Issue 167

3 U n i v e r s i t y

o f

E s s e x

S t u d e n t

N e w s pa p e r

NEWS

COMMENT MUSIC FILM TV BOOKS NEWS

ARTS SCIENCE

4

NEWS SURVEY

LIFESTYLE SPORTS

Your concerns Friday 24th april | Issue 167

therabbitnewspaper.com

12

FEATURE

Insights from Paul Whiteley

16

COMMENT

What difference can young people make

MUSIC FILM BOOKS LIFESTYLE

24-32

Rest of the sections

General Election Election -General How will will you you vote? vote?

How

From From page page 2 2 till till page 19 page 19

2

General Election Politics

Editorial I have never in my life even considered not voting. Maybe it is because I was always fairly politically active through the European Youth Parliament, and party politics to an extent when I lived in Finland. As a politics student I’m not in a position where I have the luxury of focusing on how democracy in broken and giving up the idea of voting as a means of political participation. Or maybe that is precisely what I should be doing, coming up with more effective ways of governing and choosing politicians, who knows. I have never felt too hopeless about democracy as a model and casting a vote did feel to me like I had a say even if I did seek out other ways to participate as well.

However since living in the UK I also found myself in a rather ridiculous situation when it came to voting. I was eligible to vote in the elections of two different countries thanks to my dual citizenship, the USA and Finland.

Yet at the time being neither of these is a country I live in. Where representation may feel distant as it is this was a whole new level. There was a citizens initiative initiated in Europe proposing that EU residents living in any Member State should have the right to vote in the EU country they live in.

However the initiative did not gather enough signatures to be taken to the Commission for consideration.

Whatever the results of the May 7th election are they will affect my life if I choose to stay in this country which at the moment is my plan. With certain outcomes life for me here can become considerably more difficult yet I get no choice in this election. Therefore I do encourage those who can to vote. Too often I hear people say they are not informed enough. But being informed or having done a certain amount of research is not a requirement of democracy, your vote counts no matter how much or little information you choose to base it on.

Your Editor, Saga Eriksson

Policy Roundup The Rabbit’s Fiolla Korenica has been analysing the main policies of the parties to save you the trouble. compensation from their employers.

The Conservative Party • • •

•

The current tuition fees policy will not be changed.

Zero-hour contracts would not be banned as the party believes it makes it flexible for students.

Laws would be created to make it easier for the government to spy on suspected criminals through their internet activity.· A referendum on whether or not the UK should leave the European Union would be held.

Colchester Conservative party candidate Will Quince: • He states that he will concentrate more on the infrastructure of the town.

• He would campaign for more police at night.

• There would be also be a campaign for cleaner streets.

The Liberal Democrat Party • • • • •

Production of renewable energy will be doubled by 2020.

The current tuition fees policy will not be changed.

The party will aim to end Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

Discounted bus passes (by up to 66%) for young people aged 16 to 21 in England.

One million trees will be planted in England.

Colchester Liberal Democrat candidate Sir Bob Russell: • Supports the turning on of lights around Colchester.

The Labour Party • •

The National Minimum Wage will be increased to £8 an hour by 2020.

Those working on zero-hour contracts will receive more rights. Employers will be banned from requiring workers to be available at all times of day. Employees do not need to exclusively work for one firm when on a zerohour contract. Furthermore, employees whose shifts are cancelled on short-notice will receive

Jordan Newell, Labour candidate for Colchester: • Wants improved rail services.

• To have a qualified teacher in every classroom • Improve community safety with more police on the streets, and keeping the street lights on.

The UK Independence Party •

•

•

The Department of Energy and Climate Change will be abolished and green subsidies will be removed in order to reduce national debt.

Subject to academic performance, tuition fees for university graduates in maths, technology, science, medicine, and engineering will be removed providing that the graduates stays in the UK for five years.

EU students will pay the same tuition fee rates as international students.

Colchester UKIP party candidate John Pitts: • Has no specific policies. He adopts the national party’s policies.

The Green Party • • • •

The Green Party will end animal testing of products.

A living wage will be introduced for everyone instead of just a minimum wage.

Raise the minimum wage to £10 an hour by 2020.

Tuition fees will be abolished.

Colchester Green Party candidate Mark Goacher: • Goacher will campaign for the abolition of university tuition fees.

• Rent controls would be introduced, and there would be a campaign against rising fuel bills.

• Colchester General Hospital would receive increased NHS funding.

• More investment in buses so there can be a suitable alternative to car transport.

• There would be increased police funding in order to tackle crime.

Fiolla Korenica

FRIDAY 24TH APRIL | ISSUE 167

GENERAL ELECTION

3

How to vote The Rabbit’s Senior Designer, Andrew Smith, has been getting to grips with the different ways in which you can choose to vote in the General Election. With only a few weeks to go, it is time to work out where your vote will be going on May 7th.

Tactical Voting

Other ways to vote:

What is it?

Is it a bad thing?

Tactical voting is supporting any candidate other than your favourite. It is usually done to prevent your least favourite candidate from winning: if there is another candidate who has a better chance of winning.

Small parties can suffer through tactical voting.

If, as in a list-based system (like the SU elections), you know your vote is going to be transferred anyway, nobody is afraid of putting their favourite as first choice, and so it’s possible that enough people will do that for them to become a realistic contender. In our system, we can only pick one party, and so tactical voting means hardly anybody votes for the smaller one: even if we agree with their policies. This creates a vicious cycle.

How do I do that?

Suppose you support the Green party, but live in a constituency where only Labour or the Conservatives can realistically win. If you vote sincerely, for your favourite candidate, they are unlikely to win, and your vote will have had no impact on the outcome. You might then decide which of the two larger parties you prefer. If you really hate the Conservatives, but don’t mind Labour, you could vote tactically for Labour to keep the Tories out.

It’s not your ideal outcome, but you might see it as a compromise that you can realistically achieve.

Short-term, tactical voting is a sensible response to the current limited choice. Long-term, it reinforces those limits, leaving us with only two realistic winners for most positions: not much of a choice at all. It’s a sensible compromise today, but might force more compromise down the line.

That’s worth bearing in mind.

Issue voting: where the parties disagree on issues that matter to you, you choose the one whose principles and desires are closest to your own.

Competence or valence voting: where parties agree on the issues you care about, you might choose the one who you see as most likely to actually succeed in implementing your desires: Personality voting: where you focus on the party leaders and decide who you trust to represent you as Prime Minister.

Local voting: where you are more concerned with who will be your local MP than who wins nationwide, or don’t think you can influence the latter.

Is it the right way to vote?

Traditional voting: where you vote based on which party traditionally represents your social group or occupation, or follow how your family have always voted.

People choose to vote in many different ways, and it’s hard to say that only one is right. The tactical approach has been criticised as “negative voting” and against the spirit of democracy, sometimes compromising makes a lot of sense. We live in a free democracy, and that means your vote is yours to use however you like, so a tactical approach is fine.

Andrew Smith

INTERNATIONAL

Immigration and a diverse campus - what are parties saying about international students?

One of the central issues in the upcoming election is immigration with parties like UKIP notorious for their anti immigration positions. This should be of particular concern here at the University of Essex housing students from 136 different countries who could be affected by any major changes in policy.

Labour have proposed the introduction of “smarter” targets, designed to ensure that students and highskilled workers are not deterred from entering the UK, however low-skilled migrant entry would be restricted. They recognise the benefits to the economy that international students bring. Further, employment agencies recruiting only from abroad would be banned.

The Liberal Democrats have proposed the reintroduction of visa checks when leaving the country, to

better catch those who have been overstaying their visa.

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) are notorious for their firm anti immigration stance, however at the party conference last year, they would not be counting international students studying in Britain in their net migration targets. According to the Times Higher Education, a UKIP spokesman said, “Ukip knows that the UK has some of the finest educational establishments in the world, and we believe that students from around the world should be encouraged to come here to study in our first-class facilities.” International students would be welcome to study in the UK on a student visa, application for permanent residency would be a separate consideration. They also announced however, that EU students would be subject to the same restrictions as

all other international students.

The Conservative Party are planning to reform the visa system to prevent abuse of the system. This will see harsh sanctions imposed on universities and businesses which do not comply with the new rules.

The Green party have proposed looser visa restrictions and also the removal of tuition fees for UK students. Their policy document has this to say: “Under a Green Government Higher Education Institutions will be properly funded by the state so that where international students are fee-paying the amount the institution charges will more accurately reflect the true cost.”

4

General Election Survey The Rabbit conducted a survey among Essex students to ask them about who they were planning on voting for and what issues they felt most strongly about.

FRIDAY 24TH APRIL | ISSUE 167

Increased tax regulation

18.3%

Securing the NHS

62.5%

Addressing wealth inequality

35%

Lowering tuition fees

30.8%

Increased funding for education

33.3%

Economic Growth

35.8%

Improving the environment

26.7%

Working towards the decentralisation of government

8.3%

Increasing jobs

38.3%

Increasing housing availability

22.5%

Against sustaining/increasing levels of immigration

12.5%

For sustaining/increasing levels of Immigration

11.7%

In favour of more antidiscrimination laws

14.2%

Decriminalising drugs

11.7%

Remaining in the European Union

39.2%

Leaving the European Union

5.8%

Animal welfare

5.8%

Maintaining/increasing welfare benefits

10.8%

Cutting welfare benefits

7.5%

Increasing childcare allowances

1.7%

Improving living standards

31.7%

Improving national sexual health

5%

Maintaining a military presence in the Middle East

1.7%

Increasing Defence Spending

6.7%

Cutting Defence Spending

5.8%

Unprofessionalism of MPs in Parliament

10%

Improving human rights

18.3%

Against the privatisation of industry

19.2%

For the privatisation of industry

8.3%

Other

5%

NEWS

5

6

Friday 24th April | ISSUE 167

GENERAL ELECTION

7

We took your concerns to them The Rabbit polled a broad sample of Essex students and brought the results to party campaign headquarters and local politicians to try and get their reactions to the three most important topics to students.

As has been pointed out by many observers during this election campaign, some parties haven’t been exactly transparent in detailing some aspects of their policies. And considering the infamous turn of face on tuition fee commitments after the 2010 election, it is so important that students put pressure on those in Parliament to listen and react to our political fears, desires and goals.

We were unable to make contact with the Liberal Democrat party. The Rabbit has not received any content from the Conservative party despite their contact with the paper.

the point of use”.

On behalf of UKIP, Harwich and North Essex parliamentary candidate Mark Hughes tells us the party will ensure “the NHS is free at the point of delivery and time of need for all UK residents,” whilst stopping PFI contracting in the NHS and encouraging “local authorities to buy out their PFI contracts early where this is affordable”. With regards to the strain put on the NHS through immigration, UKIP “will ensure that visitors to the UK, and migrants until they have paid NI for five years, have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK.”

The National Health Service Tuition Fees and Funding for Education Labour campaign headquarters directed us to the ‘Changing Britain Together’ release from late 2010, which pledges that Labour “will protect and strengthen the NHS” by “repealing the Government’s Health and Social Care act” 2012 and “[recruiting] 20,000 more nurses and 8,000 more GPs paid for by a tax on properties worth over £2 million”. Additionally the Labour candidate for Harwich and North Essex, Edward Carlsson Browne, has pledged “[guaranteed] appointments within 48 hours” of contacting your local surgery.

Similarly, the Green party will reverse the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Local Green candidate and University of Essex student Christopher Flossman outlines the Green’s commitment to “remove competition and ‘market motives’ within the NHS”, whilst opposing the effect that the cuts have had on our on-campus surgery. The Young Green’s Georgia Elander also promises a “reverse [of] the privatisation of the health service that has happened so far” as part of the Green’s broader commitment to “a fully-funded, publicly-provided NHS, free for all at

UKIP propose a partial elimination of tuition fees, specifically for those in the STEM fields (science/ medicine, technology, engineering and mathematics) “on the condition that they live, work and pay tax in the UK for five years after the completion of their degrees”. Mark Hughes also outlined the party’s rejection of the target of 50% of school leavers continuing to University as well as their policy proposal for EU students to pay the same level of tuition fees as non-EU International students.

As a party that polled high among many on campus, the Young Green’s Georgia Elander reinforced the party’s philosophy that “education is a public good, not a commodity to be bought and sold”. As a major part of this, the Greens would “scrap tuition fees for all students” and “write off all existing student debt”.

Chastising the coalition for their “betrayal on tuition fees”, Labour’s Edward Carlsson Browne outlined the proposal for a reduction of tuition fees to £6,000 per annum alongside “[increasing] maintenance grants”

by £400, “so nobody is priced out of education”. The funding for such a policy was outlined by Labour campaign headquarters: “reducing the tax relief for people on very high incomes paying into pension schemes” and “capping the total eligible for tax relief in a lifetime at £1m”. This would result in “cutting debts for graduates and cutting the national debt too”.

Graduate Employment Naturally an important topic across the whole university, Georgia Elander of the Young Greens points out how “austerity politics has led to a shortage of skilled and graduate-level jobs”. To reverse this trend, the Greens would end austerity and invest in public services and infrastructure, which “would create over 1 million good jobs”. For the benefit of those graduating with degrees in the scientific and medical fields, the Greens would invest 1% of GDP into scientific research to guarantee jobs in these fields, according to Christopher Flossman.

Labour pledge a paid job for every 18-24 year old who is not in work, education or training for over a year as part of their ‘Youth Jobs Guarantee’. In order to compete with other EU economies, Labour has pledged to introduce “Technical degrees delivered by universities and employers”.

Regardless of who you vote for, or whether you vote in the first place, remember that a general election is not the be-all and end-all of politics. Politicians can only react to the issues we as students hold close to our hearts if we take the initiative and get our message across. Whether that’s done through protest or even a simple email, something is always better than nothing. Our political parties and MPs are meant to work for us; make them work.

8

Young politician Christopher Flossman is a 21-year old University of Essex student, he is also the Green Party candidate for the Harwich and North Essex constituency.

The Rabbit wanted a closer insight into why he was running for election at such a young age, and what he thought he could bring.

Christopher told us that he wasn’t initially planning on running on behalf of his party, it was only when another Young Green candidate was unable to stand that he was decided to step forward. “On campus I do a lot of advocating for the [Green] Party, and as a parliamentary candidate I can say with certainty… ‘If you elect me, this is what I’ll do.’”

As the President of the Young Greens society on campus, Christopher is fervent supporter of the party, adding “for me, the Greens are the only real option this election. They’re the only ones offering a real alternative to a cuts agenda

and a politics of fear.”

Christopher was keen to respond to suggestions that the young are simply not interested in voting. He said “I completely understand the apathy and the annoyance or disengagement with politics, [the other parties] offer us nothing.”

Christopher added “I hope as a peer of students on campus that they can say I’ll understand the problems that they are facing, and I hope that will encourage more people to question me and to take notice and engage.”

The Rabbit does not endorse any party or candidate. Christopher is a University of Essex student, and as such we wish him the best of luck in his endeavours.

Friday 24th April | ISSUE 167

Voting matters While compiling this General Election special issue, I heard a friend loudly protesting the view that the suffragettes campaigned so that women could choose to vote, if they so wished. She felt, not unreasonably, that if that was their aim - and not , in fact, for all women to exercise their vote - then they may have done a bit less of the suffering-and-dyingfor-the-vote thing. Maybe they would have just knitted some protest baby hats or baked an angry cake.

from those who abstain incidentally.

Their protest is lost in a sea of apathy. You might know that the reason you stayed in bed and ate pizza all day was because of David Cameron’s stupid smug face, but as far as David Cameron is aware, you’re just a disinterested, pizza-stained chump that he doesn’t have to worry about. (Please note: other politicians also have stupid smug faces. David Cameron is simply an example. It’s not my fault he fits the description so well.)

But they didn’t. They died.

Get up, get dressed, get out the door and take your voting slip and scribble on it. Write a limerick across it. Draw a mouse next to every candidate’s name, fold it into a plane and slip it in the box. Painstakingly write everything wrong with politics over the slip.

It really doesn’t matter. If you don’t want to vote for a party, then spoiling your ballot sends a message. It shows you care enough to engage with the system, and that you don’t like the system as it it.

Now, I am fairly sure that the message that my friend was trying to get across wasn’t that women have to vote (because the suffragette’s would have wanted it) but men, who have had the vote for aaaaages, don’t have to.

Everyone has that right to vote. It is an essential and vital part of your citizenship.

Some people think that not voting is the ultimate expression of dissatisfaction. That you are shrugging off that cloak of citizenship in favour of a cloak of a-bit-of-an-arsehole, however that is simply not the case. Not voting as a way of sending a message to the governing classes (elitist scum, etc.) makes as much sense as boycotting a library: hardly anyone notices, and those who do assume it’s because you’re illiterate and/or a moron. Who boycotts libraries?!

If your desire to not vote is driven by dislike of the parties, then you should still turn up, take your voting slip, and spoil it. Those who abstain deliberately are entirely indistinguishable

Voting matters. Not voting doesn’t matter at all.

Remember: Returning officers in the Counting Station can exercise their judgement in deciding whether a preference has been indicated, so if you’re placing a protest vote, make it clear that is what it is. Perhaps by writing ‘This is a protest vote’ through all the boxes.

Ed Gove

GENERAL ELECTION

9

10

The NHS is sick What are the 7 parties saying about the NHS? This article presents an easy to read table on what the main policy choices regarding the NHS presented in this election are and how they will be implemented.

The NHS is sick and that is in all senses of the word. Everyone knows, in theory, what these three letters stand for, but we usually only really appreciate the importance of the National Health Service when we are ill. Or when this safety net is about to be changed - as is being the proposed in policies by the 7 competing parties for the General Election in May 2015.

Here you are, trying to decide on which party you will vote for in the next General Election. With it being only a few weeks away and with so much information to process, it can seem overwhelming to try and understand the specific differences between each party and their proposed policies. So what do you do? You could read every single party manifesto and make up your own mind, or perhaps rely on your most trusted news channel’s comparison of party policies. Maybe you get advice from your parents to make the choice a bit easier. Whatever it is, get as much information as possible, because an informed vote is what will make you as independent as possible from bias. To help you with that task, Politics Made Public have provided you with a small graphic that hopefully makes the differences between parties, regarding the future of the NHS, a little clearer. * NOTE: This is only a limited overview of party politics. Please look at the individual party manifestos for a more detailed insight.

Jasper Tautorus – Editor in Chief of PMP – The Public Life Editor’s Note: Politics Made Public is a nation-wide student journal dedicated to fighting political apathy by making politics simple, approachable and interesting.

If you are interested in reading more articles like this one written especially for The Rabbit, or you are interested in writing your own ‘simple politics’ article, visit www.politicsmadepublic.com, or email editor@politicsmadepublic.com.

Friday 24th April | ISSUE 167

GENERAL ELECTION

11

VoteSwap - what is it?

Using your vote wisely is a vague phrase. Many people understand it to mean that they should think carefully, weigh up the options, and consider what is best for their area, themselves and their country before they vote. VoteSwap is an online campaign that is adding an entirely new dimension to the idea of using your vote wisely. The website has been conceived in an effort to keep the Conservative party out of power.

VoteSwap blames our “unfair” first-past-the-post system of government for putting voters in a position where they have to choose between their favourite party and the party which stands the greatest chance of preventing the victory of their least favourite party. Essentially it is a conflict between voting on ideological lines, and voting tactically.

The site proclaims that “The idea is simple. We want to let Green and Labour supporters swap votes in ways that boost both of their parties and gives the best possible chance of stopping the Conserva-

tives from winning the election.” The way that it works is Green Party supporters in Labour target seats pledge to vote Labour, and in return, Labour supporters in Green target seats pledge to vote Green. In effect, the national vote count would not change, however there would be more Green and Labour MPs, and a decline in Tory MPs. There is a similar scheme that has been launched by the writer and campaigner Toby Young where Conservative and UKIP voters swap votes to benefit their party.

The ethics of this system are murky. Essentially, there is no overall effect on the number of votes that each party gets, however the votes that are placed are done to geographically affect the final outcome of the election. And that is where the problem comes in. The idea of a vote is that you place your vote for the person you want to vote for - whether you decide on that person through tactical considerations, ideological ones or any other

is irrelevant. What this system is promoting is the manipulation of the system to effect your desired outcome.

Perhaps you can think about it like this: while this is not strictly illegal or against the rules, it is not strictly in accordance with the rules. In a similar way, some might suggest, to how Jimmy Carr’s tax situation was not strictly illegal or against the rules, but it wasn’t the right thing to do either.

However, there is strictly speaking, nothing wrong with vote swapping, and as the site claims, one of the strongest common traits among Green and Labour voters is a passionate desire not to wake up to a Conservative government. It is just as credible a response to suggest that, if a non-Conservative government is your aim, then VoteSwap is the way forward.

Ed Gove

12

FEATURE

In Conversation with Professor Paul Whiteley As I enter Paul Whiteley’s office in the Department of Government at the University of Essex, he greets me with a warm smile and a friendly “Hello,” shaking my hand somewhat reluctantly; he doesn’t seem one for formalities. Before I’ve even taken a seat, he’s already engaged me in conversation; asking what degree I’m studying and how it’s going for me. It’s easy to see how he is considered such a well-liked and approachable academic across campus, and a reliable expert in the eyes of the media.

the Lib Dems on 48.

His office is not huge or luxurious, but it is an inviting one – a simple layout with a desk, and a small table with chairs messily gathered around it, as though he’s just finished chatting with fellow colleagues from the Centre for Elections, Public Opinion and Parties (EPOP). His desk is tidy but busy, much like the man himself. Whiteley is not a pollster, but a dedicated researcher, that much is clear. His recent mathematical model designed to predict the outcome of this May’s general election is unlike any other. The forecast from his results puts Labour on 291 seats, the Tories on 281 and

Reflecting on this, and his own model’s results, he states confidently, “I think, increasingly, it’s quite possible that the outcome will be a Labour-SNP coalition,” – a controversial thought, given the recent outcry against the simple suggestion of a possible future partnership to govern Britain. He also floats the notion, with a light chuckle, of a Lab-Lib-SNP coalition. “The reason I say that is that the SNP has said, without any equivocation, that they would not go into coalition with the Conservatives – they just wouldn’t do it.

At the time we spoke, he said he believed current polls suggested no party would win an overall majority – a sentiment shared by many across the country. The most interesting implication recently for forecasts, he believes, comes from the findings of a series of Lord Ashcroft polls taken in Scotland, which Whiteley says, “show that the surge from Labour to the SNP during the Independence Referendum campaign, is stable – it’s not weakening.”

“Lib Dems are taking up the same position as before, which is ‘whoever’s the largest party, we’ll negotiate with them first – it doesn’t guarantee we’ll go into coalition with them – but we’ll talk to them and others if necessary.’”

The degree of multi-party politics we’re seeing in the run-up to this May’s election is quite uncommon with the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system. The old argument that our current system keeps extremist parties at bay, has evaporated into thin air – though, what constitutes ‘extremist’ is a heavily debated topic. In some people’s view, the UK Independence Party is extremist, but to their supporters, they’re merely nationalists.

So, surely it’s time to switch to a much more proportional electoral system? Whiteley agrees, but points out that there is no such thing as a perfect system: “Of course, people feel as though their vote is worth more [with proportional representation], but many have raised issues of accountability – proportional systems create coalitions and, as we’ve seen, it’s difficult to know who to blame

Friday 24th April | ISSUE 167

when things go wrong.”

When two-party politics was the norm, our system worked. But now there are certainly many more independents or ‘floating voters’ who, as Whiteley points out, “will switch and change, depending on what what’s on offer at the time.” The political spectrum is much more vast, making predicting this upcoming election more difficult than getting through a conversation with David Cameron without him using the phrase ‘long-term economic plan’.

No models we have at the moment are capable of accurately looking at voting intentions on a seatby-seat basis and, whilst Lord Ashcroft is conducting polls in individual constituencies, these are only in marginal seats, giving us only a glimpse of what may come – Whiteley has been pushing for further funding to be put into such polls on more individual seats, but says he has been met with some blockages.

“What we need are detailed surveys in – let’s say – the top 150 marginals and to do that several times, so that we can get an accurate map of the political landscape, but it’d very expensive to do that.”

This sort of polling could also worm out any other growing UKIP strongholds, such as current Labour

areas in the North that haven’t yet been investigated for possible sneaky surges in support, which could lead to a surprise attack. I also suspect we could get a shock when the results for seats like the ultra-marginal Stockton South are called – and not a pleasant one at that. The Professor agrees, but says he still feels as though Labour hold the advantage in their heartland, and will most likely continue to do so.

But what are the weaknesses to models, such as his, that focus on individual seats? Whiteley openly admits that there are drawbacks, particularly the difficulties that come with creating a model based on past elections, given that some of the parties you’re looking at in this election, didn’t exist back then. He also concedes that his model is slightly off when it comes to the Lib Dems: “I think the Lib Dems, judging by the existing Ashcroft data, are likely to get between 30 and 32 seats; we’re calling it, from our model, 46 and I think that’s too high,” though he does believe that Sir Bob Russell will hold his Colchester seat, despite the fact the Lib Dems are polling nationally at around 8 per cent but, with the incumbency factor in his favour, Russell is, as Whiteley accurately puts it, “Mr Colchester.”

As for the Greens, Whiteley is of the opinion that this is still a surge, albeit not quite a tidal wave.

“They’ve certainly raised their game and in some

GENERAL ELECTION

13

polls they’re higher than the Lib Dems… And they are appealing, as is clear with the surge in membership, to students.” As our chat begins to draw to a close, we move off toward the topic of devolution – quite a relevant topic, given Nicola Sturgeon’s appraised performance at the leaders’ debates. Whiteley says he’s keen on it, but doesn’t understand why the focus has been entirely on the Northern cities and regions – most likely because the government of the day, no matter the colour of their rosette, have never quite been sure what to do with the North for some time now, and so see devolution as a possible vote-winner.

Regardless, the Professor sees devolution as a step forward for democracy, “just so long as you don’t start imposing these enormous regional assemblies on people – just let the current bodies collaborate and work together, but with more powers.” He quotes the phrase “All politics is local,” from the former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, making the point that “people are more concerned about who’ll sort out the potholes in the road, than the grand scheme of things.” So, perhaps its time there was more emphasis placed, by politicians and political commentators alike, on the local as well as the national issues.

“There’s been so much hypocrisy around this subject; parties in opposition seem all for devolution, but then as soon as they get into power they brush it to the side, because they want to keep everything in Westminster.” Indeed, it would appear that this “London-centric politics,” as Whiteley calls it, could be the very thing disenfranchising so many voters. He believes the health of our democracy is in decline, though he notes that, globally, national election turnouts have a tendency to decline. “My primary concern is the youth vote… Perhaps its because they feel they don’t have as much stake in the system, but this reluctance to vote has created a politics for ‘the old’.”

As many readers will know, students have been the some of the hardest hit during these five years of Conservative austerity measures, whilst every elderly citizen is entitled to a winter fuel allowance, regardless of their income. But as Paul points out, this is because the over-65’s turnout the most, whilst the 18-25 year olds turn out the least. Of course, the incentive a government shouldn’t be to create policy that benefits only those who are more likely to go the ballot, but that’s the Westminster game that has been played for hundreds of years now.

His final message to all: “Get out there and vote, I can think of nothing more important, regardless of your age,” and in a time of multicolour politics, with such an unpredictable election and the crumbling of the two-party system having already begun – as well as the shadowy prospect of another five years of this government’s ‘long-term economic plan’ – I can’t think of a better time to get out the vote either.

Tom Hunter

14

COMMENT

Yes. Unless you mean the more elaborate interpretation of the word, meaning someone who shares your outlook, beliefs and morality. In which case, not at all. Let us break it down: Firstly, consider our majoritarian first past the post-election system. Many MPs are elected on less than 40% of the vote in their constituencies.

This means that fewer than half of the people who actually bothered to vote in that constituency wanted that person to obtain the seat.

The democratic deficit is already apparent at this first stage.

Fred Hicks says

Leticia Osei says

YES

NO

Are we represented?

Secondly, we have to remember that many people feel as though they vote for a party rather than an MP, and are apathetic to the actual person they are electing. The constituency MP is dying as government becomes more focused on central institutions.

This exacerbates the democratic deficit, as many voters are not voting for a person to represent them in parliament, but instead for a government to make laws.

Thirdly, even if you vote for an MP knowing who they are and sharing similar values, what are the chances that they will vote the same way that you would on every parliamentary decision? Slim indeed. Supporting the same party doesn’t mean uniformity in beliefs throughout it. Parties divide over issues all the time, just look at the Tories over Europe for example.

Considering this, we must take our election system with a pinch of salt. Yes, let the legislators legislate, but we should be pressing the government to let us make more of our own decisions. We need to be asked. In my short lifetime, we have been to war and adopted the Lisbon Treaty of the European Union, and not a single member of the public had any influence on the decisions.

politicians because they have turned their backs on us (tuition fees?). I get pamphlets saying “Vote Labour”, but why should I? When will ministers take the time to engage with our thoughts and listen to our concerns about the future? This could possibly have the capacity to broaden our outlook on elections and how we could create a positive impact.

Don’t get me wrong, MPs and MEPs are vital for representing the general mood of the public and getting on with technical administrative matters regarding legislation, committees and so on, but so many decisions are made that we should be consulted on and aren’t. They are doing things without our express approval. Each big decision is an incremental move towards centralised power in parliaments such as Westminster and Strasbourg. We should be pushing for more direct democracy to supplement the decisions made by parliaments, so that we can work with them and not against them.

The young electorate like you and I, may have wanted change; we may have wanted something new, but I can’t say that with certainty because over half of us didn’t even vote. The coalition seemed to be something new, but as it stands, the young voters can are watching it turn back into the same 2-horse race. Vote Labour, or vote Conservative.

So where does that leave you and me? I hope that the same vigour and tenacity that was shown in the young adults in Scotland’s bid for independence rubs off on us. I hope that Rick Edwards’ efforts hosting BBC 3 show Free Speech will not be in vain. And I hope that we will all be motivated to have a say on our future.

The low amount of 18-24 visiting a polling booth is completely staggering and needs to be changed, but the question is… will it?

Why is it that the general election turnout in 2010 for 18-24 year olds was 44% while the turnout for 65 and over’s 76%? I don’t have the answers and I don’t think anyone does.

I would like to say that I set my alarm clock on Sunday mornings to make sure I don’t miss Sunday Politics or The Andrew Marr Show, but I don’t.

When it comes to live TV debates the parties battle it out to try and show who is worth your vote. Now I can identify that topics such as the economy, immigration, and the NHS are important, but I don’t know exactly where I fit into all of this. I cry out for the day when politicians actually take a genuine interest in us, not just regurgitating what they think we might want to hear. We have heard it all before: “I promise you more apprenticeships, lower tuition fees, better opportunities”.

Yet unemployment for 18-24 year olds comes to 14% and 1.7 million are economically inactive. Arguably, the sentiment in the current political climate has subtly changed. Ethnic minorities used to be one of the key demographics that were targeted.

Particularly in 1997, politicians would express what the UK had to offer and the economic benefits that ethnic minorities could tap into. The point is they may have felt like they mattered, that they were of some measurable importance to politicians, but that idea has vanished. Unfortunately we, young voters, seem to provoke that lack of sincere engagement on the part of politicians, because we can’t trust them to keep their word.

Quite frankly, there may be a lack of trust between young adults and

Friday 24th April | ISSUE 167

GENERAL ELECTION

Because it Counts Now, you don’t know me, but if you did, you would know that I have a very strong opinion when it comes to public involvement in politics.

This becomes increasingly aggressive when talking on the subject of young voters, and I practically explode when talking about some young peoples’ belief that their vote ‘doesn’t matter’.

Voting keeps me angry. By simply being aware of all the shenanigans that the government keeps running us through, I am provided with the spiritual energy to look into where the budget is going, to care about taxation, to bother to read their manifestos, to drag myself out of bed and to go the polling station. Now, those shenanigans can be anything from another Conservative extra-marital affair, an illegal Labour donation, or the entire UKIP party. Whatever may be going on behind closed doors, those shenanigans also decide the future of this country and my life.

It would be simple enough, at least for me, to just tune out of politics. I don’t typically read newspapers (present publication excepted),

I’m not officially a member of any political organisation or site, and my immediate circle of friends are not typically the ones to approach me on a Friday night asking who’s going to sort out the deficit.

to mention the disrespect the government keep on showing me, which just keeps encouraging me to lash back out at them. I refuse to become complacent, and will work the system harder than it tries to work me.

Truthfully, I’m not saying that it’s easy to keep myself going. Is politics something hard to keep up with? Yes. It takes commitment, drive, brainpower; the likes of which even my essays don’t see! But I continue on. People keep talking about how the voters, especially young people, have become disillusioned and disenchanted with politics, how nothing seems to change.

Well, yeah… the sorry news is, it’s true! Politics is not encouraging, engaging, or enchanting; it is hard, and boring, and can often seem lacklustre.

Does this mean we should give up hope and abandon them? No. Just like your 35 looming assignments they show no sign of hope, but they will return to you the effort you put into them. If you work hard at it, something will change, no matter how unlikely it seems. By shoving my vote in that box, I am reminded of the personal and public responsibility I have, not

So, on Thursday 7th May, I will stomp up to the old woman manning the desk, slam my registration card down on the table before her, and I shall carve out this country’s destiny with the provided annoying, yet comically undersized, pencils. And you know why?

Because it counts.

Savanna Rayment

An Australian view on UK elections It’s been described to me as ‘a hellish experience, with too many voices and bulls*** flying everywhere.’ With the UK general elections underway, it has been quite an exhausting experience explaining that, since I’m a foreign student, I won’t be voting and I don’t get a say. This has not, however, stopped the all too enthusiastic ‘political spectators’ of Essex sharing their thoughts, ideas, opinions and pamphlets.

In this rush of political ecstasy, I’d be the first one to admit that any opinion formed under these circumstances would never be 100% defensible.

However, the outsider’s perspective that I’ve gained from the last three months of exposure to British politics is, I feel, a unique one.

First of all, I find the whole ‘two-and-a-halfparty’ system to be intriguing to say the least.

David Cameron and Ed Miliband both seem to treat Nick Clegg with a sort of condescending snarl. I even heard David Cameron call his own Deputy a “desperate attention seeker”. What sort of politics is this? Add in UKIP, the Greens and the Scottish National Party and I can begin to

understand how Parliament gets so loud. From what I can see, Britain has six parties all with completely different views, and some of those parties try to convince the public that they’re in a ‘coalition’. How does anything get through parliament these days?

It’s always been said that no one does bureaucracy better than the British, but the interparty venom, the endless mud-slinging and the brutal interview tactics employed by all sides make the whole system look like street-fighting in suits.

The Conservatives call UKIP “closet racists”, UKIP call the Greens “desperate communists”, the Liberal Democrats call out Labour on their “weary cynicism” and Labour call the Conservatives “NHS killers.” Am I meant to be swayed by any of this?

The fact is, from the outside looking in, British politics pre-election seems like a mad scramble to assert one’s dominance, not step on your own party’s toes and cut down your opponents with machete-like aggression. Let’s just hope that it all works out come the 7th of May.

Sam Doble

15

16

Analysis - What difference can young people make in the 2015 General Election?

A few weeks ago a friend told me that in the last general election, there were fewer young voters (under 25) than there were older (over 75) nonvoters. That seemed like a lot of rubbish at the time, but after watching the Leaders Debate I felt less willing to vote than ever before. I had joined the disillusioned, maybe there was some truth to this statement. I felt that all of the parties had nothing to offer young people, or in other words future voters and future leaders. British Future think tank predicts that only 41% of 18-25 year olds will vote in the upcoming election compared to the national average turnout of over 50%. What if more young people voted? How would this affect the outcome? And how would it affect the attitudes of the parties towards young people?

young peoples votes, but just to encourage us to register. The second factor is Labour policies which appeal to young people, for example the pledge to end zero-hours contracts, the introduction of fairer renting policies and changes to the NHS. In the last year, younger supporters for UKIP have doubled in number, meaning that the party is currently polling higher than the Greens and Lib Dems (no surprises there Mr. Clegg) for under 25s. But this number throws doubt on the commonly held view that UKIP have nothing to offer young people and that they are reliant on the aforementioned ‘grey’ vote. When we consider the

This country, we ought to remember, has an aging population. The number of registered voters between the ages of 18-25 has been decreasing gradually from the 1970s, despite the increased turnout in 2010. Whereas people over 75 are much more likely to vote, which is sometimes referred to as the ‘grey vote’. It seems unsurprising in this light why parties seem so generally uninterested in attracting young voters. Does our vote really matter that much? Or does just it not matter much to them?

Because we often choose not to vote.

There will be more than 3.3 million new voters for this election, that’s quite a few, and according to news sources “you’re up for grabs”. Like a free iPod, you’re a prizes to be won.

This seems contradictory when parties seem to offer so little to to young people. Well, it depends who you all intend to vote for. This year it seems the party of the under 25s is the Green Party. Over 16,000 members of the party are under 30, which is just over a quarter of its members. Perhaps this is because they offer an alternative to the parties that made us pay £9000 a year for our degree. The Greens also pledge to take seriously the issues that concern young people. Issues like education, the NHS, employment, social justice and climate change.

However according to British Future over 40% of these ‘certain’ young voters will vote Labour. This we can put down to two factors. The Labour party has begun addressing young people specifically: Ed Miliband has been campaigning, not for just

common concerns for younger people; housing, jobs and the NHS for example, their perspective and policies offer an alternative. Unfortunately this alternative, it is apparent, is using immigrants as scapegoats. Immigrants who are much better for the economy and society than Nigel Farage and his cronies are willing to admit. Your votes are valuable to the young party and they know it.

Because of our anachronistic first-past-the-post voting system, people don’t necessarily vote for the party of their choice, and often end up voting tactically. It often depends on the seats. There are quite a few seats in the country where attracting the younger vote will be crucial to deciding the

winners. Younger voters can sway around 35 seats in the UK! Over half of those seats were highly contested marginal seats in the last election.

Sheffield Central, for example, has more than 35% registered voters under the age of 25, as well as being a marginal seat between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Your vote matters much more here.

It’s also interesting to note that a lot of the voters in Sheffield Hallam, Nick Clegg’s constituency, are students or graduates. Many of whom have not taken kindly to the rise in tuition fees. It is currently predicted that he will lose his seat in the upcoming election, I have a feeling that those two facts might be related… If they are (and you know they are) then parties should be wary of the power the young people.

Then we ought consider the Conservative party.

Your votes are highly valuable to them, but not in the way you might think.

You probably get the feeling that the Conservatives offer little to young people, that their policies over the past five years have hurt young people.

If the majority of younger voters favour Greens and Labour then your votes are incredibly valuable, but only if you don’t use them.

After all this, I feel that the most important difference young votes can have is the attitude towards young people in society. If 41% is going to be the turn out all it shows the media, to the world and to our countries future leaders is that we either don’t care or we just lack enough sense to understand politics. If more and more young people choose not to vote, the political parties will have no re ason to represent us. Every vote matters. Your vote matters. But only if you use it.

Alice Vardy

Friday 24th April | ISSUE 167

GENERAL ELECTION

17

We are too uneducated on politics I can understand why people feel disillusioned to vote in the 2015 general election, but I still think it is important to vote regardless.

A big issue I have with party politics is the petty and snide remarks the parties make against each other. It’s hard to go anywhere without seeing billboards of certain parties slagging off other parties when surely it would be more sensible for them to promote their own policies rather than focus upon cheap jibes. When David Cameron was asked in the debate against Ed Miliband what he thought Ed’s best qualities were, I laughed. I laughed because those sort of questions are never asked in politics.

The British electorate would have more respect for politicians if they could appreciate and praise their opposition, while offering arguments about why your policies are better, not why they are worse.

Surely that would be more effective in parliament?

This would show a maturity in British politics that I feel has been lacking in recent years. This lack of maturity is evident in the frankly embarrassing Prime Ministers Questions. Britain needs mature and respectable politicians that the public can trust. That would inspire a much higher number of voters.

Politics should be taught in schools. Compulsorily.

The result of the general election impacts everyone’s life in some shape or form in Britain, so it makes sense that we should all be educated to at least a basic level in the subject. Instead, we are exposed to petty propaganda spouted out by prospective parties and a biased media. As a result, people could go into the voting booths with knowledge or understanding, because, realistically the amount of information about foreign policy, health policy, education, defence, tax policy, etc

is a lot to digest. Some people vote for parties without really knowing how it will affect them.

It is so important that people exercise their right to vote. I’ve heard too many people say “I would vote for that party but they won’t win anyway”. This is an issue with the first-past-thepost system, however, if everyone thinking that did just vote for the party they thought appealed to them, they may actually stand a chance. So although it is easy to be pessimistic about politics vote and you never know, it might actually count for something.

Laurence Shimell

Why should we vote?

I am aware of the 4 approaches that young people take to politics. There is the “I don’t have a clue about politics so my vote would be a waste” person, the “I’ll vote for X party because my family do” type, the “voting only benefits the 1% and not ordinary folk like me” kind, and the politically active student, whom are the most formidable.

My exasperation is with the first three groups. I can perfectly understand being apathetic to any of the parties up for election and abstaining from voting on that basis, but to do so because you lack an understanding of what you are voting for seems almost lazy to me. Surely you must realise that these votes elect a government which makes decisions every day which affect your life and those of your friends and family?

You must make some small effort to educate yourself, even if it is just watching the leaders’ debates that we obsess over these days. The same goes for the second group, whom are equally as frustrating because they base their understanding of policy and morality on what their parents believe!

That doesn’t seem too progressive to me.

However, the main focus of my exasperation is directed at the third group. If young people collectively forfeit their vote, then they will find

themselves even more ignored by politicians than they are now. According to Ipsos Mori, in the 2010 election, turnout amongst under 25 year olds was a disappointing 44%. Politicians ignore young people because young people ignore them. They know that if they upset you, it makes a smaller impact on their reelection prospects than it would for another group. The way to change the system is through forcing your opinion on the government through elections; that is what they are there for.

Considering countries enter violent revolutions to obtain democracy, we should feel very grateful for our ability to change our futures through the ballot box, and utilise it. We cannot simply “stop voting because we hate politicians”. The system will continue without us and leave us behind. Russell Brand may sound very persuasive when he talks about the links between politicians and city fat cats and so on, but his argument for ending democracy is all but paper thin.

Get educated, and get voting. It is only once in every 5 years that we are asked what we think, and to forfeit that opportunity is a huge waste.

Frederick Hicks

18

aRT

Enough of the Gimicky Videos… What about the arts!

As the general election hots up, so do the political parties advertising campaigns. I’m sure you have all seen the YouTube adverts where local politicians tell us how much they love Colchester and want to see it thrive *Presses Skip Ad,* but recently we have seen a rise in musical videos as a way of enticing potential voters. The Green Party released their video ‘Change the Tune’, but in my opinion I find that whilst these video’s are catchy and a great way to grab attention I feel that they do not offer me, as a voter, the knowledge I need to make my vote.

Furthermore, whilst I am sure they were using these videos as a way to appeal to a younger, more arts-centred audience, their utter lack of arts-centred policies makes me unwilling to vote for any of the parties this year!

For many years now the arts have been subject to many detrimental cuts to budgets, this has meant that ticket prices have rocketed and the popularity of the London theatre market has decreased.

There has been a lack of support for new theatre in government, leaving the industry to rely on tourism and celebrity casting to gain the money they need to make their shows a success. It seems like every month a show is announcing that it will be closing early due to lack of promising ticket sales, even shows like ‘I Can’t Sing’ the X Factorbased creation of Simon Cowell and Harry Hill, which should have been a hit closed earlier than they had expected due to poor ticket sales. In my opinion, if the arts are to truly survive the change of government we need to start seeing some decent policies

A spot of Arty Election Fun! On The Guardian Website there is a fun set of black and white photos of the different political leaders for you to colour in. This is a fun way for you to de-stress during the exam period by partaking in a little spot of arts and crafts fun!

We will be having our own competition with the best entry going on The Rabbit’s award-winning website! I will also look into getting you a rather more tangible prize!

So have fun colouring in the pictures to your hearts content and email them to jrichb@essex. ac.uk where we will pick a winner! http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ gallery/2015/apr/08/the-general-electioncolouring-in-book-in-pictures

and promises from those wanting to be in charge. This will mean that we get support, for not only new companies, but also an acknowledgement of the importance of arts in schools. In time this would hopefully lead to a wider acknowledgement of the arts overall and help to make the arts a valid and financially secure section of industry.

I would like to see less importance placed on gimmicky videos and more importance placed on what politicians will do for the arts overall.

Jessica Rich

The Political Art of Photoshopping This year part of the Liberal Democrats campaign has seen them photoshop the heads of political leaders on to pictures of the popular TV Series Game of Thrones. This is a bit of light hearted fun that take some of the stress out of the elections.

Here at The Rabbit, we would love to see your photoshopped images of the party leaders and we will be sure to put the best entries online!

Email entries to jrichb@essex. ac.uk

Friday 24th April | ISSUE 167

GENERAL ELECTION

19

TV

Talk to me Cameron!

Yesterday I watched George Osborne fail to answer a simple question. Andrew Marr asked him once, twice, and then another sixteen times. Where will this magic ‘£8 billion’ come from which will save the NHS? I sat there wondering why they mention it now, and I can’t help but think it’s just another Tory ploy.

We can tick them off: backstabbing? check; personal attacks? check; kissing a child’s head like you’re the Son of God? check. The Conservatives attempts at television appearances just make me cringe.

country, has appeared on the show, willing to answer the gruelling questions about tuition fees. Then came the turn of the Tories and instead of going on the show himself Mr Cameron was represented by a panel including The Apprentice’s “I’m not a feminist” Luisa Zissman. It was shameful. What made it worse for me was the fact that earlier that day Cameron had stood in front of a room of elderly citizens and promised to listen to their concerns. He knows they vote. He knows we don’t.

It started when David Cameron, our Prime Minister, the leader of our nation’s democracy, refused to take part in any television debates. That is just appalling to me. Take BBC Three’s Free Speech for example. The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, who, let’s face it, has had his fair share of bad press over the last year, went on and answered the questions posed to him by young people.

I’m not trying to tell you who to vote for, but I am begging you to vote. Five years from now I will be 28 and I won’t be classed as a young person anymore but what I want to see is a government on my TV screen begging for young people’s attention because they know that if every 18-24 year old voted they would have the power to DECIDE WHO will be running our country. And to me that is a beautiful idea.

It made me feel like maybe he does care about our opinions. Even Nick Clegg, hated by thousands of young people across the

20

Like lambs to the slaughter Have you by any chance heard of the Judas goat? For this is what the image of David Cameron and the lamb brings to mind.

The Judas goat is used to cull goat and sheep populations on islands and farms. The reasoning is simple, and surprisingly elegant. A goat is taken at birth and trained to trust and obey man; the goat is then introduced to the local population. When the time is right the doors to the slaughterhouse open and the Judas goat leads the herd inside. Only the Judas goat survives.

led but we must not. Remember that the Judas goat is not an independent foe. Though the goat leads the herd to death the goat is itself a follower of powers greater than itself. The goat is moulded and shaped to lack any agency of its own, and rest assured that when the time comes the goat will lead another batch of willing victims into the slaughterhouse, but this time it will not be spared and a new goat will be chosen. To find true independence we cannot simply cast off the Judas goat, we must find the handlers and reduce their powers so that no more of us are lead gladly into the killing fields.

We cannot allow ourselves to be lead to the slaughterhouse, to allow Cameron’s cronies to dismember and butcher public institutions. A herd may allow itself to be blindly

Ross Homden

Friday 24th April | ISSUE 167

SCIENCE

Your 2015 PM is….

The Psychology of Voting The elections are quickly approaching and people are starting to consider who to vote for. But what are the factors that influence us when we are deciding who to give our future?

Even before the campaign season starts, we already have some political preferences, which can be influenced by a series of factors. Firstly our political views are strongly determined by the social groups we belong to. We inherit our political preferences from our family. Our political preferences are also shaped by where we reside and our religious affiliation.

Researchers have proven that the majority of voters stick with their pre-made decision whereas only 54 out of 600 people changed their vote over time. When a political campaign starts, a certain percentage of voters can be influenced by exposure to mass media. Some parties spend a huge amount of money on advertise-

ments and this allows them to reach out to huge group of people between various social groups to gain more voters. And sometimes this works. The same goes for political debates, which allow parties to promote themselves, talk about their manifesto’s or party platforms, and as a result influence voters to potentially vote for them.

Various studies have shown that we are quite optimistic regarding the candidates and parties we vote for. As you can tell, there are a variety of factors that influence who we vote for, but hopefully all of you will be happy with the decision you made. Happy voting!

Barbora Eliet Hrádecká

GENERAL ELECTION

21

22

GM and the GE The demand for development in biotechnology is crucial for the economy, public health and the environment. Along with this is the matter of government policy protecting and assisting advances in this area.

Most political parties acknowledge this, and have released statements outlining how they think this should be done. The greatest contention seems to be on what applications to support, and the most disagreement lies with the desirability, or lack thereof, of genetically modified crops.

Questioned by Nature, an online science journal, the Labour party stressed the necessity of increasing the use of GM crops in order to cope with increased demand for food but remain wary of regulations and aim to keep in line with scientific principles. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats responded to Nature, but the coalition has assured us through the DEFRA website that they see potential for GM agriculture, and would continue to regulate it without stifling its potential.

More worrying was the response by other parties

who may see their share of seats in parliament increase, and thus have a larger influence on scientific legislation. The SNP claimed to support GM research, but they oppose farming GM crops in Scotland in an effort to protect Scotland’s reputation for “natural” crops. This is despite a lack of evidence for such crops being any better than GM ones.

Plaid Cymru and the Green Party both oppose GM crops in any form, citing the precautionary principle that GM products should be treated with suspicion until the parties are convinced it has no bad consequences - much the same reason that some people oppose vaccinations. Given the lack of evidence supporting claims of GM having negative effects, coupled with decades of extensive safety checks proving the opposite, it is hard to see why people still do not support GM agriculture.

Hopefully, biotechnology’s potential will become more evident as time goes on, but as of right now it is disappointing that so many doubt the science behind it.

Tim Rosson

I can do science: Science is of extreme significance, no matter what and in every sense. Here are the main political parties’ thoughts on certain contentious scientific matters. When it comes to maintaining the UK’s position in the scientific community, each party has a variety of ideas.

Green Party Have plans to focus scientific efforts on combating threats in nature such as climate change, pollution, and biodiversity losses, as well as to improve quality of life in the UK. Labour They intend to create a new long term research and development plan that will invest in science and engineering programs at university levels. Also something about badgers...

Plaid Cymru Wants to safeguard Wales’ ability to remain and improve their standing in the field of science through improving the ability of future generations to advance in mathematics and the various scientific fields. They also intend to invest in research at university level.

SNP Is planning to promote scientific fields as career options, not to mention that their plan to develop, attract, and keep skilled and talented workers. They also will increase the capacity of world-class research, and revive the financial benefits associated with it.

UKIP Intends on encouraging students to pursue technical degrees in science, technology, engineering, medicine, and maths by the removal of tuition fees. The believe this will stimulate the interest of people to become scientists which is tantamount to maintaining the UK’s position in the scientific world.

Conservative Party Well, the Conservatives seem to have steered clear of the subject directly, though they have made a series of promises relating to spending on the environment but little detail on what they plan to do to improve it.

Alice Vardy

Friday 24th April | ISSUE 167

GENERAL ELECTION

23

Sports to Politics It is always a classic phrase you hear from sports folk: “There is no room for politics in sport”.

This may seem ironic as some of the most famous sporting rivalries are associated with political warfare – El Clasico springs to mind – and some retired sports personalities have even gone on to have a career in politics. Here are some of the most famous ones.

Lord Coe - Athlete The two-time Olympic champion swapped the track to pursuit a career at Westminster. In 1992, the mid-distance runner won the Falmouth and Camborne seat for the Conservative party and served a term before losing to Labour candidate, Candice Atherton, in the 1997 General Election.

His political career was revived when he accepted a Life Peerage on 16th May 2000, serving as William Hague’s chief of staff.

Vitali Klitschko - Boxer The Ukrainian heavyweight has played a massive part in Ukrainian politics. Klitschko ran for Mayor of Kiev in 2006 but lost to Leonid Chernovestskyi. However he was still elected to the Kiev City Council and re-elected again back in May 2008.

He was later appointed delegate of Ukraine for the Congress of the Council of Europe. Klitschko continued to rise through the political ranks and became leader of Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform (UDAR) in April 2010. Despite losing the 2012 Kiev mayoral elections, UDAR won 40 seats in the parliamentary elections where Klitschko was chosen as leader of the faction in Parliament.

Klitschko’s residence permit in Germany disrupted

his presidential bid in 2015 so he ran in the Mayoral elections in Kiev instead and won.

Manny Pacquaio - Boxer Born into crushing poverty of shanty towns and cardboard beds, Manny Pacquiao has built himself from nothing into a World Boxing Champion.

After his outstanding win against Shane Mosley, Pacquiao decided to take off his gloves and enter the political ring to fight the battles for the people of the Philippines, the land he grew up in. After a landslide victory in 2010 and 2013 Pacquiao has gone on to support bills to raise the minimum wage and increase efforts to battle human trafficking and has pledged $25 million of his own fortune to help the poorest gain access to free education and improved help. With his impending fight with Floyd Mayweather on 2nd May, it can be said Pacquiao’s boxing days are numbered but his political career is just beginning. He is a clean and much admired politician who will no doubt become a senator in 2016.

Sol Campbell - Footballer A man who managed to divide North London.

Since hanging up his boots, Sol Campbell has become increasingly vocal in politics. In 2013, during an interview with the London Evening Standard, Campbell said he liked “the mentality of Labour but the policies of the Conservatives”. The former defender criticised Ed Miliband’s mansion tax proposals in 2013, branding the policy as “madness”.

He has previously stated his interest to stand for the Conservatives and confirmed the rumours in February this year that he wants to be the Conservative candidate for the Mayor of London election in 2016.

And finally…

The General Election is fast approaching, and I hope that you have found enough information in this special edition of The Rabbit or elsewhere to help you make your voting decisions. On behalf of The Rabbit, I encourage you to go out and vote on 7 May, and to use this opportunity to have a say in the future of your country.

According to our surveys, a lot of students felt that they were not aware enough of politics to make a decision. If you have read this paper, or listened to the news, or watched even a small amount of the Leaders’ Debates. If you are happy with the current government or not. If you have ever used the NHS, and would like to use it again. If you have benefitted from our close relationship with the EU, or if you do

not like it. Or if you worry about the environment, then you are aware enough to cast your vote.

You do not need a PhD in politics to be able to vote. It is your privilege regardless of your academic background or expertise.

And your vote matters just as much as anyone elses - as much a Tony Blair’s vote or Simon Cowell’s vote or Jeremy Clarkson’s.

And you don’t want to leave the decision up to them, right?

In compiling this Special issue, I have had assistance from many quarters. Thanks to Politics Made Public, for their exclusive article and to the Council for the Defense of British Universities for the use of their infographics. To Paul Whiteley for his interview

and to all the writers and editors who have assisted me in putting this together. And to the political parties, without whom none of this would have been possible...

Best of luck in the coming terms with your exams, dissertations and future prospects.

Ed Gove, Senior Editor for Content

24

MUSIC

Interview:

Lucy Rose Lucy Rose is back with her new single “Our Eyes” available for pre-order on iTunes, and taking the country by storm on her latest tour.

With dates including Bushstock Festival still to go, there are still plenty of chances to catch her this summer. The Rabbit, however, got a taste of the magic early on down in Dingwalls, Camden. Supported by The Half Earth, Lucy Rose delivered an amazing set filled with both old and new material.

It’s been two years since the release of her debut album ‘Like I Used To’ and Rose certainly did not disappoint with her new tracks. Different from her old acoustic sound the new material she wowed the crowd with had more edge, replacing her old school acoustic guitar with an electric one. The change in sound might deter fans of the gentle folk essence in her music, however if this gig is anything to go by, I certainly don’t envision any issues with her sales. Rose captivated the audience as always. Dingwalls held the perfect atmosphere throughout the whole show. Her interaction with the crowd brought laughter to the masses as she revealed her friendly, bubbly personality. It became clear that the audience was made up of both diehards and newbies alike, many having tickets for both nights in Camden, the love for Lucy was very strong.

Song by song, Lucy Rose delivered stunning vocals, her delicate voice bringing the crowd

to near silence as she captured their hearts with a track from her old album, “Night Bus”, a track that’s been featured on MTV’s Catfish.

The Rabbit: You’ve had quite a lot happening between your albums, what would you say has been your favourite part or the thing you’re most proud of from your journey so far?

Lucy Rose: There are so many good memories. A lot of travelling, so touring is a massive part of the journey. Travelling America, touring in a van for eight weeks, I wrote a lot on the road. I’m really proud of Catfish. I love Catfish. I got quite addicted to it, so that is something I’m definitely proud of.

TR: You recently had a song on the hit show Girls too?

LR: Yes! Shiver. Shiver is the most important song to me on the record. I felt quite honoured that the emotion would be put with my music and also for the exposure from it.

TR: You’ve definitely come a long way; you still keep some of your old traditions though, like selling your tea at the merch stand. What is the story behind your special blend ‘Builder Grey’?

LR: It’s quite a boring story actually, I just enjoyed that blend and couldn’t be bothered to use two teabags and since I didn’t really want to make a T-Shirt at the time I made ‘Builder

Grey’.

TR: It’s certainly a unique concept. Something else that’s unique is your latest music video, with chip suits and sausages, what made you want to do it?

LR: The music video is not generic in any way.

I want to be perceived as me, not just dancing around. I’m really bad at dancing and the idea was too much fun to pass up on.

TR: You chose to follow your music instead of university; did you feel like you were going against the flow?

LR: I think I was the only girl in my entire school who didn’t go to university. I think I would have been going to university for the sake of it, not for something I’m wildly passionate about. The likelihood of this working out was one in a million and I’m so happy with where I am now, but I do definitely think I missed out sometimes.

TR: It was originally Geography you turned down at University College London, do you ever think about studying now? Music maybe?

LR: Definitely not music. I still love Physical Geography, like The National Geographic I just love. But I guess we get a lot of that when we’re travelling, with places like the Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls.

Charlotte Bell

FRIDAY 24TH APRIL | ISSUE 167

MUSIC

25

ALBUM REVEWS

HUDSON TAYLOR SINGING FOR STRANGERS

KENDRICK LAMAR TO PIMP A BUTTERFLY “When I get signed homie, I’mma act a fool” begins Kendrick Lamar on his second major label release; ‘To Pimp A Butterfly’. Anyone familiar with Lamar would recognise the irreverence of the album’s opening lines and know that he is no “fool”, but rather, a man who is using his position as the King of the West Coast to craft songs which address African American issues with unparalleled profundity. In many ways, ‘Butterfly’ seeks to call out both Lamar’s internal conflict and the struggles facing African Americans.

On “King Kunta”, Lamar criticises ghost-writers in mainstream hip-hop music at a time when racial inequality in America is deserving of comment from discerning rap voices. In a just world, “Killer Mike’d be platinum” (“Hood Politics”), alas, the mainstream has elevated hip-hop fools devoid of integrity or the ability to provide genuine comment (indicative of the “fool” Lamar plays on “Wesley’s Theory”). Elsewhere, Lamar dismays gang warfare on “Blacker the Berry” by lamenting the iniquitous murder of Trayvon Martin whilst simultaneously plotting to kill a “blacker” man. This illuminates the crux of the record; how inner turmoil is debilitating the African American community and clouding a shared sense of identity and image (“Complexion”).

What better way to exemplify shared identity than by paying homage to the music genres cultivated

by African Americans? Butterfly is a unification of funk, soul, blues and gospel influences on an expertly crafted hip-hop album. Crucially, musical experimentation and politics have not devalued the listenable quality of the album (“If These Walls…” and “You Ain’t Gotta Lie” are particular highlights in this respect). Fundamentally, ‘Butterfly’ is reclaiming hip-hop from the sugary-sweet mainstream clutches of Iggy Azalea and the overly preachy Macklemore. Hip-hop is a black creation and Lamar is an artist that forces us to acknowledge this fact, and further, to respect it.

Liam McQuade

After following Hudson Taylor (literally following, once or twice) since 2011 at their gigs and online, I can say without doubt that they really are talented.

The Irish brothers are a simple but emotional band, and they caught the attention of so many, with early fan favourites such as “Won’t Back Down”, “Chasing Rubies” and “Left Alone”, and also some of the most surprisingly brilliant live shows I’ve seen, always surpassing my expectations.

However, countless repackages of their early singles (in less and less remarkable fashions) and ridiculous postponement of their debut album lost my attention. I feel reluctant to support them as they grow further and further away from the great band they were at first. Acoustic, low-fi recordings and emotional heft are what they excel at, but the production here is polished as a soldier’s boot; there’s almost no point even hearing these songs after the life is sucked out of them. Half these songs are so old that they pose a struggle for any hope of their sophomore set.

ONE TO WATCH:

MisterWives

The song “Reflections” is perhaps the best introduction to this New York City-based indie rock band led by Mandy Lee – between just one of their album’s excellent vocal performances from one of pop’s most exciting new voices, are three explosive choruses, the likes of which are all too uncommon in the current climate. It may be saccharine-sweet, ska-enthused and infectious guitar pop, but if their excellent songcraft and lyrics were missing, the bombastic melodies and show-stopping vocals would all be for nothing. Check out their debut, ‘Our Own House’, out now.

Alex Driscoll

If the band have lost their initial spark, what will they fill another album up with? “World Without You” and “Weapons”, more recently written, are literally terrible songs. Few bands I’ve followed have fallen from grace in such a way.

I’ve never published a negative review before. I don’t see the point in it. I’d much rather give press to a fantastic album or artist that really deserves commendation for their innovations; nevertheless, I’m breaking that trend in order to express my discontent with the so-called “debut” of one of my teenage year’s brightest memories. I’d rather listen to the half of this album that was recorded in their house via webcam back in 2011; that still tastes just as sweet four years later.

Alex Driscoll

26

FILM

Cinderella Call me a cynic, but the Disney fairy tale just didn’t do it for me this time. Whilst the film contained many positive elements, somehow the sum total was thoroughly underwhelming.

The film, a remake of Disney’s 1950s animation, and directed by Kenneth Branagh, stars Lily James (Downton Abbey) as Cinderella. Whilst James brings all the necessary princess qualities to the role (beauty, kindness and a size six waistline), her relentless martyrdom does get boring after a while. Her mild temperament and forgiving nature through everything that life and her stepmother throw at her left me wanting to scream, “DO SOMETHING!” But she didn’t. Equally, Richard Madden (Game of Thrones) as Prince Kit was pretty ineffective. Whilst his main criterion of being handsome was more than fulfilled (particular credit should be given to his thighs in jodhpurs, bravo), the rest of his performance was flat. I wasn’t swooning as he was declaring his love for Cinders, which made it difficult to understand her infatuation with him.

Although the main characters being a tad bland, the casting director did earn her salary by choosing some gems. Cate Blanchett is brilliant as the wicked stepmother barking orders at her downtrodden stepdaughter. I genuinely looked forward to her coming on screen as her performance added some much needed grit to the scenes. Likewise, Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger play the evil stepsisters superbly, throwing in a few sought after laughs.

However, the strongest accolade must go to Helena Bonham-Carter who arrives in a whizz and a bang as Cinderella’s fairy godmother, and is utterly fabulous.

My only criticism of her performance is that it was simply not long enough.

An undeniable and striking feature of this film is its visible beauty and style.. All the gowns were designed by triple Academy Award winning costume designer Sandy Powell and are very, very beautiful.

Not to mention, the ‘surprisingly comfy’ essential glass slipper that hinges the story is a work of art, incorporating Swarovski crystals to bring them to an estimated value of £160,000. That’s what I call a shoe.

All things considered, the director, the casting, the costumes and the fairy tale should all combine together to make an absolute cracker of a film. However something that I can’t quite put my finger on, aside from the lacklustre Cinderella and Prince Charming, prevent that from happening. Perhaps fairy tales are better left to animation, as it helps to maintain the fantasy. The live-action felt as though a group of people had got together to play makebelieve like a load of over-sized kids, whilst you sit there with a fake smile pretending it’s all lovely.

Sophie McBean

★★★★★

APRIL 24TH APRIL | ISSUE 167

FILM

You can win free tickets to see a film at ODEON Colchester by writing an article for the Rabbit! More details at therabbitnewspaper.com

Teenage Girl Sick Of Teenage Films: The Duff Now, while I have seen the likes of even Kylie Jenner spouting a shirt proclaims herself to be ‘somebody’s DUFF’, I still have yet to decide if it’s ironic or just an great marketing ploy. I must proclaim myself a Duff, or Designated Ugly Fat Friend (don’t feel bad for me, I have enough ego to cover it, and a good fortnightly selfie is all I need to maintain it).

Supposedly ‘frumpy’ Bianca (Mae Whitman) is confronted with the fact that she is ‘The Duff ’ in her aggressively good-looking threesome of friends. Her talented, popular, and conventionally attractive pals Casey (Bianca A. Santos) and Jess (Skyler Samuels), are too perfect to dislike.

Cue slightly competitive and hyper-attractive neighbour, Wesley (Robbie Amell), who is enlisted to help Bianca conquer the school’s popularity hierarchy, and later on, act as the predictable love interest, despite his ongoing rocky relationship with the resident bitch (Bella Thorne).Whitman somehow manages to maintain enough awkward facial expressions that we are fooled into thinking she is average-looking at best, when all she really needed was to stand up straight and be shot from a slightly higher angle.

All other characters disappear and reappear unremarkably, with the most memorable personalities being either the Spanish teacher Señor

Gomez or Bianca’s Mother (Allison Janney), who has a convincing, endearing, and hilarious part, but who shouldn’t really be stealing the show. In terms of casting, there are all the tropes that you could imagine, making the film resemble something like a rehab centre for recovering Disney & Nickelodeon child stars. If this was done 3 years ago, I have no doubt Zac Efron would’ve been involved.

Despite this, I will say that The Duff is a little less clean-cut than your typical PG teen movie, and that’s something to applaud. The writing was of a decent standard considering the majority of the audience is not likely to have gone through puberty yet, but still manages to feel eerily familiar. Superficially, the film’s message is one I admire and promote, but the faux individuality is something I’ve begun to grow tired of when all I see are slim, white, smart, good-looking people.

If you like cringey teenage movies that take wild stabs at trying to be relevant, and hypocritically claim to praise individuality, as long as that means you’re still conventionally hot, The Duff is the one for you! And if you’re not able to make it to the cinema or your preferred pirating site this weekend, just watch Mean Girls.

While We’re Young Beautifully created, both in it’s cinematography and message, by director and writer Noah Baumbach, this is a must-see film. The film centres around Josh (Ben Stiller), who is trying to find himself after he and his partner meet a younger couple who shows them everything they’re not and everything they want to be.

Jamie (Adam Driver) and Darby (Amanda Seyfried) are the poster children for the hipster generation. Baumbach subverts expectations with the younger couple bringing nostalgia for the past whilst the older couple Josh and Cornelia (Naomi Watts) are tech savvy and show off the advantages of the ‘new world’. The beginning of this movie reveals the faults in the way we see the world now, and how technology rules us.

The character developments in this film are delightful to watch, relatable to ages older and younger alike. It will leave you seeing more about

yourself than you’d think, it is definitely the kind of film that makes you contemplate yourself and who you want to be. Ben Stiller’s performance is not your typical ‘Meet The Fockers’ or ‘Night In The Museum’ Stiller; he offers a relatable every-man.

It is more raw than his usual comedic roles and although there is comedy in this film it still feels more dramatically realistic. Overall the film delivers its message to be yourself beautifully with a wonderful cast who act together so well. It is not a film you will regret seeing, nor is it something that you’ll forget in a hurry.

Charlotte Louise Bell

★★★★★

Savanna Rayment

★★★★★

27

28

BOOKS

Big Brother is watching you Nineteen Eighty-Four, also known as 1984, is a dystopian novel by English author George Orwell published in 1949. It presents a chilling vision of a future where an oppressive, totalitarian regime not only controls the actions of its citizens, the ruling Party also controls individual thought and ruthlessly subjugates its citizens for the sole purpose of keeping itself in power for eternity. Using inspiration from communist China and the USSR, Orwell imagined the extreme limits of the concept: if everyone is already working for the ruling party, what else can the Party do to extend its influence? Every aspect of society and culture, including language, history, procreation, literature and war, are all manufactured and manipulated for the purpose of consolidating and expanding the power of the Party.

Hidden away in the Record Department of the sprawling Ministry of Truth, Winston Smith skilfully rewrites the past to suit the needs of the Party. Yet he inwardly rebels against the totalitarian world he lives in, which demands absolute obedience and controls him through the all-seeing

telescreens under the watchful eye of Big Brother, symbolic head of the Party. In his longing for truth and liberty, Smith begins a secret love affair with a fellow-worker Julia, but soon discovers the true price of freedom is betrayal.

What struck me as a reader was that not much actually happened. Most of the book was background information and world building through Smith’s eyes of the society surrounding him. The book is divided into three parts and it wasn’t until near the end of Part II that things started to happen. There is very little dialogue as most of the book follows Smith’s internal reflections. What is clear from these reflections is that Smith seems to struggle with his lack of acceptance of his miserable surroundings, while everyone else sees it as perfectly normal.

Considering the book is approaching nearly 70 years old, it’s surprising that some aspects of Nineteen Eighty-Four are similar to what we have today’s society. Democracies suffer from dramatically increased state intervention and surveil-

lance of citizens; lying politicians who contradict their own past promises (I’m looking at you Nick Clegg); state sponsored propaganda that has no purpose except to serve the party in power; and we are restricted by what we can say through political correctness which is similar to Newspeak, a language developed by the Party that removed words from the dictionary to gain more control over people.

Nineteen Eighty-Four is extremely depressing and Smith knows early on that he cannot fight the Party. The ending is both upsetting and disturbing but this proves that Orwell’s writing is very visceral. I’d still highly recommend this book regardless as few books will elicit such an emotional and intellectual response from the reader.

Ben Gregson

Friday 24th april | ISSUE 167

BOOKS

29

Happy birthday, William Shakespeare!

Born: Unknown – Baptised 26th April 1564.

Perhaps known as the father of all literature to most literature geeks, it is going to be impossible for me to write about this man in such a way that seems worthy enough! Shakespeare was born in Stratfordupon-Avon and at the tender age of 18 met Anne Hathaway. Together the pair had three children, Susanna, Hamnet and Judith, the latter two being twins. Tragedy hit the family when Hamnet died at just 11 years old. His name is said to be the inspiration behind the much-loved tragedy, Hamlet.

there would be very few books written today. It is Shakespeare’s brilliant inventions that set off other writer’s imaginations (although, not just Shakespeare, of course) that give them the inspiration behind their ideas.

Shakespeare died at the age of 52 although it is unknown how he died. He has brought magical stories to our lives and without them; we wouldn’t be as enlightened as we are to the humorous and ugly truths of our human nature.

During his career, Shakespeare divided his time between London and Stratford-upon-Avon and his company constructed the famous and well-known Globe Theatre. He began his career writing a number of plays such as Richard III and Henry VI and Titus Andronicus but it is not known which came first.

He went on to write Romeo and Juliet, Much Ado About nothing and many more plays that are vigorously studied in present day.

Without the tragedies, romantic, historical and comedy plays, not to mention sonnets that this brilliant playwright and poet has written, it is accurate to say

Gina Dedman

Catcher in the Rye ‘The Catcher in the Rye’, originally published in serial form in 1945-1946 and later published in book form in 1951, is arguably J.D. Salinger’s most popular and well-known work. However, from its publication, the text has been immersed in controversy, beginning with the realistic portrayal of a teenager in a time where youth severely lacked power and had to follow strict, social conventions, the use of bad language and in that Mark David Chapman, the killer of John Lennon, was found with a copy of the book and reportedly wanted to change his name to that of the novel’s protagonist.

The author Salinger was also notoriously private and reclusive, giving few interviews and refusing to allow any adaptations of his work. Furthermore, those who knew him at school noticed similarities between himself and his creation Holden Caulfield, commenting on both his dramatization of similar past events to Caulfield’s mannerisms, world view and way of speaking.

But although Holden is often considered the ultimate voice of rebellion and isolation, I believe he is not really as controversial and brave as he first appears, suggesting that Salinger’s novel may convey a traditional moral at heart. Through Holden, he paints a very realistic portrayal of a flawed, complex hu-

man being, who like all of us at times, is a mass of contradictions. This is particularly demonstrated through Holden’s own confession that he can be a liar: ‘I’m the most terrific liar you ever saw in your life.’ Therefore this suggests to the reader straight away that we cannot entirely trust everything Holden, as the narrator, says.

His ambiguity is particularly demonstrated through his very ambivalent attitude towards relationships with women and sex. On the same page, he states: ‘In my mind, I’m probably the biggest sex maniac you ever saw’, yet the emphasis on mind hints at Holden’s real thoughts, as he later goes onto say: ‘…I think if you don’t really like a girl, you shouldn’t horse around with her... and if you do like her, then… you ought to be careful …’

Consequently in reality, Holden may just be a typical dissatisfied teenager, afraid of growing up and who, as Salinger hints at the end of the novel, will ultimately learn from his past failings and mature.

This is particularly hinted by the life lesson given to him by his teacher Mr Antolini: “...the mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.”

Salinger also suggests this recurring theme of adulthood and acceptance through Holden’s obsession with the museum he used to visit as a child, because it stays the same, and his desire to become the ‘catcher in the rye’ in order to protect younger children like his little sister Phoebe.

However, the final image of Holden watching her on a carousel suggests he may be finally gaining the understanding that you cannot stay young forever: ‘… I was sort of afraid she’d fall off the goddam horse, but I didn’t say anything or do anything.’ The beautiful ending in which it starts to rain and he cries with happiness may be cathartic and symbolic of redemption, implying how Holden is now finally able to shred his past and begin a new adult life.

Thus in conclusion, I believe that on further inspection, the novel and characterisation of Holden is really not as radical as it first seems and that both past and modern readers have a lot to gain from revisiting our youths and sympathising with the rebellious, yet ultimately traditional old soul, that is Holden Caulfield.

Lorraine Gamage

30

LIFESTYLE

Summer Ball - Dress for Less The whole experience of going to the Summer Ball can get expensive, when you start adding up the price of tickets, pre-drinks, transportation and all the money that you will be spending on location. This means your outfit can always fall down on the priority list.

Fortunately, you don’t need to spend any more money - knowing how to put pieces together and accessorizing in a smart way is the key. Don’t have the shoes or top that will go perfectly with that amazing skirt you’ve been saving for a special occasion?

Most likely you’ll have that one friend that wears your size, so ask if you can borrow something from them.

I know this is what me and my flatmate do, and it works like a charm! If you have a really nice crop top in your wardrobe, then buy a maxi skirt and wear them together - just like the Sherri Hill combo in the picture. At the end of the day you will always still be able to wear that skirt in the hot days of summer.

If you choose to buy a dress, you have two options when on a budget. Always look for sales and use discount websites such as unidays.co.uk, to get better deals. And always go for a dress that is very simple, so you can wear it again and therefore get more for your money out of it. With a simple dress you can always

use accessories, such as shoes, bags and jewelry, that you already own, and therefore not spend too much on your Summer Ball outfit. If you really have your eye on a very expensive dress and you couldn’t see yourself wearing anything else, you can always sell it afterwards on websites such as depop.com and get part of your money back. But bear in mind that you might not get lucky and be left with a dress in your wardrobe and with a very big hole in your account.

Thrifting is always a good idea when shopping on a budget, as you can find amazing pieces that will definitely be unique. When you go to buy certain items from charity shops, you have to keep in mind two important rules: The first one is to have patience, there are a lot of items there, and a lot of different sizes, so it might take a while for you to find something special.

Secondly, don’t go with your heart set on a certain style. Charity shops have such an eclectic fashion sense, that it might be hard to find something similar to that dress you saw in a high street shop. So be brave and try everything, because you never know what gem you might find. If you are quite crafty you can always transform an old dress and make it into something completely new.

If you don’t particularly like dresses or want to switch

it up, a suit is the way to go! And if you think that you can’t really change up a classic suit, well you are wrong. Go short, choose an unusual colour, or if you are brave enough you can even go shirtless if you find a really well tailored blazer. Choose pants that are cut above your ankle and wear it with heels to elongate your legs, or choose a classic cut with oxford shoes for a more classical look. Other perks? You will definitely use this outfit again for your interview or work and you will most definitely be warmer than your friends in dresses.

At the end of the day it is perfectly normal for you to want a perfect outfit and feel amazing, but don’t forget the true meaning of the Summer Ball: a last celebration at the year with all your mates. So worry less and have fun with all your loved ones.

Luiza Sandru

FRIDAY 24TH APRIL | ISSUE 167

LIFESTYLE

31

The right choice for you As a third year student, I have planned and prepared for quite some time how I intend to tackle life once the safe, little bubble of ‘University life’ is over. But the future is still a scary prospect, and no decisions come lightly, especially when it comes to deciding on a career. This can be especially daunting when your degree doesn’t seem to align with anything you’d want as a career, and this is when things get a little trickier.

Here are three simple ideas that will help you take the steps you need to get to where you want to be, but even if you feel you’ve figured everything out, there still might be one or two things you might want to bear in mind before jumping into the deep end.

1). Your degree is not the be-all and end-all Having a degree is a great boost for your C.V, and can really make you stand out from the crowd, but this does not mean it’s your ‘one-way ticket’ to a successful career. Or, if you didn’t exactly get the grade you were hoping for, this doesn’t necessarily hinder you from the same kind of success either. With so many

resources on the internet, it isn’t too difficult to take up an old hobby and learn, and practice it. Experience is valuable and you can develop this yourself, at least enough to take you to the next step - perhaps an internship, apprenticeship or otherwise.

2). Know thyself If for one reason or another you don’t feel that a direct career path based on your degree is for you, try your hand in areas of work outside of the things you do in your degree. I’d suggest applying for part time jobs that work around your degree, even if you’re uncertain as to how likely you are to pursue that particular path in the future. Learning about what type of environment you work best in, and what sort of tasks you prefer can really help you narrow down your search - and the best way to find this out is by experiencing everything first hand. Both the Students’ Union, and the University itself offer a variety of great positions that can help you get a feel for what works for you.

3). Say Yes In the same way that those spontaneous nights out on campus are often the best, so are the opportunities that come your way in the world of work - or even outside of it; be prepared to take on something new if it comes around. Don’t agree to everything just for the sake of it, of course, but if someone asks if you can give a little help, or if you’re interested in a project, saying yes and putting in a bit of effort might just be more rewarding than it first appears.

Hopefully this short guide gives you a few ideas to help you with your choices, but just remember, above all, that it is not always necessary to know what you want to do - just do what you enjoy.

Stefan Vallance

Stop Making Colour A Fashion Choice The conversation in the fashion world about diversity has been taking new dimensions, but unfortunately no progress can be seen in the selection of models in the recent years.

Despite it being an issue that designers and coordinators sweep under the carpet, the diversity of fashion models is something which is poor at best. While this is something that the black community has been objecting to since the early days of the industry, it is an issue that everyone else has finally begun to realise how problematic this is; not just a small issue, not just something to be dealt with at some point, but a problem that can and needs to be changed now.

The profession of fashion models, much like any other public position, has a history of white washing. And while there has been rising inclusivity for women of colour on the catwalk, it is still at a pitiful level. The pinnacle of style: New York Fashion Week, had their Fall-Winter 2014 section comprised of 78.69% white models, a number which has hovered around 80% since Fall ’09. Leaving black models to make up 21.31%

of the faces on the runways. To actualise this number, of 148 shows, which amounted to 4,621 different designs, only 985 were worn by non-white models. And maybe the most concerning problem is not just the number, but the fact that some designers truly believe that these percentages are perfect the way they are and that there are plenty of black models strutting the runway.

But what about Tyra? What about Naomi? What about Iman? Well, that’s just another point. The fact that we can only name a handful of non-white models shows us just how rare they are. They are the exception that proves the rule. Their selling point has always been their skin colour in the eyes of the designers, and maybe not necessarily their talent that much , something that white models never have to worry about being reduced to. Just to note, I am not saying that claiming race and redefining what it means to you isn’t one of the greatest things that could come of this, I am describing a system that defines an individual by their race, leaving them without a voice to be heard.

I’m white, and even I am sick of WOC being used to ‘prove’ something, being described as ‘exotic’ and having their skin colour used as some kind of accessory or to complement an outfit.

One thing that has changed for the better is less and less designers use an entire white cast. There are quite a few fashion houses, such as Diane von Furstenberg, Zac Posen and Desigual, that are very inclusive when it comes to selective their models.

And such fashion houses should be followed by the majority in the coming seasons..

Savanna Rayment

28