taste. The waiter returns and you meet his face to thank him with kind eyes and a smile.

Any attempt of return to my book, without mere affectation, would be unthinkable! All I can do is give definition to the flowering picture of you. You exhale, perhaps signalling relief at your escape from the torments of the raging weather now behind us.

You draw down into your bag to produce some reading material. “What tales of you might this speak?” I ask myself hopefully. Its scarlet topped paper remains obscure to my vision. The article rises in your hand toward the table you rest upon. You open to its pages, now unveiling to me its cover from which I read: “The Sun”

Images of male “Sun readers” paraded in my mind — Misogynist. Chauvinist. Sexist. These words hurled themselves at me with a greater violence than the marauding winds outside. Arrows began to cast themselves into the picture of you. Your defence attorney pointed and quibbled: “But he will, of course, take no interest in passé page three. He is interested, I am sure, in only the sport and actual news.” But you did not hasten past page three to the later sports pages.

And it would always be: You had purchased The Sun, a newspaper that still makes boobs news. My vision of you punctured, I picked up my book, my bag and my disappointment, and there I hoped: May you and your newspaper one day possess a more visionary male stereotype than just a certain kind of man.

Rachel Brown

Is somebody’s choice of newspaper an accurate way to judge their personality? Is it fair to label readers of The Sun as misogynistic and sexist? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

 

Banning The Sun: Nothing Short of Censorship

Harry Chamberlain argues why you should vote NO to banning The Sun from Guild Shops in this week’s Guild referendum.

Banning The Sun from being sold in the Guild Shop, and campaigning for its ban in the Marketplace – regardless of however many students vote for it – is nothing short of an attempt at censorship. A free press is a prerequisite of a democracy rather than a subject to be voted on, and such a motion ignores the very reason we need this freedom: to act as a counterweight to the majority, and protect the rights of the few.

“The motion submitted definitely does not attempt to address the place of sexualisation in a newspaper correctly, instead unacceptably infringing on students’ rights.”
Photo Credit: the|G|™ via Compfight cc

I would like to make it completely clear: I am not here to defend The Sun. I do not buy the paper, nor do I believe that bare-breasted women should be blazoned across a national newspaper.

There are numerous good reasons that the YES campaign raises as to why this issue should be addressed – in the appropriate way. However, the motion submitted definitely does not attempt to address the place of sexualisation in a newspaper correctly, instead unacceptably infringing on students’ rights.

Many have suggested that this motion is a boycott. This is misleading; a boycott involves freely deciding not to buy The Sun on moral grounds. This motion advocates a ban, and would mean nobody could buy The Sun on campus, whether they bought it to read Redknapp’s punditry, look at Page 3 – or just to catch up on the news.

Similarly, they argue it is not censorship because it is still available elsewhere. It is not a total censorship, but it is censorship nonetheless, just as a library censors books by refusing to stock them, even if they’re available at a bookstore down the road.

The underlying message that the NO campaign wishes to send is that should students object to a publication’s contents, they do not then have the right to impose their beliefs on others by restricting their access to it. How is Britain meant to set an example for developing democracies in terms of ensuring important minority rights are maintained, if we reject freedom of speech and freedom of press?

What message does it send as a university, an institution that thrives on disagreement and dissensus, if we do not confront and debate questionable media but just deny others access to it? We are not denying that Page 3 may be questionable, and that we need to address society’s wider attitudes towards women – and I would happily support a voluntary boycott of Page 3 in order to raise awareness of the issue and affect change.

I do not believe that the aim of this motion was to infringe upon freedom of speech, but rather to raise awareness for their worthy cause. Nonetheless, it has been found wanting. A poorly-worded motion has led to a profound disagreement over what there could otherwise be near-unanimous agreement on. Therefore, I call on Virginia Walsh and the organisers of the YES campaign to withdraw their motion to try and ban The Sun from being sold on campus.

In its place, I would like to propose the following motion: “Should the Student’s Guild condemn The Sun for its attitudes towards women, publicly come out in support of the No More Page 3 campaign, and call for a voluntary boycott of the newspaper until the editors remove the bare boobs from Page 3?”

All of us at the NO campaign would have no qualms about supporting such a motion.

Harry Chamberlain

Click here to vote NO in the Guild Referendum. For the view from the opposition, read Virginia Walsh’s Banning The Sun: Boobs Aren’t News. Did you vote? If so, which way? If not, why not? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Sunblock: Student vote launched to ban The Sun from campus

Image credits: The Sun

Sales of The Sun newspaper could get banned from campus if enough students vote in favour of a controversial motion to boycott the title as part of a ‘No More Page 3’ campaign.

Supporters of the campaign, which started in summer 2012, say that bare breasts featured in The Sun objectify women and encourage readers to view women as sex objects.

The Students’ Guild has confirmed that a vote is to be held in week three of the current term after they received a complaint from a student.

If the motion is passed, The Sun will be removed from The Students’ Shop and the Guild may lobby the University, who control the Market Place, to do the same.

Virginia Walsh, a second year History student, raised the complaint with the Students’ Guild. Walsh told Exeposé: “In my opinion this campaign is really important, because Page 3 perpetuates dangerous ideas about a women’s worth. It creates unattainable and unnatural images of women, which can have really negative effects on girls’ body image.

“The boycott is only until the editors remove the bare boobs from the newspaper, since this is the central aim of the wider campaign.”

Deanna Quirke, the Guild’s Gender Equality Representative, added: “Us making a stance as a University to support this vote will not turn Exeter in an overseas North Korean colony. However, it might just a part in granting little girls a society where they aren’t seen as decorate objects to be leered at”.

The motion has provoked a strong reaction from some students. George Causer, a second year Politics student, said: “If you don’t like The Sun newspaper, don’t buy The Sun newspaper.

“It’s not the job of the University to decide what is an approved publication. The University is meant to promote free speech, not repress it.”

Nick Davies, Guild President, said it was “fantastic to see students taking the lead”, adding: “This campaign is sure to stir up involvement across campus and spark debate amongst the student body. Whichever way the vote falls, it will all be down to the student vote, which is exactly how changes should be made within the Guild.”

In December 2012, the London School of Economics (LSE) controversially banned the title from its shops. Since then, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Manchester Metropolitan, Dundee and Teddy Hall Oxford have also joined the boycott.

Follow the development of the campaigns via the official Guild website, or via www.exepose.ex.ac.uk

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Tom Payne, News Team

 

This Isn't the Protest Vote You’re Looking For: Why We Should Say No to UKIP

Leader of Exeter Labour Students, Dan Richards and  Gender and Equalities Society Treasurer George Causer examine UKIP’s place in modern British politics. Below, Dan suggests that a vote for UKIP is nothing more than a misinformed protest vote and following suit in an interview with Exeposé Comment,  George condemns UKIP as, “out of touch with modern Britain”.

Those among you who look with glee at the rise of the UK Independence Party, and were counting down the days until Nigel ‘the Chosen one’ Farage graced the University with his presence at the  UKIP  Spring Conference should really ask yourselves a question: Are you really a UKIP supporter? Or are you simply a disillusioned individual, tired of party politics, who has been unfortunately led astray by the dark lord himself?

UKIP to me is nothing more than a protest vote for one simple reason. They only have one well-known policy, a policy which they manage somehow to link to every aspect of the British political system in an attempt to tap into the supposed wide-spread Euro-scepticism that currently exists in Britain. In other words, “If that big, mean and nasty European Union would just leave us jolly-well alone, we respectable Brits would be much better off!” Their entire platform is based upon a simplistic, reductionist view of the European Union. To truly give your support to a party, there has to be more than one issue with which you agree with them on and I would be surprised if many people could name a different UKIP policy.

“I believe a vote of confidence for the EU would be the response of the public once both sides of the argument were put forward…”
Photo Credit: rockcohen via Compfight cc

As head of Labour Students, it is to nobody’s surprise I disagree with the policies of UKIP. I disagree with their ‘death to Europe’ attitude and believe that leaving the Union would be disastrous for Britain; but what most perplexes me about UKIP is the rest of the party’s platform and what would be left once they had removed the ‘coven’ of European bureaucrats. A couple of examples of their policies from their manifesto should show you what I mean. When it comes to the economy, the tax cuts and alterations they propose, although seemingly giving money back to the people, would make it almost impossible for them to protect the frontline services they promise to uphold. Their social policy is bleaker still, with UKIP claiming that ‘Britishness’ is under threat from multiculturalism (I do not know how we sleep at night!) and that they wish to teach a history of Britain in schools which, as a historian myself, appears to be somewhat at odds with the truth.

But I am in favour of a referendum on the European Union. We need a debate to show both sides of Europe for a change. I believe a vote of confidence for the EU would be the response of the public once both sides of the argument were put forward and with this, a dagger would be plunged into the heart of UKIP. The current protest vote party would once again be the black sheep of UK politics. We should not celebrate their arrival in Exeter but rather look forward to their eventual farewell from the political scene altogether!

Dan Richards.

 In the following interview with Exeposé Comment, George Causer examines UKIP not only as a simple protest vote, but as importantly a party with no, “coherent policy platform”.

Exeposé Comment: How would you sum up UKIP?

George Causer: I completely agree with David Cameron that most UKIP voters are a bunch of “fruit cakes” and “closet racists”. Their policy platform is incoherent. They want to hark back to a Britain that doesn’t exist anymore. Issues such as gay marriage show that they’re not up with social trends. Frankly, I believe that most UKIP voters are old Daily Mail readers who are out of touch with modern Britain.

EC: Why have UKIP become so successful, so quickly?

GC: I think it is because of the complete and utter collapse of the Liberal Democrat option as a protest vote. [The Liberal Democrats] seem to have compromised on their beliefs- they made unaffordable promises such as abolishing tuition fees. UKIP haven’t got the trappings of power so can make unaffordable and out of touch commitments which they have no intention to keep.

EC: What do you think of our relationship with the European Union?

GC: I think our relationship with the EU needs to be changed.  We give too much money to schemes such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which goes to subsidising French farmers at the detriment of starving Africans who can’t trade their way out of poverty. However I don’t think we should pull out of the EU; that would be the removal of a foreign market that we trade with and a silly move to make at this time. What we need to do is renegotiate, not leave.

EC: What are the main problems that face UKIP in their struggle to be considered a serious political party?

GC: They need some policies other than leaving the EU. At the moment they have a hotchpotch of unaffordable spending commitments where they say they can cut taxes for everyone whilst at the same time increasing the military budget, and spending more money on schools and the NHS. They also suggest a flat rate of income tax which would be grossly unfair. They need to think through a coherent policy platform. Also, they need to be less dependent on Nigel Farage…outside of Farage they have no credible political figures who any members of the general public would recognise. UKIP need to build up local council bases, they currently have a very low amount of councillors compared to the major parties.

EC: How long can UKIP maintain their current impressive polling figures?

GC: I think they’ll win the European elections when the public realise that it’s a vote to stick two fingers up to the EU and not really elect a government, but they’ll fizzle out in 2014/15; maybe because of more media exposure regarding their absurd policy plan and I think that by the time the General Election comes along they’ll be back to 6%. It will still be enough to damage the Conservatives but not enough to win them many seats.

For the case made for UKIP be sure to read UKIP: Filling the Void and Here to Stay. Is UKIP the only party offering a serious stance on EU referendum? Or are they simply reaping the protest vote from an unsatisfied conservative voter? Give a reply below or post your comment to the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group.