Elections Special Issue (May 2015) by Wessex Scene

WessexScene.co.uk

University of Southampton’s Student Magazine

ELECTION 2015

x THE GENERAL ELECTION ISSUE

It’s Selfie T If the leaders ime The Green had Snapchat Interview w Revolution Party Pro ith Natalie Bennett Find out whfiles at the partie s say

Politicians only write their policies for people who vote. In 2010 the media called us the silent and apathetic generation because we didn’t vote. Let’s change this.

Welcome FRONT COVER BY SAM BAILEY

TAHLIE COOPER Editor

KERRY SCLATER Deputy Editor

BRIDIE PEARSON-JONES Politics Editor

SAM BAILEY Head of Design

Welcome to our very special General Election Issue! For a few months, we’ve been putting together this to celebrate the upcoming 2015 General Election. We want students to be informed as possible when in the voting booth, so we’ve got party profiles to explain the main policies of the major parties, some articles on the effectiveness of voting, and even interviews with party leaders. This issue has been put together with first time voters in Southampton in mind, we’ll let you know your constituency, a brief history of UK parliament and we’ll be talking about student issues, such as tuition fees. All articles have been written by University of Southampton students, some of them write regularly for the Wessex Scene, some of them writing for the very first time. They’re writing about their views on the things that matter to them as students and young people in this country. Let us know what you think on our website, you can even write an article about it yourself! We hope you enjoy this issue, and it helps inform you for May 7th!

wessexscene.co.uk @wessexscene fb.com/wscene

You can find out more about the elections, who is running in your constituency and much more at www.yourvoteyourvoice2015.com, made in collaboration between the University of Southampton Students’ Union and Solent Students’ Union.

Find more of our General Election coverage, how to get involved and much more at our brand new website!

WELCOME

Your vote is your voice. Make it heard. CONTENTS WHY YOU MUST USE YOUR VOTE

THE MULTI-PARTY MYSTERY

TUITION FEES? MUST TRY HARDER ED

IN DEFENCE OF THE COALITION

IF THE PARTY LEADERS HAD SNAPCHAT

INTERVIEW: NATALIE BENNETT

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE UK PARLIAMENT

THE SCIENCE OF POLITICS

WHY LABOUR SHOULD WIN BUT WON’T

WEAPON OF THE DISENFRANCHISED: THE PROTEST VOTE

PARTY PROFILES

WELCOME

ess than half of 18 to 24 year olds voted in the last General Election. From the perspective of a young person, this is not particularly surprising. It’s easy for young people to feel disillusioned with the voting system and politics in general. This lack of action definitely does not equate to a lack of thought or care about current affairs. Indeed, any claim that today’s generation of young people is ignorant or apathetic is simply untrue. Looking back at my school days, it was common for pupils to view politics as a boring, adult topic, irrelevant to young people. This is something which needs to be fixed by education. Young people need to be taught that politics impacts all areas of everyone’s life, whether social, cultural, academic, economic, domestic and so on. Politics permeates everything. When I was younger, my classmates and I were pretty oblivious to this. Many young people don’t realise that politics affects every single area of our lives and therefore is most definitely worth thinking and talking about. As a result of this, for first time voters, it may be confusing knowing which party to vote for. In general, political parties don’t make their policies easily accessible and political broadcasting has become increasingly concerned with politician’s personas rather than the all-important policies themselves. Therefore compulsory, unbiased education concerning today’s political parties and their main policies - particularly those affecting young people – should also be included in the curriculum before students turn eighteen. This way, when young people become eligible to vote, they will

already be empowered with all the information they need to make an informed vote. Yet, despite the lack of education, young voters are still just as acutely aware as older people are that our one single vote doesn't count for an awful lot. Particularly if you live in a constituency in which a certain party dominates, voting outside of the box may be viewed as somewhat futile. This is yet another factor that may be putting young people off voting. Many also distrust politicians and feel as if none of the parties can offer them anything of value. And who can blame them? What with the awful job market, risen house prices and extortionate tuition fees; there’s not an awful lot being done to improve young people’s prospects. However, simply not voting does nothing to solve these problems. It is not an effective protest. It is simply a waste of the voice we do possess. It’s our responsibility to make up for the lack of political education in schools by educating ourselves on political policies and using our vote wisely. Particularly because arguably it is young people who need to vote the most as the policies we vote for are going to directly impact our futures. We must fight the misconception that politics doesn't concern young people. Our votes will dictate our future so it’s safe to say that politics does very much concern us. Besides, we must act now before politicians start sending embarrassing colourful buses to universities to find out what young people want and need - as if they don’t already know.

“There’s not an awful lot being done to improve young people’s prospects” WHY YOU MUST USE YOUR VOTE BY FREYA JEFFRIES 04

GENERAL ELECTION 2015

“Will Russell Brand sneak into 10 Downing Street and declare himself leader of a new UK-wide commune?” THE MULTI-PARTY MYSTERY BY FRAZER LOVEMAN

t’s looking increasingly likely that the after May 7th Britain will once again looking at a hung parliament. Using collated polling by The Spectator it is reasonably evident that neither the Conservatives or Labour will even get 300 seats, let alone the 326 required for a majority. So what does this mean? Will the nation grind to a halt? Will we be plunged into total darkness? Will Russell Brand sneak into 10 Downing Street and declare himself leader of a new UK-wide commune?

deal, whereby Labour makes concessions to the SNP in return for support in passing major legislation. Nicola Sturgeon and her likely chief lieutenant, Alex Salmond (remember him?), will no doubt be eager for further devolution of powers north of the border and seem likely to support Labour’s plans to increase public service spending and increase taxes on the wealthiest in society.

Unfortunately, nothing that exciting will occur. Rather, we’ll just be subjected to hours of news coverage as sleepless politicians scamper in and out of big London townhouses, carrying important looking dossiers under their arms and even more important looking cups of coffee in their free hands as the Jag pulls up to take them to another townhouse. Eventually (and, unlike in 2010, it may take some time) one of these bedraggled politicians will emerge victorious and gain royal assent to form a government.

For Cameron, it’s a little more complicated. He likely needs the Tories to win around 290 seats before he can even begin to look at building alliances, which is feasible, but would require a fairly major shift towards the Conservatives in the run up to the election. The Liberal Democrats should be able to contribute 20-30 seats, but even then this would likely not be enough to keep them in power, meaning a third force would be needed, likely the Democratic Unionist Party; which would be intriguing as a scenario, if only to watch the collective English public scramble to Wikipedia to research the DUP.

At this still fairly early stage, there looks to be scenarios in which either David Cameron or Ed Miliband can end up as PM. Neither look set for a majority, so will have to make do with finding political partners prepared to push them over the threshold and into power. At the outset, this looks easier for Miliband, who has somehow managed to not sink the entire Labour Party under the weight of his own ineptitude, since he has a ready-made ally north of the border. The SNP will likely win 35-55 seats, enough to create a majority when combined with Labour. This alliance would likely not be a coalition (something Miliband has ruled out) but a supply-and-demand

It seems like these will be the battle lines for the election campaign and Cameron seems to be stuck in a bind. He’s obviously concerned about UKIP cutting into his vote, so might try and move to the right, but this will alienate the Lib Dems, who needs as coalition partners, and also won’t let him hold an EU referendum. If Cameron does get back into power he will once again be forced to compromise on policy, whilst Labour and the SNP seem like more natural political bedfellows and will likely provide less moderate governance. But either way, there should be plenty of intrigue in the week (or weeks) following the ballot on May 7th.

GENERAL ELECTION 2015

studying for PhDs and research-based master’s degrees. These loans are designed to cover the duration of a postgraduate student’s studies, and will be paid back using the same model current in place for undergraduate loans, but plans may be different under Labour. There’s not too much joy to be found with undergraduates either. On the face of it, reducing university fees from £9,000 a year to £6,000 would hand a cool £9,000 to every student on a three-year degree course, and the changes could be introduced as early as the start of the 2015/16 academic calendar. In practice it won’t, unless you end up going straight into a profession with a salary so eye-watering it triggers the repayment of the last chunk of the student loan – the bit Labour would be axing. The so-called Money Saving Expert Martin Lewis has recently calculated that only those with a starting salary of £35,000 a year would actually see any benefit. So while Labour’s policy is seen as heroic raid on the pension pots of the rich elderly, to pay for the struggling young, it is by-and-large a transfer to rich kids who pursue lucrative careers. The real free gift in this policy that is largely escaping media attention is the increase in the maintenance grant for about half of all students, which goes some way to address the anxieties and struggles that come with the cost of living as a student.

“TUITION FEES? MUST TRY HARDER ED” BY WILLIAM BROOKS

istorically tuition fees are one of those policies that the government implements and the opposition opposes, irrespective of which party is playing which role. By this logic, the Westminster MerryGo-Round dictates that, with the 2015 General Election looming, Labour must now take up the mantle of saviour of the students and win over the famously apathetic ‘Virgin Vote’. Ed Miliband has thrown his weight behind a policy centred on reducing university fees from £9,000 a year to £6,000, and his advisors are forecasting considerable swings in favour of his party at the election in up to 21 marginal seats. Whether this comes to pass or not depends on what people make of the small print, unfortunately for current University students this is not quite the bargain it seems. Current or prospective postgraduates will have the largest axe to grind. In the 2015 budget George Osborne promised loans of up to £10,000 and additional funding for UK students 06

Ed Miliband is more plausible when he talks about wanting to fix a “broken” system of university finance, but if the system is truly “broken”, tinkering at the edges won’t help. Ed Miliband could have abolished tuition fees and announced a big cut in student numbers to achieve that; but it would not have generated such useful headlines. Just as the broken clock is right twice a day, the NUS has hit the nail right on the head with its response to these proposals. Their official statement reaffirmed the union’s stance to be “supportive of any moves away from this failed market” but highlighted 2that such victories “should serve only to strengthen our resolve to go further, and to win more”. Most discount offers are too good to be true. Ed Miliband appears to be offering the same education for less, but this policy seems more like a slow descent into mediocrity. Therefore, be encouraged by these proposals but do not be won over by them – this display of political sleight-ofhand is in reality dealing in hundreds of pounds, rather than thousands. The more pressing issues surrounding the current system of university funding and student finance - and although the Conservative Party may raise fees to £16,000 a year, and Labour may cut to £6,000 - student finance itself ultimately remain untouched by either of the main political parties going into the Election.

GENERAL ELECTION 2015

“YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT BUNCH WERE ALRIGHT AFTER ALL” IN DEFENCE OF THE COALITION BY TOBY LEVESON

know what you’re thinking. The coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats has been a five-year catastrophe, lurching from one embarrassing disaster to another. How on earth do you intend to defend it?

But I want you to think about something for a minute. I want you to name the worst thing that happened under the Tony Blair governments. The chances are you said the Iraq War, and said it pretty much straight away. Now do the same with Gordon Brown. This time I’m guessing you probably said the economic crash and the financial crisis. Finally, I want you to do it with the coalition government. I’m sure you could probably think of lots of things; the unforgettable tuition fees debacle, general austerity, and NHS privatisation. Now put them into context with the previous two examples – is it really that bad? History looks back on governments with the benefit of hindsight, with legacies often decided years after leaving office. When Gordon Brown took office in 2007, his predecessor Tony Blair remained more popular than him. Now Blair’s reputation has been completely tarnished by the events in Iraq. It is for this reason that I believe history will look back on the Cameron-Clegg coalition with favour. Who can forget that afternoon in the rose garden in May five years ago? The sun was out, and Nick and Dave were like two dads at a children’s party; they both wanted the afternoon to themselves but were forced into going so put on that smile and laughed at the jokes that really weren’t all that funny. Did either of them think their coalition would last the whole five years? The people certainly didn’t, and even in August 2012, two years after the coalition was formed, only 16% saw the coalition lasting until May 2015. This in itself is an achievement; whether you wanted the coalition government to be leading the country or not, the fact that they stuck together, against all odds, has to be praised. Wrong decisions were made at times, of course they were, but it was unorthodox, it was pragmatic. Leaving probably would have been the easiest option, sticking it out was gutsy, sticking it out was brave.

GENERAL ELECTION 2015

I recognise that this alone isn’t a measure of success. The coalition had one main aim, one problem that needed fixing – the economy. They opted for austerity, and yes, it was unpopular, few want to see public services cut, but has it worked? On the whole, it’s fair to say it has, our economic growth is expected this year to be amongst the highest in the world, and unemployment in the UK has fallen. There are still problems and it would have been nicer if the recovery were quicker. However no one trusted Labour after the crisis; this recovery may have been slow, but it’s been stable. I’ve ignored lots of things critics of the coalition would jump on – the sale of Royal Mail, and the phone hacking scandal , and high inequality, to name but a few. The Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats will not praise the coalition in this election campaign because it’s been complicated, they’ve both done things they wouldn’t have done on their own. Clegg and his motley crew will lose out in a few weeks’ time; he may even lose his own seat. But I don’t think that will stop history looking back and thinking, ‘you know, maybe that bunch were alright after all’.

History looks back on governments with the benefit of hindsight, with legacies often decided years after leaving office.

If the party leaders had Snapchat...

Ed Milibandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s story...

#foodporn #lunch #hopeidontgetseen

Exclusively screenshotted by Bridie Pearson-Jones

Think you can't include me in the debates? Bitch please, I'll sue!

Good Old Days #TBT #AllTheLads #BULLERBULLERBULLER

Deputy PM #ftw - gonna get so much done in 5 years!

#ladzladzladz #nobeer4brussels #downinone #ukiplad

Is it easy for a minority party to post idealist policies knowing they will not be in power?

‘We’re not looking to go into a coalition’

Green Party Leader, Natalie Bennett speaks to Bridie Pearson-Jones about tuition fees, feminism, legalising weed, and where the Green Party will stand after May 7th.

ast year, Natalie Bennett was a small time politician; today she is a household name leading the third biggest nation-wide party, according to membership at least. Early on the first Monday morning of the Easter holidays, I sat in my bedroom, pyjama-clad and waited for a call from Bennett, after 5 minutes I started to get nervous that the arranged interview was all an elaborate prank and she won’t be calling at all. Yet at 9.36am, Bennett puts me out of my misery, my phone rings and I’m greeted by Natalie’s cheery, Australian tone. We make small talk and discuss the weather (it’s a beautiful sunny day in London). Concerned that she’ll make time to do something more important than 10

be interviewed by a student paper, I quickly crack on with the interview. Natalie Bennett is not your typical politician, she’s openly antimonarchy, female and wasn’t born or educated in the UK. Of the leaders of the 5 biggest nationwide parties, she’s the only woman, the only one that wasn’t educated at a British public school and/or Oxbridge, but as the Green’s initial exclusion from the TV debates has shown, she isn’t afraid of ‘the boys’ in politics. As Trustee of the Fawcett Society, I wasn’t surprised when the Green Party leader told me she ‘very much’ was a feminist. But what does she think of people who openly aren’t feminists? GENERAL ELECTION 2015

“I think labels are what people make of them.” Bennett tells me, “I think it’s really important that we keep feminists issues at the forefront. Look at things like the continuing pay gap, that only 22% of MPs are female, the lack of women running big companies and the lack of women running government departments, and the level of violence against women and girls in society – these are things that need to change.” The nature of the name Green leads a lot to think the Greens are a one-party policy, what can they offer beyond the environment? Economic policy for a start, “Our economy is build on debt, we need to build a society build around strong local economies, that’s why we want to introduce a minimum wage that’s above the living wage, that’s £7.85 around the country and £10 an hour by 2020. So people can have a sense of security if they’re working full-time they have enough money to survive, or pro-rata part time.” So that’s the economy covered, which is the most important issue for most people. What are the Green’s thoughts on the NHS? “We’re also particularly focusing on public services, bringing railways back in public hands so they’re run for passengers not share holders. We’re very focused on protecting the NHS; we’re against any profit motif in the NHS. At the moment, Caroline Lucas with other MPs has a private member’s bill in parliament calling for the removal of the market mechanism in the NHS, which in 2010 was costing us £10 billion a year.” So are there environmental issues to focus on? “Environmental issues are obviously a strong part of our manifesto,” Bennett continues, “this is clearly the year of the current talks, this clearly is the year of the Paris talks, given what we’ve just seen as only a climate illiterate budget and a government that spends 300 times of fossil fuels that it does on renewables, and it’s not spending a penny on affordable energy to heat homes for people who desperately need that – we clearly GENERAL ELECTION 2015

need more change. At that’s what the Green Party stands for, a real change in politics, a new era in politics.” As a minority party would it be better to lobbying the major parties into taking on better environmental policies? “We’re fighting for better environmental policies all the time. You may recall this government came into power calling itself the Greenest ever, which I think is a very sad, sick, joke. The way to get focused on better environmental policy is to focus on issues conserving nature is to vote for Green MPs.” It’s not unusual to see right-wing rhetoric attempting to scare voters away from the Greens by describing them as socialist. How would the leader of the Party compare her party’s policies to socialism? “My political philosophy is Green, a lot of those things are traditionally socialist.” Bennett reminds me “The understanding of the Green politics is the trying together of economic and environmental justice, and those things are indivisible. We need the sources for the future that gives everyone the quality of life, but we need to do that within the limits of one planet, as it’s all we’ve got.” Scrolling through the Green’s website, a lot of these policies sounds great for a student voter – if not a little idealist. Most of us think it would be great to have a £10 minimum wage, and abolition of tuition fees, but are they realistic? Is it easy for a minority party to post idealist policies knowing they will not be in power? “I would say that we are the realistic party, if you look at the situation for tuition fees, to take one example, under the current system, 75% will never pay them back, so their going through 30 years of their life with that weight of debt, paying off a significant amount of their income. 45p in the pounds of those debts will never be repaid; it’s not a realistic system. It’s simply not workable, we need something different, we’re living in a very low wage economy with zero hour contracts and people can’t live their lives. How can you live your life with a zero hours contact when you don’t know whether this week you’re going to earn £0 or £200, where we are now we can’t continue.” So what is Bennett’s response to critics who think a £10 minimum wage will lead to lower employment? “There’s a very good study out on making the minimum wage a living wage immediately would create 30,000 jobs.” Bennett begins to explain the multiplier effect to me, “Think about your local café on the corner, if the people outside are a living wage, they can afford to have a drink. Think about the home care workers who are disgracefully paid less than minimum wage, if they’re properly paid they could afford to pop in and have a cup of tea and a slice of cake. So you’re looking at a boosting of in particular local economies, and small businesses”. The second half of this interview will be published in Issue 6. 11

A brief history of the UK Parliament...

Romsey and Southampton North

Glen Eyre Halls Boldrewood Campus

Wessex Lane Halls Southampton General Hospital Highfield Halls

From Cromwell to Coalitions, the UK Parliament has had a turbulent history. By Bridie Pearson-Jones

Highfield Campus

Avenue Campus

Southampton Test Gateley Halls

Southampton Itchen Romero Halls Mayflower Halls

English Civil War Parliament established, with the House of Lords containing unelected aristocrats, and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the commonsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, MPs are small landowners elected by other male landowners.

Monarchy returns, but never regains its power. From now on, the Prime Minister, chosen by Parliament has the most influence.

First British General Election, less than 3% of the population are eligible to vote.

Secret ballots introduced.

Chartist movement demands Universal Suffrage for all men. Annual elections, an end to regional differences in the UK, end of property qualifications for MPs, and payment for MPs.

The First Reform Act, extended the franchise so 1 in 7 men (440 thousand people) could vote. Some regional differences abolished in an attempt to make the vote fairer.

Parliamentary Reform Act, gave most skilled working class men over 21, who lived in towns the vote. This increased the electorate to 2.5million, about 8% of the population.

GENERAL ELECTION 2015

Parliamentary Reform Act created uniform franchise for both county and borough. Plural voting was permitted, some people could vote in more than more constituency. Two thirds of men over 21 could now vote, about 18% of the population. The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act aimed to reduce bribery.

The Parliament Act, reduced the power of the House of Lords, so they could no longer veto bills, just delay them.

Redistribution of seats act, made seats and constituency sizes more fair. The act removed seats in the South of England and increased the number of Scottish seats.

GENERAL ELECTION 2015

Equal Franchise Act, All men and women over the age of 21 given the vote.

Representation of the People Act, almost all men over 21 years old could vote. Women over 30 given the vote for the first time.

Voting age lowered to 18.

2015

2011

2006

1969

1928

1918

1911

1885

1884

1883

1872

1867

1832

1708

1707

1660

United Kingdom formed by the Act of Union.

1830s-1840s

Wales represented in Parliament under The Union Act.

1642 - 1660

1542

1265

Which constituency can I vote in? Take a look at our map above, or enter your postcode at www.yourvoteyourvoice2015.com/where. Students living in Winchester are in the Winchester constituency.

Age limit for MPs lowered to 18 European Court of Human Rights rules that the ban on prisoners voting is unlawful, parliament votes to ignore this ruling.

UK GENERAL ELECTION 2015

The science of politics Jennifer Allerton explains why science really should matter in the world of politics

In areas such as climate change and health, it seems obvious that science has a lot to offer by way of advising or leading policy decisions, but in what other arenas can some knowledge of science, or use of scientific methods, be useful? Why should we care about what science has to say, and how can you find out whether your candidates do?

POLICY-MAKING

In science, hypotheses are formed and tested, and conclusions drawn from the results of the test. If the evidence cannot be concealed with the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be

GENERAL ELECTION 2015

rejected, lessons are learned and a new path devised. This stands in stark contrast with the political fear of the U-turn. All too often when coming up with policy ideas,politicians will seek out and selectively quote that evidence which supports their position - instead of holding those ideas up to the available evidence and rejecting them if they are not supported. Perhaps it would be better to praise those who are willing to change their views in the face of stronger evidence, and by calling out those who abuse evidence, make politicians more thorough in their research. In the 2014 Public Attitudes to Science Survey, 70% of people in a stratified sample of UK residents aged 16 and over agreed that "experts and not the public should advise the Government about the implications of scientific development", and the same number felt that "politicians are too easily swayed by the media's reaction to scientific issues". Every government department has a Chief Scientific Adviser, but their influence varies from each department to the next. It has even been suggested that, just as economists and lawyers have to sign off government policies as economically viable and legally sound, perhaps relevant policies should receive the same scrutiny from scientists, to ensure that if governments are going to claim "evidence-based policy", it will be clear to see in which cases the advice from science has indeed been heeded.

a new treatment to patients without it having been tested and proven safe and effective first. We don't, however, use the same method of testing new educational initiatives. Instead, in many cases, ideas or changes to the curriculum which seem reasonable are conceived, and then made nationwide policy, without any real evidence of whether it will help. It would be relatively simple to conduct trials in randomly selected schools to begin with, assess the evidence, and then either roll it out across the nation or not, based on what it tells you. One problem is that some may view this as a waste of time, especially if the result turns out to be negative - but surely, it is less a waste than imposing untested policy? All too often the lay politician scoffs at what the scientist knows to be true: that a negative result still tell us something. Another is that there are few practitioner-academics in schools in the way that there are in medicine. Doctors consult as well as conducting research, but most people leave teaching if they are thinking of going into educational research, with some of the few exceptions being through teacher fellowships with the Nuffield Foundation, which allows working teachers to become practitioner-academics. It s unlikely that many will choose this course, either, with the current demands on teachers being as they are.

ECONOMY

That this was somehow allowed to become a politically divisive issue is a tragedy. It's important that governments aren't complacent. Science needs to lead on this issue, but it has to be correct science. It's important for both sides not to make assumptions about causation with relation to single events, whether it is a member of US congress using the height of snow in New York to ask "how can this be if global warming is happening?", in an impressive demonstration of wilful ignorance, or Greenpeace calling Hurricane Katrina in 2005 "a wake-up call about the dangers of continued global fossil fuel dependency". Whilst there is evidence for the outcomes of warming including severe storms, it can't be shown for certain exactly what effect it has had in individual cases; we can't cite every British summer as evidence. There is, after all, enough actual rigorously statistically analysed scientific evidence for climate change. We can't risk citing shoddy evidence and muddling a very clear message: This issue is crucial.

Science is critical to Britain’s economic recovery; don’t take my word for it, though, this was written in a Royal Society report in 2010 assessing science’s contribution to the economy. In the same year an independent academic paper calculated that the then £3.5bn of science budget gave back around £60bn contribution to GDP, and that even by lower estimates, cutting the spend by just £1bn would mean £10 billion less in GDP. Despite this, UK spending on science is lower than many other leading nations as a percentage of GDP. This March, for the first time in a few years, the allocation of the budget ringfenced for science and research has seen a real terms increase; having varied slightly above and below the £5bn mark since 2011-12, in 2015-16 the proposed science budget will be £5.8bn. However, this still leaves it slightly below where it would be had it been maintained with inflation since 2010. The Public Attitudes to Science survey found that 66% of people disagreed with the suggestion "Government funding should be cut because money can be better spent elsewhere", with only 14% agreeing, and the remainder unsure or undecided. If you earn £25000 a year, you pay £3000 a year in income tax (and £2045 in National insurance). By comparison , the UK’s subscription to CERN costs £1.50 per person per year.

EDUCATION

In medicine, randomised controlled trials are used to test new drugs and treatments; it would be unthinkable to administer

GENERAL ELECTION 2015

ENVIRONMENT

ACTION

So how do you find out if your candidate, or a party, cares about science? Well, you can start by searching party webpages for their manifestos or questioning candidates at hustings. If you want them to care more, you have to make it clear in your numbers that your vote will go where the science leads you - to the critical thinker and those with respect for evidence. See senseaboutscience.org and sciencecampaign.org.uk for more advice.

WEAPON OF THE DISENFRANCHISED: THE PROTEST VOTE

WHY LABOUR SHOULD WIN BUT WON’T

BY STEVE ADAMS

BY TOBY LEVESON

t’s September 25th 2010, and Ed Miliband has just been elected leader of the Labour Party, defeating his brother David with 50.65% of the vote. Imagine you’re in Ed’s shoes; leader of the opposition, a fresh face, against an unorthodox government that could collapse at any given moment, if (and it’s a big if ) they make it to 2015 they’ll be limping.

him ‘out of touch’. I would think it is pretty clear now, to see that perhaps the wrong brother was elected. Of course at the time Ed was elected he was seen as something different to his more Blairite brother David, a change most in the Labour Party would’ve admitted had to happen. If they had known he would come across as awkward, with or without bacon, maybe the unions that are now threatening to desert the party if they lose on May 7 wouldn’t have elected him.

It’s 2015, where has it all gone wrong? We sit just a few weeks away from the election, Labour floating around 35% in the opinion polls, a figure roughly almost matched by the Conservatives. This wasn’t supposed to happen. How can the majority party in a frankly mismatched coalition still, five years after forming the coalition, be polling the same numbers as the opposition? Maybe we should be praising the Tories, after all, the economy is getting back on track and they’ve managed to put the blame for a lot of negative things, tuition fees and the sale of the Royal Mail, on to their Liberal Democrat counterparts. Whilst I can admit the Conservatives have handled this coalition relatively well, I still believe that a party as unpopular as they have been at times in the last five years shouldn’t be drawing level with the opposition with just weeks to go. This was Labour’s election to lose, and now that might just happen. The obvious person to blame is Ed Miliband himself, and that, in many ways, is fair enough. A recent YouGov poll found 43% of people saw Miliband ‘out of his depth’, before he is even near Number 10. 24% found him ‘weird’, 21% found 16

But despite all of this, I feel a tad sorry for Ed. Is it really all his fault? Is it his fault that Labour has, until very, very recently offered little alternatives policy-wise and has instead simply ridiculed the work of the coalition? Probably not entirely; is it his fault that a lot of people simply don’t like his shadow chancellor, Ed Balls? Again, probably not. However, the one thing I can’t quite get my head around is this; since mid-2012, when opinion polls showed Labour support falling from the mid 40% to the low-to-mid 30% it finds itself at now, little has changed. I’m not necessarily implying a leadership change was necessary, that could have easily back-fired, but it seems, with not long to go before election day, that the Labour Party just sat back and watched. They did nothing. Labour could have won this election with a majority, after the forming of the coalition in 2010 most would have said they should have. But the chances are they won’t, and they only have themselves to blame.

GENERAL ELECTION 2015

nother General Election, how boring, nothing's going to change, what's the point? A staggering majority of us feel like this. A study of 1000 people by Nottingham Trent University revealed that 64% believed that the concerns of the youth were not being represented and only 21% believed political parties actually changed people's lives for the better. Only 44% of 18-24 voted in the 2010 General Election. This is alarming, 66% of young people constitute a large portion of the vote and yet here we are, the silent mass, disenfranchised, uninterested and underrepresented. Therefore I put forward that come May 7th if you do find yourself lost in political rhetoric and feeling disconnected, instead of abstaining from the vote you consider a 'protest' vote instead. Won-Taek Kang defines protest voting as turning to a non-traditional party, 'due to a lack of generally preferred alternative or in an effort to signal... disaffection'. What a protest vote can achieve then is a clear signal to the major parties that the electorate's not happy and more specifically depending on which minor parties receive a significant increase in votes, which policies the people want addressed. What follows is an overview of three potential parties you could vote for in protest and what such a vote would tell the major parties about the political angst of the youth. Take UKIP for example, voting for UKIP would convey a general sense of concern towards Britain's membership of the EU amongst the youth voters. It would not necessarily encourage an exit but a more pro-active approach on the repatriation of political powers back to Westminster. Of course, there are other notable political concerns voting UKIP, it could convey include the increase in defence budget

GENERAL ELECTION 2015

back to NATO suggested levels of 2% of the GDP. It could also show support for their aim to remove tuition fees for students studying specific STEM subjects. On the other end of the spectrum, think about voting Green. A vote for the Green Party could convey support to the already growing anti-fracking campaign and a demand for renewable energy alternatives. Other political concerns a vote for the Greens could convey include the increase of the minimum wage to £10 an hour, as well as the complete scrapping of tuition fees. Although it’s hard to say if UKIP and Green really are protest votes, with a lot of genuine support behind the two parties. Perhaps a vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party is your best bet? Obviously, the Monster Raving Loony Party isn't a serious political entity, but really try and comprehend the party. If 66% of us aren't voting, and only 21% of us believe in the positive effects of our current political system then the Monster Raving Loony Party sums up what many of us are thinking. The current political system is completely out of touch. Indeed by abstaining from the vote I'd argue you're tacitly voting Monster Raving Loony Party. A vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party would send a clear message to the political establishment; the youth feel left out and don't rate the current performance of the major parties. While their policies provide for a quick laugh, the reality of what they stand for and the failures of the current establishment are a sobering wake up call. A protest vote then can be a powerful tool. Come May 7th weigh the pros and cons of a protest vote with not voting at all, and let your voices be heard.

Labour Party

PARTY PROFILES

Led by Ed Miliband

Build 200,000 new homes by 2020, giving first-time buyers the priority on new homes.

Reverse cut to the 50p tax rate.

Ban letting agency fees and freeze energy bills.

Abolish the bedroom tax.

ay on s s e ti r a p e th at you. Find out wh to r e tt a m t a the issues th

Money

Young People

Housing

Energy & Environment

EU & Foreign Policy

Defence

Limit the spread of payday lenders.

1,000 new border staff, and all public sector workers able to speak English.

25 hours of free childcare for working parents.

No more powers to be transferred to Brussels without an in-out-referendum.

Ensure all teachers in state schools are fully qualified.

Advocate human rights around the world.

End the Free School Programme.

Cap annual rail fares.

Reduce university fees to £6,000.

Create 1 million, high-tech green jobs.

Introduce smart ticketing for national transport, as is done in London.

Create more apprenticeships, and introduce ‘technical degrees’ for vocational subjects.

Stop the winter fuel allowance to the wealthiest pensioners.

Give local communities the power to set bus routes and fares.

Conservative Party

Led by David Cameron

Family & Schools

Balance the books, eliminate the deficit and make a budget surplus to pay off national debt.

Transport

All young people to study Maths and English to 18.

Decarbonise electricity by 2030 and insulate 5 million homes by 2025.

In-out referendum on Europe by the end of 2017.

Recruit and train 5,000 GPs, to implement a 7-day access to GPs.

Re-negotiate the UK’s position in the EU.

Increase funds for the NHS in real terms every year.

Spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid.

Improve personal care by having a named GP for every NHS patient.

Health Pledging not to raise VAT.

Follow NATO’s target of spending 2% of GDP on defence.

Of course, there are dozens of minority parities that you can read into and vote for, unfortunately we can only include a few in this small magazine. If you’re interested in finding out which politicians are running in your constituency, visit www.yournextmp.com

Profiles by Bridie Pearson-Jones (Labour Party), Mark Marsden (UKIP, Conservative Party), Corinne Dugdale (Green Party), Cameron Ridgway (Liberal Democrats, BNP, Respect Party, TUSC), Chris Baker (SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP, UUP) Design by Ed Baird

Replace to maintain nuclear deterrant.

Cutting income tax for middle income earners.

New award for service in the reserve forces.

Cutting tax on company profits but yet at the same time cutting corporation tax.

Build 200,000 starter homes, aimed at first time buyers under 40. Implement new ‘help to buy’ ISAs for firsttime buyers to help them for deposits. 10

Reduce welfare spending by £12bn. Reduce disability payments, by imposing taxes on disability living allowance and attendance allowance. More freedom to spend pensions.

Allow Russell Group universities to increase fees to £16,000. Fund 3 million apprenticeships. No housing benefit for 18-21 year olds.

Liberal Democrats

Led by Nick Clegg

Invest an extra £1 billion in the NHS between 2016 and 2017.

Maintain current system of tuition fee loans.

Extra £3.5 bn for mental health care.

Improve opportunities for vocational education.

Hold an impartial review of NHS funding before the end of the next parliament.

Double renewable energy by 2020, leading to a zero carbon Britain by 2050.

Raise £1bn by increasing corporation tax in the banking sector.

Only hold referendum on EU membership if there is a proposal for a ‘material transfer of sovereignty’. No replacement for trident. Ban arms exports to countries with poor human rights records.

UK Independence Party (UKIP) Led by Nigel Farage

Increase housebuilding to 300,000 new homes each year. Build 10 new garden cities.

Completely phase out fossil fuels and nuclear power generation.

Bring academies and free schools under local authorities.

Promote electric vehicles and public transport.

Invest heavily in renewable energy sources.

Ban zero hour contracts.

Up to 15 hours a week free childcare.

End privatisation of the NHS and competition within NHS services.

All teachers in state schools must be qualified. Protect education budget for 2 - 19 year olds from cuts.

Protect the greenbelt around London from further development.

Referendum on EU membership, replaced with a new trade agreement.

End ‘green taxes’ to cut fuel bills.

Become more influential in the World Trade Organisation.

Introduce new 35p rate of income tax between £42,285 and £55,000.

Extra £1bn a year for social care.

No tax on the minimum wage.

Scrap tuition fees for poorer students in STEM subjects.

Prioritise resources to tackle mental health.

Hold a referendum on EU membership. Increase overseas aid to 1% of GDP by 2025. Reform the EU to give local communities more power.

Plaid Cymru

Led by Leanne Wood

Promote building on brownfield sites, exemptions from Stamp Duty and VAT on the first sale. Prioritise social housing for people born locally.

Build 500,000 new homes for social housing by 2020. Stop people buying council houses. Introduce caps on rent and encourage longer tenancies.

Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP)

Led by Nicola Sturgeon

Cut foreign aid completely apart from disaster relief.

End hospital car parking charges in England.

EU students would have to pay the same university fees as international students.

Introduce a maximum 35 hour working week.

Cut public transport fares by 10%. Promote cycling, walking and green public transport to improve health and reduce pollution.

Charge for plastic bags.

Abolish inheritance tax, funded by cutting EU membership fees.

Increase allowances for carers.

Introduce a ‘wealth tax’ on the top 1% of earners.

Re-nationalise the railways.

Scrap all university tuition fees.

Clamp down on ‘health’ tourism by ensuring migrants have private health insurance before entering the UK.

Cap child benefit for families with more than two children.

Increase minimum wage to £10 by 2020.

Ban on fracking.

Prevent landlords from letting out homes with inadequate insulation.

Remove the Climate Change Act 2008.

Led by Natalie Bennett

Increase income tax threshold to £12,500.

Deal with the deficit by 2017/18 by ‘balancing the budget fairly’.

‘Mansion tax’ on home worth over £2 million.

Green Party

Left-wing with a long term goal of making Wales an independent member of the EU. Key Policies: While chances of independence remain slim, Plaid Cymru are focussing in the short term on overhauling the formula used to determine government funding in the UK, and continue to move lawmaking and other powers to Cardiff.

Left-wing Scottish Nationalists with a long term goal of moving Scotland out of the United Kingdom. Key Policies: Short of being able to hold another independence referendum, the SNP are continuing to push for further devolution of powers from Westminster to Scotland. Two specific areas of focus are the removal of all nuclear weapons from Scottish waters and streamlining of NHS services; such as the removal of 25% of the current crop of managers.

Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)

Sinn Fein

Right wing; supports Northern Ireland’s status as part of the UK and opposes unification with the Republic of Ireland.

Left wing, supports a unified Northern and Republic of Ireland and as such, is also active in the Republic.

Key Policies: The DUP state their goals as creating a prosperous Northern Ireland while strengthening its position in the UK. Their current seven “top priorities” are job creation, low rates, tough sentencing, education reform, increased health spending, increased interparty and intra-governmental cohesion, and (of course) stronger unionism with the UK.

Key Policies: More public spending and increased taxes. Sinn Fein’s main focus is on policies under the ‘All Ireland’ ideology underpinning their central goal of a united Ireland. Most notably a large number of their members are former members of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) and as such are fiercely opposed to being part of the United Kingdom.

Led by Gerry Adams

Led by Peter Robinson

Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) Led by Alasdair McDonnell

Centre-left nationalists supportive of a united Northern and Republic of Ireland. Key Policies: The SDLP tend to pitch themselves as a nationalist party of civil rights: less militant than Sinn Fein while still pushing towards a united Ireland. They support initiatives to promote Irish Gaelic, and aim to create a common economy between North and South.

British National Party (BNP)

Respect Party

Led by George Galloway

Led by Adam Walker

Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) Led by Mike Nesbitt

Centre-right, pro-unionists. Key Policies: The UUP support Northern Ireland’s continued position in the UK but tend not to make this as much of a part of their policies as the similarly-inclined DUP. Their main policy focuses are on education reform, job creation, preserving the Northern Irish NHS, and increasing the prospects for businesses in the region.

Has been described by many political commentators as Fascist or NeoFascist, though the party itself denies this. It is opposed to multiculturalism, immigration and what it perceives to be the ‘islamification’ of the United Kingdom.

Socialist, the party aims to create a ‘socially just and ecologically sustainable society’. It also aims to make sure that government is open and democratically accountable.

Key Policies: ‘Voluntary resettlement’ – offering those of ethnic origins other than ‘White British’ the chance to return to their country of ethnic origin. The party also supports the reintroduction of Capital Punishment and is opposed to membership of the EU.

Key Policies: End the austerity measures and reform the economy so it is no longer dependent on the financial services sector. Advocate the idea of progressive taxation – the more people earn the more they should pay. A reduction in the size of parliament and changing the electoral system so it is based on proportional representation. The party is Pro-EU but believes an in/out referendum on membership should be held.

English Democrats

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC)

Led by Robin Tilbrook

Led by Dave Nellist

Nationalism, have also been described as Eurosceptic. The party describes itself as ‘not left, not right, just English’.

Socialist, the party is a coalition formed by a number of trade unions and socialist groups.

Key Policies: Advocates ‘independence for England’ through the conversion of the House of Commons into a separate ‘English Parliament’. This has been suggested as way of tackling the issue of the West Lothian Question, where Scottish MPs are able to vote on issues only affecting England which are controlled by devolved assemblies in other parts of the UK.

Key Policies: Disagrees with austerity, arguing that the public should not pay for a crisis they did not cause. Would also work to end all government privatisation and collaboration with private enterprise, and to take organisations such as rail services and Royal Mail back into public control. Use public ownership as a means of controlling banks.

S E T A D Y E K

te lection Deba s) E l a r e n e G t s hfield Campu Te ig n to (H p t r m u a o C th u n So nning for the 0, Garde ru .0 s 0 2 te a – id 0 d n .0 a 8 c 1 ction April 27, e General Ele th g n ri tu a fe A debate nstituency. o c t s e T n to p Southam tion Debate 187 c le E l a r e n e G ilding, 157 – n u e B h s c It w e n h to tt p a sM Southam .00, Sir Jame 0 2 – 0 .0 8 1 , e April 29 running for th outhampton s S te t, a e e id d tr n S a r c a n Above B nt Students' ral Electio e le n o e S G h e it th w g n o n ri iati A debate featu en constituency in assoc h c It Southampton Union. ebate al Election D r e n e G th r o N Southampton re Hall e Romsey and running for th 0, Glen Ey s :0 te 0 a id -2 d 0 n a :0 c 8 1 n , ctio May 2 e General Ele th g n ri tu cy. a fe A debate ey constituen s m o R & h rt o N Southampton ebate al Election D r e n e G r te s e Winch constituency. r A Cafe S te s W e , h 0 c :0 in 0 W -2 e May 5, 18:00 g candidates running in th n ri A debate featu on! eneral Electi G e th r fo t in Voting lling card or a o p r 0 u o .0 y 2 2 n o – t May 7, 07.00 ing station you can vote a poll m Check which rvoice2015.co u o y te o rv u o www.y

esults Night R n o ti c le E l a Gener from 10pm in s . lt .. u s s d r re a 5 w 1 n 0 o 2 ction May 7, 22:00 e General Ele ing food and th rv f e o s t e h g ig ra n e ll v en a Watch live co bar will be op e h T . U S U S t The Bridge a drinks.