First year student and new to politics Matthew Wilcock gives a wonderful insight explaining how he went from knowing nothing about politics at the start of Freshers’ week to finding a political party that suits him.
“Attending a Conservative Future event, I immediately felt underdressed.” Photo Credit: George Peck via Compfightcc
Bewildering, over-complicated and irrelevant would have been three words I associated with politics a few weeks ago. I knew little to none about politics but I wanted to get involved. The problem was that political allegiances, which I’m so often told come instinctively, haven’t formed in me at all. So I threw myself out there: at the mercy of the student societies.
The first step was to attend the cross-party debate. With my appetite whet, I decided to give every party a fair chance. I decided to go to an event hosted by the four largest political societies on campus (Socialist Students, Labour Students, Conservative Future and Freedom Society). Finally, I would then choose a party.
I began with SocStu. As with all things ‘uni’, when I heard terms such as “exploiting class”, “revolution” and “utopia” being thrown about, I realised I’d started once more in the deep end. A political ignoramus, I appreciated the introductory talk on “What is Socialism?” but SocStu’s brand of ‘socialism’ was a few shades too red for my liking.
Probing SocStu members at the Ram, I found SocStu’s committee were more than happy to answer by naive questions. (They may have had a few pints more than me.) Dress code errs on the side of casual, far left views not compulsory but encouraged with friendliness and alcohol is in abundance.
Moving on to Labour. “We are MUCH cheaper than CF” – Labour Student’s battle cry, as voiced by Daniel Richards, their president. I sought to find out what Labour stands for. Dan helped me out: “Living standards, education and health care are my big three”. (Perfect: these align with my interests rather well.)
I had my doubts with Labour’s tax proposals and, in some cases seemingly unwavering, stance against big business. Labour offers a relaxed and friendly group of students and therefore it is, all the more so, refreshing that their attitude to politics is very active and organised. Thus, I sought to test the mettle of a few lefties by challenging them with my qualms: I was impressed but ‘wholly convinced’? Not sure. Let’s hold out and see what the others say.
Dan talked about canvassing and leafleting: here we go, tell me about ‘politics proper’! Dan launched off: “Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw … many contacts and resources … be more involved in national politics”. Harry Chamberlain, chairman of Conservative Future, sounded similar: “largest youth wing of any political party … get involved… opportunities… over 18,000 members”. Both party leaders have evidently been well trained!
It was time to attend a Freedom Society event. Cautiously making my way across the Ram after the EU debate to Rory Broomfield, Director of ‘Better Off Out’, I felt brave. A week ago, I was unable to say much about the EU, but I had spent the night before in a ‘Google frenzy’: ‘What is the EU?’ ‘Better in or out?’ ‘UKIP economic policies?’ ‘Nigel Farage’ led me to ‘Farage Boasts of beating Ball Cancer’ … I’d read enough. Pro-EU, then as now, I came to blows with Rory and the surrounding Freedom members. Neither could I stomach Freedom’s EU stance nor their thinly veiled nationalism.
Attending a Conservative Future event, I immediately felt underdressed. There was a strict adherence to the clichéd Tory dress code of shirts and blazers. Harry gave me his own three areas of politics where he thought the Tories trounced Labour: “Education, Welfare and Jobs”. ‘For hard working people’ ran the tagline at the Conservative conference and the CF members believe this- a handful “seeking independence from the ‘Bank of Mum and Dad”- I’m not quite there yet.
I initially thought CF at Exeter could likely boast the broadest consensus of a party on campus after hearing ‘Cameroon’ used as both vitriolic criticism and truly complimentary. I felt there was room for me to put across a case against Tory policy on welfare, housing and the EU. I convinced one person: myself. The more I spoke to Tory members about policy, the more I saw myself arguing against them, swaying to the left.
Could this possibly be that political instinct I’d been so long deprived of? I came to a conclusion. I joined Labour (and hope to promote myself further to the position of party stalwart.) My three words about politics: “Exciting, integral and irresistible”.
Did anybody else investigate all of the politcal societies? Can you really be informed enough to commit yourself to one party in such a short space of time? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.
Over 300 staff employed by the University do not earn the living wage as of June 2013, a Freedom of Information request (FOI) submitted by Exeposé has revealed.
Unlike the minimum wage, which stands at £6.19 an hour, the living wage is calculated according to the basic cost of living, including necessities like accommodation, food and clothing.
The principle has cross party agreement in Parliament and boasts David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Boris Johnson as vocal supporters. Various other universities, including Loughborough, Queen Mary and UCL, have voluntarily agreed to pay all of their staff the living wage, alongside numerous higher education colleges and student unions.
But 302 Exeter staff earn under the £7.45 an hour threshold, with one apprentice being paid as little as £2.77.
Despite six of these staff members earning less than the minimum wage, the University is breaking no laws because apprentices are not subject to the legislation brought in under the previous government.
A further five apprentices earn £6.19 exactly – which remains a full £1.26 per hour less than the living wage.
The bulk of the 302 low paid workers are cleaners or catering/retail/domestic assistants, though the University did not break the statistics down further. 58 of those staff members are paid £7.11 an hour, with a further 233 earning £0.18 more.
A University spokesman said only: “we are actively considering the living wage, but will need to discuss further with the unions.”
The University also highlighted how pay rates are negotiated at a national level, through Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff.
The revelations come as the University continues to invest heavily in new facilities, with hundreds of millions of pounds being poured into developments over the past few years, raising questions about where funding should go.
In a piecepublished today, Exeposé’s Online Comment Editor, James Bennett, notes the cost of the Forum and argues that the disparity between this and low staff pay is indefensible. He concludes that: “as a student population we should encourage the Guild to put pressure on the University to take up the voluntary living wage scheme.”
Freedom Society’s President, Liam Taylor, disagrees, suggesting there is nothing wrong with the University’s pay rates.
“A living wage sounds like a nice idea on paper when times are tough. Unfortunately the economic reality is that it doesn’t work and would do more harm than good by costing jobs,” he said.
The statistics will nonetheless place the spotlight on the University’s ethical obligations, and a number of other political societies have hinted at launching future campaigns in relation to staff pay.
Debating Society have said they would consider putting forward a relevant motion at a later event, whilst Labour Students, Liberal Democrat Society and Socialist Students have expressed concerns. All three groups are considering lobbying the University in response to the news.
SocStu co-President Carlus Hudson described the statistics as “outrageous,” suggesting that his society would put pressure on the University “to pay all of its staff the living wage.”
“Paying poverty wages is a totally unacceptable way to treat staff who are essential for keeping one of the highest ranking universities in the country running,” he added.
A detailed list of staff working for less than £7.45 per hour is pictured below.
Carlus Hudson responds to an article believed to be targeted at Exeter Socialist Students.
Back in June, there was an article written by Rachel Brown about an alleged ‘boycott’ from Socialist Students of the Let Them Eat Cake event which she was to chair and I to be on the panel for. The event was intended to be a discussion of the way activists in the Western world, but particularly Exeter, could go about changing the world without feeding into a racist, oppressive paradigm.
“It almost goes without saying that there is going to be an unavoidable level of frustration along the way as [a genuinely healthy, vibrant and inclusive activism at the university] develops, and it shouldn’t be that surprising that a panel event to discuss this issue was not able to go ahead on the first try…” Photo Credit: ginnerobot via CompfightccI expressed concern to the other organisers early on in the process of formulating the question we’d be discussing at the event to avoid it falling into the trap of being too Western-centric and limiting as a topic, which the whole event was (in my opinion) intended to be combating. Perhaps it would have been worth spending more time redrafting the question during that planning process, but ultimately I decided to go with what seemed like the best draft we’d get and aim to spend a good chunk of my talk at the event critiquing the question itself.
As it happened I was heavily – and quite stressfully – involved with a number of other socialists and anarchists working on a political response to the crisis within the SWP and incidents like it in other left-wing political organisations. Additionally, a number of members of Socialist Students (and comrades at the university but outside the society) had been made to feel uncomfortable at how the event was unfolding, as a result of abuse received over Facebook.
Indeed it was an incident not too dissimilar on Facebook during the Oxfam Bake Sale for International Women’s Day which the article rightly points out was the background to why the Let Them Eat Cake event was organised. Arguably, this issue stretches back to the campaign against the safer sex ball theme as well. With the deterioration of the event, on top of the genuine pressure I was under from the workload of my other activism, I didn’t feel I was in a position to either adequately prepare for or present my arguments at the event.
At the heart of this issue from ‘The Socialists’ (whatever exactly is meant by this label) is a genuine desire to totally change cultural, socio-economic and even political structures so that racism (and all other oppressions) are no longer issues. It’s quite fashionable (though not quite as much since the recent economic crisis started) to imagine we live in the ‘end of history’ in a post-political or post-ideological world where things like exploitation, oppression, discrimination and so on, are either gone entirely or that the people opposing them actively or even just taking a strongly critical approach to systemic problems today are just exaggerating about their extent.
But for anyone who recognises that there is a major systemic problem that needs to be addressed, there’s no doubt that it’s necessary to link up with like-minded people (whether they identify themselves as anarchists, socialists, feminists, environmentalists, etc.) and start working on that systemic problem. In practice, no one trying to effect change on that scale can pretend that people who don’t share 100% of their views don’t exist or refuse to work with them in any context whatsoever.
The idea that there is some ‘non-engagement policy’ is even more ridiculous when you look at Socialist Students’ record over the past academic year. The Socialist Students-led campaign Rape Is No Joke reached out to and involved many students outside the society and immediate supporters. The society’s Valentine’s Day public lecture which included a very thought-provoking material geography case study for chocolate (symbol of love, after all) was one of our best attended events of the year with plenty of faces not even a seasoned activist like me recognised. Not to mention that members of Socialist Students have been involved in Friends of Palestine and the Gender Equality society, and have been involved in organising the Reclaim The Night event. Socialist Students has even hosted a discussion with an advocate of the IF campaign (a campaign supported by Oxfam GB, who were at the centre of the controversy over the International Women’s Day bake sale).
However, Socialist Students even at its best can only be one part of a genuinely healthy, vibrant and inclusive activism at the university. It almost goes without saying that there is going to be an unavoidable level of frustration along the way as that develops, and it shouldn’t be that surprising that a panel event to discuss this issue was not able to go ahead on the first try for reasons I’ve discussed above. I certainly don’t think anything is helped by the article putting the blame for the event not going ahead exclusively on ‘The Socialists’, throwing around accusations of being conspiracy theorists, patronising one half of this discussion with the label ‘angry activism’, and by grossly misrepresenting the views of Socialist Students and others.
The article seems to fall into exactly the same trap of an unhealthy and oppressive discourse that it accuses ‘The Socialists’ so strongly of. If students interested in making the world a better place take the view expressed in the article that ‘this is not about setting the facts right’ when it comes to the barriers to an inclusive activist discourse, how can any of us understand those barriers in a way that’s even factually correct let alone overcome them? How can anyone possibly expect the discourse to improve without understanding what made it so awful to begin with?
Rachel Brown looks at the controversy surrounding the Socialist Student general meeting and argues that, “angry activism'” is counter-productive.
Recently Socialist Students (SocStu) gathered at their general meeting. The President’s proposal to boycott a student discussion about activism and privilege was the key agenda item. The event on their agenda was born out of issues arising from the Oxfam bake sale. Aimed at raising money on International Women’s Day, instead the event became the hot-cake in student politics. The Facebook page became battleground between “the socialists” and “the white privileged”. Oxfam Society organisers were branded “white saviours”: Exeter’s middle-class students patting themselves on the back as they jovially baked cakes to “save” those “poor women of colour” who were out there. Oxfam itself was cast as the faceless giant, blindly trampling across the global scenery; their clumsy choice of official photography for similar local events was cited a divisive portrayal of first-world women “saving” third-world women. Most charity debates centre on how to spend money effectively and keep funds out of the hands of corrupt governments. But this debate was different. This debate was about the privileged activist and their cake.
James Bartholemeusz blogged “whilst the Oxfam lot were running a cake sale, raising over £150 in two hours, they [the objectors] were sat pounding their fists and/or head furiously on a keyboard”. Photo Credit: Christaface via CompfightccBroader ideas were also explored, many of which were revelatory to me. “When the focus of the discourse is on the ‘white saviour’ side [we] perpetuate systems of oppression”, a commentator argued. Evident in charity photography, images tend to depict individuals without food looking up at the camera, placing you, the donator, looking down on them (Moeller et al). A relationship of “us and them”, of “powerful and powerless”, emerges from the discourse and it divides us.
The virtue of international charities like Oxfam was also critiqued. These charities’ origins are “embedded in a number of relationships of power” and often “disempower local community organisations that have more flexible, context-dependent schemes”. Much research supports this view; Edkins argues that fundraising appeals by charities have crafted an image to Westerners that “Africa is starving”. Many will already know this does not capture the diversity of the continent. But more subtly, the image steers us to perceive famine as a moment of crisis and therefore to respond with moments of aid. But aid is just “throwing money at the problem” or may come with constraints like the International Monetary Fund sanctions. Aid cannot resolve what is fundamentally an historical inequality and requires structural shifts.
Not every student debating at the Facebook coalface agreed and convincing counter-points were made. Protesters were deemed “trivial” and that “cake is not political”. Students who had worked in underdeveloped areas gave testimony that “poor women would most likely appreciate the help”. Amnesty Society Campaigns Manager, James Bartholemeusz blogged “whilst the Oxfam lot were running a cake sale, raising over £150 in two hours, they [the objectors] were sat pounding their fists and/or head furiously on a keyboard”. Also supporting the defence, a friend of mine who researches at the UN World Food Programme advised international charities are more effective because of economies of scale (bulk-buying medicine for example) and size does matter; it makes them more influential when lobbying government.
That Facebook debates are plagued by trolls and time-wasters is a stereotype proven wrong by all of these arguments. The views provided were thought-provoking and possessed the potential to change student activism at Exeter. But my overview of the opinions given is not the complete picture. The conversation was muddied with abuse and foul language. Accusations of privilege were fired at strangers by strangers. Worse still, wise points were lost amidst swearwords. Cursing and making prejudicial judgements about people is no means to persuade. These traits delegitimise the claim of any author and cause the receivers to shut down. It’s no surprise the result was that good criticism was bound up with bad or that those responding stopped listening and reacted with similar tactics. Tactics that served like own goals and relegated learning points to pub humour.
If we want to be effective change agents, it makes sense to adopt proven methods. Gandhi is an impressive activist for his role in Indian independence. He used only methods of non-violence, including non-violent language. Gandhi’s “purity of means” rule teaches the means can sour the ends if the wrong path is taken to the goal. Strategists write this rule also makes post-conflict stability more feasible because the conclusion is reached by “winning together” rather than the losers going home with their tail between their legs. Much like the Buddhist concept of loving-kindness, opposition should never be treated hatefully. This is the correct means to solidarity.
But the student who proudly tweets, “I collect white tears”, must not be concerned with any solidarity beyond the group with which they identity. When I think about the angry approach some have taken, it is all the more preposterous the bake sale organisers were accused by them of being divisive. The reality is the angry rhetoric of some simply created a new type of division. “It is arrogant to expect civilised language”, the objectors have retorted to these points. But as Gandhi famously said: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
Returning to the scene of last week’s SocStu meeting, let us consider their response to the activism and privilege event, their means and the ends. The event was branded “racist” with all involved labeled the privileged few who could never be rid of their “white guilt”. According to sources, the panel member who was also active within SocStu was pressured into withdrawing. The Society formally agreed to boycott the event and all similar future events they deemed reprehensible. By all accounts, their policy is “do not engage”. This unfortunate outcome left us without a vital perspective and with an unbalanced panel. Ironically, any discussion would have been rendered the “circle jerk” objectors had prophesised and the event had to be cancelled.
But what demanded their policy of non-engagement? There are as many perspectives of this event as there are people involved. SocStu might have perceived it was not going to be the safe space organisers desired. Sources state they also felt it was a set-up, with the actual aim being so a panel of white privileged students can have a bash at the lefties; our revenge for the Oxfam bake sale saga.
But this was nothing more than conspiracy theory. The facts were that after the Oxfam bake sale, many felt the important ideas raised, especially those of some Socialist Students, needed proper consideration. The Gender Equality Society, together with several societies, organised a discussion event so students had a forum in which to discuss “the privileged activist”. The panel members consisted entirely of people who had no part in organising the bake sale and some did not even partake as cake-eaters. Furthermore, the panel was not entirely middle-class and the absence of female speakers was not due to lack of opportunity. All societies involved were asked to select speakers, including the Socialist Students.
Oxfam Society’s willingness to engage even though certain members had been bruised by the sharp tongues of some opposers to the bake sale should have been applauded. And it makes me proud to be a liberal that despite the personal insults, we wanted to engage with the core issues and develop in doing so; a response that follows the liberal tradition of debate, toleration and a belief in human perfectibility.
We worked hard to ensure the panel opening the round-table discussion reflected a wide-range of opinions held about “the privileged activist”. For the SocStu panel member, speaker’s time was extended so there was sufficient time to cover their Marxist perspective. This extension was not resented but welcomed because all organisers shared the same aim: To have a constructive discussion from which students would develop their understanding of privilege and activism.
I acknowledge that despite our efforts to make all students feel welcomed and respected, we might have fallen short. Whatever our shortcomings though, solutions are not created against a wall of silence. As chairperson for the event, I am still unclear why the boycott was felt appropriate. The boycott also stopped other societies affiliated with SocStu from being involved when, sources state, some would have liked to give their perspective. It seems counter-productive to overcome oppression with a boycott which in fact functioned as a new oppression.
But this is not about setting the facts right, my point is that the conduct of some is not conducive to making progress together. There are members of SocStu with whom I feel politically kindred and it is reassuring we have an intelligent, vocal left-wing of the body politic. What remains puzzling is the idea of achieving leftist influence (or even, revolution) whilst being unwilling to engage. The remaining strategy, making angry accusations of racism and privilege to strangers on Facebook also serves no end; save to alienate people from ever hearing a message that has merit. How does an activist transform society with a non-engagement policy in this context? As they say, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
That student life will never be characterised as one of political consensus is to be applauded. Political diversity ensures our views are challenged and, hopefully all challenges are punctuated by pointy fingers, wide-eyed sighs and, a Ram ale. But the day students decide to boycott events and verbally harm one another spells disaster for Campus politics. With boycotts and foul-communication, nothing comes from nothing; with engagement, there is always the chance of progress. I hope the student body will build upon this year’s experiences and learn from the mistakes we’ve made on “both sides”. Future events must become safe spaces for discussion and differences should be regulated by an ethos of loving-kindness not boycott policies.
exeposedev 