Election

Guild responds to NUS Exeter delegate’s Israel comments

Update: After this article was published on 11 April , the Exeter Students’ Guild apologised to the student on 17 June for releasing a statement that “unintentionally implied” the student’s comments at the conference were of a hateful nature. The Exeter Students’ Guild’s full apology can read here.

Exeter Students’ Guild has responded after an Exeter delegate to the NUS National Conference in Glasgow congratulated the re-election of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday, 10 April.

Mathematics undergraduate Jack Morewood was subsequently suspended from the election pending a code of conduct investigation, which today resulted in his candidacy being allowed to continue.

[Morewood’s] views and actions on stage do not reflect those of the Guild or of the manifesto he was elected on by the student body.

A spokesperson for the Students’ Guild said, “NUS Delegates are elected by students based on their manifesto and although Jack Morewood is representing the Students’ Guild as an NUS Delegate, his views and actions on stage that caused his suspension do not reflect those of the Guild or of the manifesto he was elected on by the student body. The Guild President and lead delegate has reiterated to Jack that he is a representative of the whole student body we expect him to consider their views in what he says and does at conference. There is no place in our institution or in the national movement for hateful comments that may harm or isolate the students that we are here to represent.”

Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government is under United Nations Human Rights Council investigation for humans rights abuses in the Palestininan Territories.

Exeter student unsuspended from NUS election

An Exeter undergraduate, Jack Morewood, whose candidacy in the NUS elections was suspended yesterday following comments that praised the Israeli Prime Minister, has been allowed to continue his campaign.

A spokesperson for the NUS said “following a code of conduct investigation Jack Morewood is no longer suspended and is therefore a candidate in the elections taking place later today (11 April).”

Morewood ended his election speech at the 2019 NUS Conference in Glasgow by congratulating the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whose government is under investigation by the United Nations Human Rights Council for potential human rights abuses in the Palestinian territories.

The Exeter Students’ Guild has been contacted for comment.

More updates as they come.

Exeter student suspended from NUS elections after praising reelection of Israeli PM

AN Exeter delegate has been suspended from the NUS elections after complaints were made over his comments praising the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reelection.

The comments were made by Maths undergraduate Jack Morewood at the 2019 NUS National Conference in Glasgow, where he was running as a candidate for the NUS National Executive Council Block 15 position. A video taken by Katie Racklyeft, a delegate at the conference, shows Morewood finishing his speech by praising Netanyahu. The crowd responded by jeering. Others began to chant ‘Free Palestine’.

Racklyeft tweeted a screenshot showing a response to an email of complaint regarding Morewood’s comments. The screenshot shows that the NUS have suspended Morewood’s candidacy while his conduct is reviewed.

The Screenshot showed that the NUS have suspended Morewood’s candidacy

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has a controversial reputation for far-right policies. This year, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution to condemn the “apparent intentional use of unlawful lethal and other excessive force by Israel” in Gaza. Moreover, Netanyahu’s 2019 campaign included a promise to annexe the West Bank Territory, a key location in neutral territory that many commentators fear could endanger a two-state solution.

Exeposé contacted Morewood for comment. He confirmed “I was suspended at 5pm for a breach of code of conduct while it was investigated. DPC ruled that I had not violated the Code of Conduct. They resolved to issue a verbal warning. This was then appealed by the complainant. I remain suspended.”

A spokesperson from the NUS Press Office said “I can confirm that Jack Morewood has been suspended as a candidate pending a code of conduct investigation. We are unable to comment further until this investigation concludes.”

Correction: A previous edition of this article said the West Bank was located in Palestine. It is actually in neutral territory. The article has been amended.

Nigeria hits the polls

With 73 million able to vote and 120,000 polling stations nationwide, Africa’s largest democracy braced itself for what was seen as its biggest election yet. In 1999, Nigeria finally emerged from the oppression of a military regime, allowing democracy to flourish for the first time in 33 years, with 2019 marking 20 years of free and democratic elections in the country. This election was, however, fraught with difficulty, with incumbent President Muhammadu Buhari doing battle with the opposition candidate Atiku Abubakar against the backdrop of widespread fears that the election would become paralysed by the radical insurgent group, Boko Haram.

The candidates:

Whilst there were some 73 candidates running for the presidential premiership, the two frontrunners were Buhari and Abubakar, the former from the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the latter being the leader of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

the two frontrunners were Buhari and Abubakar

Buhari has a long history in Nigerian politics, with his early career, at first glance, not serving him well from a PR perspective. For 20 months between December 1983 and August 1985, he served as the head of state for Nigeria following a military coup. Whilst he maintains that the real power of his time in office came from the orchestrators of the coup, his own role remains disputed and controversial, given the human rights abuses of the regime. Surprisingly, this may have done more to aid his public image, with him gaining the reputation of being strict and incorruptible. Alongside this, he is a self-confessed ‘born-again’ democrat, running on a platform of tackling corruption, reviving the economy and cracking down on the Boko Haram insurgency that continues to ravage parts of north-eastern Nigeria. He was elected president in 2015, after three unsuccessful attempts. This year, however, he was energetic with promises, taking his party’s symbol – a broom – with him on the campaign trail, and promising to take Nigeria to “the next level”. In the eyes of many, however, his approach to the economy has encouraged stagnation.

Abubakar is not without skeletons of his own

His opponent, Abubakar is a veteran candidate and political insider, running for presidential office three times, with no success. He has, however, served two terms as vice-president for PDP administrations and remains a leading businessman in Nigeria, with his expertise stretching from oil all the way to the soft drinks industry. Like his opponent, Abubakar also pledges to root out corruption and revive the economy through economic liberalisation – during both his terms as vice-president, he oversaw privatisations, indicating the same could be on the cards if he won the premiership. Abubakar is not without skeletons of his own, however, with him facing accusations of corruption which have yet to surface in court.

The election:

Whilst expectations across the world were high, the election saw the lowest ever voter turnout in Nigeria’s 20-year history of democracy, with only around a third of those able to vote heading to the polls. Political commentators have credited this with voter apathy, rather than the threat posed to voters by Boko Haram.

high voter turnouts were reported in areas under threat from Boko Haram attacks

Boko Haram, the West African branch of the Islamic State, has terrorised Nigeria since 2002, and its attacks remain mainly confined in the north-east of the country. Despite this, high voter turnouts were reported in areas under threat from Boko Haram attacks. Voting provisions were even made for the 400,000 people residing in refugee camps, displaced by the group’s activities in the region. Fears were not unfounded, however, as the national election was delayed by one week just five hours before it was to occur. This was in response to Boko Haram’s vow that they would disrupt the election. A recent attack had also been made by the group on a Nigerian governor’s convoy.

the election was certainly not without violence

To be under no illusions, the election was certainly not without violence, with there being reports of gunfire in some polling areas in south Rivers state. Alongside this, hundreds were forced to evacuate north-eastern Yobe state following attacks by Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province, a splinter group.

With a result that surprised few, Buhari emerged from the political fray the victor, elected for a second term in office. The vote saw Buhari secure control of voters in the Muslim north of the country, whereas Abubakar’s PDP support came predominantly from the Christian south. Buhari received some 74% of the vote and a margin of 4 million votes, with the level of support he received in the north seeing him being jokily dubbed the “king of the north” in reference to Game of Thrones.

Whilst many celebrated, Abubakar was certainly not among them, labelling the result inaccurate and the election a “sham”. His accusations levied towards the APC included stating that Buhari was preventing people from voting, hence the low voter turnout, even vowing to take the matter to court. Buhari has adamantly denied this.

It is Africa’s leading oil producer but, addled with corruption and a lack of investment of the proceeds, the industry has stagnated.

Nigeria faces an onslaught of problems for the future. It is Africa’s leading oil producer but, addled with corruption and a lack of investment of the proceeds, the industry has stagnated. Nigeria has a large, growing young population, but a slow recovery from economic difficulties in 2016 has meant that unemployment remains high, with 25% of the working population out of work. Boko Haram and the Islamic State of West Africa persist as potent security threats in Nigeria, and corruption remains seemingly ubiquitous. Nigeria is certainly blessed with potential but hampered with difficulties.

With Buhari back in power, one question remains. Will he successfully tackle this many-headed beast and take Nigeria to “the next level”, or will he simply deliver more of the same?

Zimbabwe’s Presidential Election

Even by post-colonial standards, Zimbabwe is a young country. Prior to 1980, the region was known as Southern Rhodesia after the British colonist Cecil Rhodes. Like South Africa, political power was controlled by white supremacist parties, but a gorilla war waged by the African Nation Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu PF) during the 1970s resulted in British brokered elections. Lead by the black revolutionary Robert Mugabe, Zanu PF swept to power, and by combining support among impoverished rural Africans with violent state repression, the party has remained in power ever since. Under Mugabe’s rule, inflation hit 11.2 million percent in 2008, Zimbabwe slid to 154^th on the UN’s Human Development Index, and life expectancies plateaued at 40 years of age. In November of last year, 93-year-old Robert Mugabe was removed from office by the military. The initial reaction in Zimbabwe was jubilation, but his successor, Emmerson Mnangagwa, may not embody the change that Zimbabweans hoped for. In elections that were less violent than 2008, and yet still saw an attempted assassination and the killing of protestors by the army, Mnangagwa won with 50.8% of the vote. Zimbabwe’s opposition; The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has rejected the results as fraudulent. This has provoked a massive crackdown by the security agencies. Whist the MDC’s leading light, Nelson Chamisa, has managed to postpone Mnangagwa’s inauguration until the Constitutional Court has ruled on it, few believe this will break Zanu PF’s sinewy grip on power. What is the likelihood of one-party rule continuing? and what shape can international response be expected to take?

One Man, One Party:

History does not encourage hope for a peaceful transition from one-party rule to real democracy. Mugabe is gone, but Zanu PF was never a one man show, despite its characterization as such in the west. The death of Stalin did not transform the Bolshevik Party into a benign government. Bashir al-Assad was heralded as a moderate when he replaced his dead father as head of the Ba’ath Party in Syria. In both instances and many more, the political apparatus that surrounded these leaders had not been taken hostage by them, but actively participated in their crimes. To claim Mnangagwa was a conscientious-objector throughout the crackdowns, famines and massacres that Zanu PF inflicted whilst he was Mugabe’s right-hand man is absurd.

Mnangagwa is nicknamed ‘The Crocodile’ for a reason

Mnangagwa is nicknamed ‘The Crocodile’ for a reason. He may have avoided the tyrant trap of winning by 99.9%, and claimed to be as “soft as wool”, but his long career at the heart of Zanu PF speaks for itself. Less inducive still to a climate of genuine democratic transition is the fact that Mugabe was not overthrown by a popular revolt, but by the army, who subsequently installed Mnangagwa. Events in Egypt since Hosni Mubarak was toppled illustrate how rarely a military takeover results in a period of durable democracy. Even in the peaceful parliamentary elections that preceded the presidential poll, the EU Election Commissioner to Zimbabwe noted that Zanu PF votes were counted first. His observation that he had, “yet to learn why they will be released last”, is a lesson in assiduous acidity.[3]

While not as violent as the 2008 presidential election in which Nelson Chamisa suffered a fractured skull, the army shot and killed six civilians protesting the three-day delay on election results. Ongoing reports suggest killings and disappearances continue in Harare’s suburbs. Following Mnangagwa’s victory, arrest warrants have been issued for eight opposition leaders, belying any claim that the new president represents a meaningful break with the past. Outside of the capital, towns suspected of supporting the opposition have been blockaded by the army. Zanu PF’s litany of massacres is likely letting Mnangagwa employ a highly credible threat of force rather than genuine extreme violence to subdue dissent. The MDC have a history of backing down in the face of such violence, having withdrawn from the second round of the 2008 election to protect their activists. Should it come to outright conflict, Zanu PF are surely confident that the opposition would bulk once more.

The Global Response:

Unfortunately for Zimbabwe’s opposition, Nelson Chamisa is regarded by many as somewhat of a charlatan, having lied about an offer of American aid if the MDC had won the election. There are also broader geopolitical reasons for the MDC to fear a lack of US support. Zimbabwe has been subject to twenty years of American sanctions. However, the Trump administration may be willing to tolerate a similar regime with a less toxic leader. The US is losing out to China all over the world, and Africa is leading this realignment. The US may view the fall of Mugabe as an opportunity to combat this trend, and have condoned far crueler regimes than Zimbabwe’s out of strategic expedience in the past. China has long been Zimbabwe’s primary arms supplier, but some analysts have suggested that the fall of Mugabe could destabilize Sino-Zimbabwe relations.

The US is losing out to China all over the world, and Africa is leading this realignment.

This might present opportunities for the US to exploit at the cost of the MDC. Furthermore, the relatively impoverished nature of Zimbabwe’s neighbor states has always protected the regime. Even on the rare occasions when African governments break with decorum and criticize another African government – as Botswana did in 2008 – no regional power would be able to provide the humanitarian aid necessary to accompany a military intervention. In any case, Zambia’s refusal to offer opposition politician Tendai Biti asylum suggests regional powers are going to align with Mnangagwa.[8] Whilst much of this is conjecture, Zanu PF is a consummate survivor. The chance of revolutionary upheaval is slim, and the regime has a monopoly on deadly force. If the international community proves more tolerant of Mnangagwa than they did of Mugabe, one man and one-party rule could well continue, with only a slight change in personal. The appalling violence that has disfigured Zimbabwe’s brief history is in remission, but to subvert Ernst Fischer’s remarks about Soviet communism, Zimbabwe remains a panzer-democracy.

What is so great about Russia’s Vladimir Putin?

Vladimir Putin is set to lead Russia for another six years after securing 73.9% of the vote in Sunday’s presidential election. Yes, the same man who is currently being blamed for the attempted murder of ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter.

The turn out for the elections this year was 63.7%, less than the number who voted in the election in 2012. Despite a number of attempts made to encourage people to get out and vote, this reduced turn out is likely to be because of the certainty of Putin’s victory. So, what is it that makes Putin so popular?

The majority of those seen at ballot boxes and polling stations on Sunday afternoon were from the middle to older generations of society. These are the people who really remember the struggles that ensued upon the collapse of the USSR and who appreciate how much better their life is now. While in the home of an elderly Russian lady earlier this week, I asked her about her decision to vote for Vladimir Putin. In response she simply opened her fridge, pointed to the shelves of food and said “life is so much better now”. In 1992, almost 35% of the Russian population was living in poverty and now the figures are as low as 13%, with Putin promising to further reduce the number of Russians living in poverty. He has also pledged to increase living standards and the minimum wage. Just how well he will deliver on these promises remains to be seen, but he is telling the country what they want to hear.

So, what is it that makes Putin so popular?

It is the younger generations of the Russian population who are not so united in their views. This is where the main support base for Alexei Navalny lies. The opposition leader was barred from the race due to a corruption conviction, which he argues is politically motivated. He urged his supporters to boycott “the election with no choice”. The students and teens who were protesting on the streets of 82 Russian cities at the end of 2017 opted to stay in their homes on the day of the presidential election. They see no point in voting in an election where the outcome is already determined and there is only one real choice.

However, they may have course mates and friends who do not share this opinion. I spoke to a young English teacher at a school in the town of Yaroslavl, 4 hours north east of Moscow, about how she felt towards the Russian election and Putin’s inevitable victory. Initially, it seemed that she shared the same view of the other young people that I had spoken to, but then she said “even if you don’t support his policies, the one thing that Putin does represent is stability.” You only have to take a brief look at Russia’s history to see that change hasn’t always brought them what they want. Electing someone new would mean venturing into the unknown, and that’s not something Russia’s ready to do. Not again, that’s for sure. A little over 100 years ago, revolution in Russia shook the world as they saw off the tsar and welcomed a new communist regime. What followed was decades of turmoil culminating in the collapse of the USSR and a country left poor and hungry by the 1990s. It would be difficult to argue that Putin didn’t have something to do with bringing the country back to the status that it now has. You’ve got to give the guy credit where it’s due.

It would be difficult to argue that Putin didn’t have something to do with bringing the country back to the status that it now has.

So, for the majority of voters, Putin is promising them the Russia that they want, and he’s got the track record to prove it. For those that are less convinced by his policies, at least a vote for Putin is a vote for stability. And what of those seemingly most dissatisfied with the leader and political climate as a whole? Well, perhaps they’re just not quite willing to see what a fight for change will actually bring.

New Zealand’s Youngest Female Prime Minister Sets a Precedent

She discovered she was prime minister the same way we all did: perched on the edge of her couch with a pie in the microwave. Jecinda Ardern is now the world’s youngest female political leader. At 37, Ardern is a progressive social democrat giving kiwis their flight back.

Back in September’s general election, Labour won 46 seats in contrast with Bill English’s National Party who came out with 56. The mixed-member proportional system (MMP) produces a parliament whose number of seats (120 in total) roughly correlates with the nationwide party vote. Neither main party won sufficient seats to govern alone. As a populist party, New Zealand First held the balance of power. By aligning themselves in a coalition, they would give one side enough seats to take office. Labour or National, where would they go? On October 26^th, in a swing to the left, NZ First’s Winston Peters opted to enter into a minority coalition with Labour and the Greens. Despite their socially conservative ideologies, NZ First backed Ardern – the former member of the International Union of Socialist Youth and ex policy adviser to Tony Blair.

During his decision to back Labour instead, NZ First’s Winston Peters said that New Zealand needed “Capitalism with a human face”.

Four terms of National leadership have been concluded. The National Party of New Zealand are a centre-right party not all that dissimilar from Britain’s conservatives. During his decision to back Labour instead, NZ First’s Winston Peters said that New Zealand needed “Capitalism with a human face”. This seemed to echo Alexander Dubček’s call for “Socialism with a human face” back in Czechoslovakia 1968. By liberalising the Communist Party, they tried to appeal to those who had lost faith in a socialist regime that had left the nation in political and economic despair under dominant Soviet control. So apparently Ardern is the human face needed by New Zealand. In the case of NZ First, is siding with Labour part of their long term plan to gain power themselves and bring faith to the right?

Jacinda Ardern speaking at the University of Auckland (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

History conspiracies aside, the lefties now lead. Whilst National and Labour are both fairly centralist parties in the grand scheme of things, Ardern’s left-leaning policies promote a welfare state for those in need. As a reformist, she sees the importance of social change not just at the bottom but also at the top. Her policies include:

Enforcing tax-avoidance penalties and collecting $200 million (£103 million) extra a year from multinationals not currently paying their share.
Raising the minimum wage to $16.50 (£8.50) per hour.
Forming a referendum by 2020 on recreational cannabis use. By joining with the Greens, Labour’s original plan to introduce medical cannabis for terminally ill patients has been broadened.
Subsidising student’s first year of university or training, and also increasing their allowances and living cost loans.
Effectively combating child poverty and improving child protection action.
Advancing mental health education and support holistically.
Banning speculators overseas from buying existing housing. This is paired with the KiwiBuild plan to provide 100,000 warm, affordable and “healthy” homes to the struggling population over.

New Zealand is clearly ahead of the game already. Over the Tasman, the Australian majority have finally voted in favour of same-sex marriage. Couples still can’t marry in the entirety of the British Isles, yet full marriage equality in New Zealand has existed since 2013. Ardern seeks to liberalise abortion laws, invest an additional $6 billion (£2.5 billion) into creating a modern education system, and add $8 billion (over £4 billion) to health spending. This is all in a country the size of the UK, but with half the population of London.

The welfare state is a necessary safety net. It’s a net often cast into empty seas, or cast no further than campaign posters. Phil Twyford, (Labour’s minister for housing) stated that the nation has “the worst level of homelessness in the world.” This came after it was revealed that nearly 42,000 kiwis are ‘severely housing deprived’. In her bid to socialise New Zealand, Ardern argues that this rate of homelessness indicates a “blatant failure” of capitalism.

Ardern with Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and Governor-General Dame Patsy Reddy at the swearing-in of the new Cabinet in 2017 (Image Wikipedia)

So, the prime minister believes the National Party has failed the people. In response, leading Aussie newspaper ‘The Australian’ wrote: “For Ardern to use homelessness to try to litigate the broader argument that the nine highly successful years of capitalism under John Key’s and Bill English’s centre-right National Party were a ‘blatant failure,’ reflects poorly on her.” But if lives were neglected then someone should pick them up. Doubting her credibility, ‘The Australian’ call for her to “be sensible and stop sounding like her wacky British Labour counterpart, Jeremy Corbyn.” Oh c’mon Jecinda don’t be so incompetent, don’t denounce capitalism, and definitely don’t befriend Crazy Corbyn…

It’s a chance for the cobwebs of politics to be shaken off and the crust of convention to be cleared away.

Declaring “Jecinda, do it all for us”, Jezza himself has endorsed Ardern on multiple occasions. As long as she delivers on her promises, New Zealand can be a model for Labour leadership in the UK. Obviously her reforms rely on a strong economy, but with New Zealand’s public debt being reasonably low after National’s financial successes, surely it’s time for the people to be fed and housed? A cross-term coalition you could say. Regardless, the youngest female leader is in office. It’s a chance for the cobwebs of politics to be shaken off and the crust of convention to be cleared away. The Greens and NZ First might ideologically clash, but in Jecinda Ardern’s tripartite coalition she’ll be maintaining balance. Labour will enhance equality and fairness, whilst repairing many kiwi’s broken wings. Now, time for that pie.

Thank Corbyn for the Youth’s Political Resurrection, not Tuition Fee Promises.

Thursday 8^th June 2017. Was this the day that the youth made their voices heard within the political world? Was this the first time for many years that young people changed the landscape of British politics? Was this the time that the ‘disillusioned millennials’ finally stepped up and had their say?

These were all questions thrown up by media outlets throughout the country following the dramatic general election earlier this year. Prime Minister Theresa May, along with her “strong and stable” government, threw away a parliamentary majority in an election that followed suit from a year of crazy political surprises. The leader that stole so many votes from the Conservatives? Jeremy Corbyn.

However, whilst it is perfectly acceptable to argue that Corbyn and Labour got so many votes due to both excellent campaigning on their own side and an awful Tory campaign, it is impossible to argue with the results. Despite all of these questions, all of the media hype, all of the madness… Labour did not win the election, either.

But this article is not about debating the results of an election. Nor is it focussed on slating a particular party. This piece is looking to examine Jeremy Corbyn’s popularity amongst – you guessed it – younger voters.

It is undeniable that Corbyn managed to push many previously politically inactive young people straight into a voting booth. Do not be mistaken by this previous inactivity, though. As an article published in Exeposé earlier this year highlighted: “These views [of seeing no point in voting] reflect not ignorance or idiocy, but a learned discontent with the current political system”. That is to say, politicians and politics as a whole have either neglected the needs of younger voters or have down-right lied to them. This, understandably, results in the youth of today becoming ever increasingly disillusioned with politics. That was, until Mr. Corbyn stepped in.

It is undeniable that Corbyn managed to push many previously politically inactive young people straight into a voting boot

This is exactly where all the problems begin. To cut to the chase – the popularity that Corbyn gained amongst these discontented young voters throughout the 2017 campaign is being put solely down to the pledge of wiping tuition fees. Despite the countless amounts of other policies and promises made by the Labour party, this is the one idea that keeps being referred to as the key to his success. It is particularly an issue being raised regarding university towns and cities, just like ours.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Image/Wikipedia.org

Before I go on, I want to emphasise now that I am in no way suggesting, implying or insinuating that this policy had no part to play in his rise amongst young people, particularly students. It would be ignorant to suggest that is the case. But, in the same way, the ignorance of the people who honestly believe that students have no other motive to vote for Corbyn and Labour than the potential of the removal of tuition fees is astounding.

I am a prime example. I voted for Labour in the election and I do not believe that tuition fees should be removed. Undoubtedly there needs to be a reform of some kind – which I have various ideas on, but that’s for another article – but ousting all fees is, in my opinion, not the way forward. Yet, I still voted for Labour and Corbyn. The motivation behind this lies in many areas of their manifesto. An increase in tax for the top 5% of earners and raising corporation tax, to me, seems like a fairer society would result. Their proposed plans for the education sector were the most sensible and likely to be the most effective.

An increase in tax for the top 5% of earners and raising corporation tax, seems like a fairer society would result

The ideas behind increasing affordable housing and helping first time buyers to get onto the property ladder is something that, as a young person, is particularly appealing. Even if, as it has been said, Corbyn was unable to deliver on some of these pledges, I would feel much happier having a government with this mindset of helping people than the alternatives that are on offer. Exeter as a whole provides another example, being held by Labour for many years without the promise of wiping fees.

I tell you this not to convince you to vote for Labour, or to like Jeremy Corbyn or to even agree that these policies are the best for the country. The great thing about a democracy like ours is that we can have disagreements and debates on these topics, and I have no intention of changing your political views through an article. These points are made for the sole purpose of exemplifying that there are more reasons why young people would vote Labour than simply issues around tuition fees. Its not an act of selfishness, but a political ideology that believes in an alternative to the struggles we have faced as a country.

Corbyn spoke to young people and young voters in a way that no politician has for years. He offered a vision of hope that in the bleak future that we face through Brexit, with no capability of buying our own home and facing a privatised NHS amongst many, many other things doesn’t have to become a reality. For the first time since I can remember, a politician has put forward an idea of change. A genuine and legitimate idea of change. Those who shout about Corbyn only receiving student votes due to tuition fee promises, are not only insulting young people like me, who are not so politically inept or inactive as many people suspected, but they are also just plain wrong.

Election 2017: what do the students think?

It has often been claimed that both the apathy of young voters is partially to blame for recent political events, and that our voice is the only hope for Britain. Yet while parties jockey to win the allegiance of students, the policies included in manifestos seem to largely cater towards an established, older audience. As election day draws nearer, Exeposé asked Exeter students whether they think their vote really counts, and why they choose to follow – or avoid – politics.

parties who represent one student’s views are “drowned out by waves of populist propaganda”

We asked students whether they planned on voting, and the majority of those we asked said that they would. One suggested they would be doing so out of respect to those who endured hardships so that we now have the freedom to vote, stating: “I will be voting as I do not want to spit in the liberty that I have that my ancestors did not have when they were living under the Tzar in Russia. I also want to respect my ancestors that fought against the Nazis so that we could be free.” However, there were those who were less enthusiastic about the process and, although they will be voting, feel somewhat underrepresented. One student claimed that “my home constituency is a safe seat and if I vote for the party I want to vote for here then it just helps another party, so I don’t have much of a voice,” whilst another believes that there are parties who represent their views, but they’re “drowned out by waves of populist propaganda.”

There is a sense, then, that voting as a student is a somewhat futile endeavour, despite the fact that many of us have multiple seats to choose from in which we can vote. Although, this is not an opinion held by all, as one student intends to vote at home because their “home seat is contested and is perhaps more unstable in whether Labour or Conservatives win.” So although a number of students see their votes as essentially wasted because they cannot meaningfully vote for the party they align themselves with, some see the option of having multiple locations to vote in as an opportunity to affect change.

it’s clear that many are disillusioned

Although some students believe they can have a valid input in the democratic process, it’s clear that many are disillusioned. 36% of 18 to 24 year-olds refrained from voting in the referendum last June, and 57% abstained from casting a ballot in the 2015 general election. This may not be a reflection of the mindless apathy pundits like to stereotype students with, but a more realistic analysis of the political system. As one Exeter student commented: “I think that a lot of people feel that none of the parties fully represent them…which is pretty disillusioning because it means nothing will ever change”.

This opinion is significant – it highlights the way politicians often neglect to focus on youth-orientated issues in their campaigns. After all, why pander to a traditionally low-turnout group when you can win favour with those already engaged and listening? But this lack of inclusion by political parties only serves to continue the cycle. If students feel ignored by government, they will assume their voice won’t be heard. But if we disengage with politics, politicians need not push for changes that affect young people.

These views reflect not ignorance or idiocy, but a learned discontent with the current political system

Then there are students who completely distrust the establishment. Some are radical: “I think we should all just cast a protest vote and spoil our ballots”. And why shouldn’t they be? With Nick Clegg promising to cut student loans – before raising them as part of the coalition government – and Jeremy Corbyn making the same promise a few years on, should students trust a different suit now? Others are simply cynical: “I want to vote, but I doubt Brexit will be reversed whoever gets in – the Lib Dems don’t stand much of a chance and they may still go with honouring the majority who voted leave – so it all feels somewhat pointless”. These views reflect not ignorance or idiocy, but a learned discontent with the current political system. Many young people consider voting to be a waste of time, because they believe that their ballot will not affect the changes they want to see, and they cannot find political figures who align with their view of the world.

The opinions of a number of Exeter students, combined with the comparatively low turnouts of the 18-24 age-group to previous elections, make it clear that a considerable amount of young people feel disenfranchised with the political system. However, there are still a significant amount who believe real change can come about through the electoral process, and perhaps this is a view that will increase in future generations if parties put more emphasis on their youth-based policies.

Snap Election 2017- the round up

On Tuesday morning, the Prime Minister announced that she would be calling for an early General Election to take place on the 8^th of June. This came as quite a surprise to both MPs and the public, as Theresa May had stated repeatedly in the past that she had no intention of calling for an early election.

Parliamentary terms last five years, meaning that the next election was scheduled for 2020. The Prime Minister has claimed that this decision was due to too many divisions in Parliament, which were causing problems. With Brexit negotiations underway, the Prime Minister wants a larger majority in order to make it simpler to pass bills. With the state of the polls at the moment, it is seeming likely that the Conservatives may come away with a landslide majority which could potentially near triple figures. Her hope will be to completely weaken the opposition, who are in many ways seen as completely divided at the moment. Polls suggest that people are not seeing a viable alternative to the Conservative leadership, and there is nothing to suggest she won’t achieve an incredible majority.

‘there is nothing to suggest she won’t achieve an incredible majority.’

The Conservative Party will also hope that the general election allows for an easier process with passing bills in the House of Lords. In UK legislation, the Lords pass bills easily which are on the manifesto of the party in charge. As the Conservative manifesto at the last election was written under David Cameron, this provides Theresa May with the opportunity to produce a manifesto which will pass bills faster in the House of Lords.

Many people are questioning why Theresa May has decided not to participate in television debates for this election. The debates are organised for the public to scrutinise and address the policies and manifestos of party leaders. As May avoids these debates, this could lead the public to question how open she will be about her plans. She claims to be focusing on knocking on people’s doors and addressing their concerns directly. However, as she is set to win such a large majority, the ability of the public to question her plans is more important than ever.

‘The real race however will be for the opposition.’

Given the current state of the Labour Party, the election will really test their support. Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has divided members and MPs, with many top MPs speaking openly about their dislike for the party leader. Corbyn stated ‘I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to give the British people the chance to vote for a government that will put the interests of the majority first’. He continued to say that ‘Labour will be offering the country an effective alternative to a government that has failed’.

Corbyn has introduced controversial policies recently, including a plan to class everyone who makes over £70,000 a year as wealthy. This could eliminate a sector of the labour parties voters, and leaves many labour MPs planning to campaign without an image of Corbyn on their leaflet.

At general elections, many people often question whether they should be voting based on the leader of the party, who would be Prime Minister if they were to win, or if they should vote solely based on the MP. It is often challenging to not bring the party leader into consideration when deciding which party to support, especially as in the past TV debates have placed the leader’s policies under scrutiny, much more so than individual MPs.

Many people believe that Labour lost support in the last election due to worries they could form a coalition with the Scottish National Party. However, Corbyn has immediately ruled it out this time as he remarked ‘there will be no coalition deal with the SNP and a Labour government’. The SNP abstained from the vote in Parliament about the election, as they are set to lose many seats. Similarly, many are questioning the viability of UKIP. Former leader Nigel Farage has confirmed he will not be standing again, and with Brexit in place, it does not seem they have many relevant policies left.

Labour is not the only party being tested at this coming election. After the dramatic downfall of the Liberal Democrats at the 2015 election, the party stands to reclaim many of their seats. With a new leader, they are hoping their past mistakes will be behind them. Nick Clegg resigned as leader immediately after the last election, but has announced he will be standing again this year. With many people concerned about the labour leadership, it is likely that voters will look closer at the LibDems than before. With a strong leader, they may pose the best chance at forming an opposition government. However well they perform, it is almost impossible for them not to do well if their success is placed in terms of percentages. A gain of nine seats, would leave them celebrating a 100% increase in seats.

Tim Farron, leader of the Lib Dems. From wikipedia

Theresa May does seem incredibly confident that she will achieve a large majority. Her government is strong and stable, and the increased majority will ease the process of negotiating with the EU. The race for opposition will be the hardest battle in this election.