Comment with: Labour Students

Exeposé Comment caught up with Daniel Richards, President of Exeter Labour Students to discuss the EDL, Russsel Brand’s revolution and Labour’s chances of a majority in 2015.

Exeposé Comment: Current polling has Labour leading by around 6%. Are you confident of a Labour majority in 2015?

“I am proud of the recent announcements by Ed Miliband concerning the living wage and the energy freeze and I am happy that Labour has come out as the only party that is attempting to solve the cost of living crisis.”
Photo Credit: MadAdminSkillz via Compfight cc

Daniel Richards: I am not confident and could not predict the result of the next general election. No matter which party you are a member of, it is widely acknowledged that the next election is going to be very close. Saying that, I am proud of the recent announcements by Ed Miliband concerning the living wage and the energy freeze (whatever you think of the policy, it addresses a real issue within society) and I am happy that Labour has come out as the only party that is attempting to solve the cost of living crisis. I am more confident everyday, but not complacent.

EC: Congratulations to yourself, Stephen Brimble and Meg Williams for being chosen as Labour’s representatives in next year’s city council elections. Are the seats winnable?

DR: Yes they are potentially winnable seats and if we work very hard and campaign our socks off then we have a good chance of doing well in 2014. However, it is going to be a big challenge to win all three. Regardless of this and regardless of their winnability all three of us are committed to working for our wards and our constituents and all three of us will do our upmost to promote Labour values and local policies in our seats. Hopefully our hard work will be rewarded and we will be around in Exeter for years to come!

EC: Some research suggests that almost two thirds of young people don’t trust our politicians. Do you sympathise with these people? What could be done to get their trust back?

DR: There is no easy, magical solution or gimmick that will reform the link between young people and politics. I think a major issue is the lack of easily accessible information regarding politics and the lack of appreciation for the importance of politics to everyone’s everyday lives. I personally support voting at 16 for many reasons but mainly I believe that it would give schools and sixth forms in particular more urgency and reason to provide a decent political education to their students. If their own students have the opportunity to vote, then schools may put added emphasis on political issues.

EC: The EDL have confirmed that they are intending to march in the city on November 16th. What is the best way to respond?

DR: Standing up to ‘hate politics’ is important. It is no use ignoring these groups in the hope that such feelings dissolve by themselves. It is vital as a society that we strongly voice our views and our tolerance of diversity. Exeter Labour Students have signed up as an organisation directly opposed to the march and will be marching against the EDL if anyone else wishes to get involved behind our banner.

EC: Russell Brand recently called for a total revolution of consciousness and our entire social, political and economic system. Does he have anything meaningful to say?

DR: I have never been a revolutionary of any sort and have never seen revolutionary battle cries and screams of anarchy as legitimate political strategies. It makes no sense in my view to tear down a system in the hope of radical social change as I think history shows us this never ends well. I find protest for protest’s sake quite counter-productive and irritating! I guess I am more Robert Webb than Russell Brand! Change from within!

EC:The University has recently agreed to pay their employees the ‘living wage’. Is this a scheme that you would like to become national legislation?

DR: I think it is the natural progression. Those who argue that it would bankrupt small business and increase unemployment need to take into account our benefit system. The government pays the vast majority of benefits to people in work to ‘top-up’ incomes and with this in mind, Labour’s policy of tax cuts for those who pay the living wage makes so much sense! Fear-mongering occurred when Labour introduced the minimum wage and it was all over nothing then and would be the same now!

[poll id=”65″]

EC:Over the last few months the economy has shown small signs of improvement. Are you optimistic for the future?

DR: I welcome any improvement in our national economy but I haven’t seen any real change in the economic situation of ordinary living people. This recovery can’t just be for the select few and those in the London housing bubble. We need a recovery to work for all and we are not getting this at the moment.

EC: What events have you got coming up in the next few weeks?

DR: Labour Students has a joint social with the Socialist Students on Saturday at Urban Underground and we do a lot of joint socials with other political and campaigning societies. As well as this, on the 21st November, Ben Bradshaw is giving a talk on welfare for all students. Apart from these events, we are campaigning, canvassing and working with the party weekly and we have weekly meetings on Wednesday at 6pm in the Kitchen Café which are open to all so people who are interested in what we are doing should come along or email me on dr291@exeter.ac.uk to find out more about what we do and are doing on a weekly basis. This is the busiest year in our history and we are the largest political society this year so there are so many ways to get involved!

James Bennett and Dave Reynolds, Online Comment Editors

Who do you think will be governing the country in 2015? What is the best way to deal with the EDL? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose. If a society or organisation that you are involved in is interested in appearing in this feature, contact us at exepose-comment@xmedia.ex.ac.uk.

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.