Students unimpressed as Union announces Summer ... - The Founder

More documents

Recommendations

Info

14 The Founder | Wednesday 28 May 2008 thefounder Students’ Union Poor show for renowned event Letters to the Editor Sir: There are few points that I wish to make. Looking at these ridiculous articles by Sam Kiss: I think its high time someone pointed out to him that however interesting his subject matter and opinions may be, writing in this absurd fashion, serves only to thoroughly obscure any point he may be trying to make... Harry Rowe Sir: I wonder, like many students, whatever happened to The Orbital? My SU wallplanner informs me that there should have been an issue on 12 May and again on 27 May. How much Union money does it cost? Victor Bernards Union ever believed that it could put a positive spin on the announcement of this year’s Summer Ball line up. Perhaps, by not listing the bands on the Student Union website, the Union were hoping to cause as little of a furore as possible. In the mean time, the ticket-buying guests to this years summer, ‘surprise party’ would remain as little insulted as possible until the, greatly anticipated, ‘star act’ fails to appear; instead, two beaming, middle-aged, balding men take to the stage looking like a z-list version of the chuckle brothers. We are, of course, talking about Right Said Fred. Who? You know the two brothers still famous for their one hit wonder ‘I’m too sexy for my shirt’. Although, the saddest thing is in the title for their song; they just are not sexy any more. Whoever organised the event must be stuck in some eighties, nostalgic time-warp, and is thus, illequipped to co-ordinate a soiree with a band which still has a modern student following. Another 80s talent taking to the famous Royal Holloway stage, which was once graced with the likes of Radiohead, is neighbours star Jason Donovan, famous for his perma-tan and his stint in the ‘I’m not a celebrity anymore but need to raise my profile, and gain some money from Heat magazine’ ITV television show. Where the party-planner did succeed was in booking Amy Winehouse. Yes, Amy Winehouse! Oh no wait, “sorry students, Amy had to back out for a stint at Glastonbury, and that gig for Abramovich’s girlfriend. So we booked the just as good ‘Maybe Winehouse’ to make up for it”. To slight all of us, who queued four hours for a ticket, even further JK and Joel, and H “Two” O Ft. Platinum will also be showing their not too recognisable faces. Of course, being a small university many will argue that we could just not get anyone better. However, as Warwick have The Wombats and Feeder, for a £40 ticket they will also wine and dine you, and as Bath have Scouting for Girls one would have thought that we could have tried a little harder. Being an ‘acclaimed’ top 20 university, with Royal Holloway’s ‘international reputation’, it is not ridiculous to assume that we could have managed to gain a headliner with more than one recognisable song – no, Donovan’s duet with Kylie does not count. Honestly, if we could not have got anyone better then we should hope the university would not spend our money on such embarrassments. Another, pitiful excuse being fluttered around is that it really does not matter who the acts are because there is such a high demand for the ball; tickets will sell regardless. Let us break the costs down. We all pay £65 for a ticket. £25 from each ticket goes towards the bands. 2,500 tickets are sold. The acts, therefore, get around £62,500. Whether we would pay this amount of money for a ticket is unimportant, what is important is that £62,500 of our money goes towards a commercial service which does not provide an adequate return. The union is complacent; they believe that students will not complain because there is always someone else to be duped out of £65. Therefore, we have the following proposal. We cancel the current line up. Every student is refunded £20 of their ticket. The remaining (£5 x 2,500) £12,500 goes towards Holloway talent such as: Handshake, who are currently playing unpaid because the Union ludicrously ‘does not think that they are talented enough to be paid’, Absolute Harmony, Undergraduated and a set by Poison Lost, a Holloway band who did an unbeatable remix of Amy Winehouse’s ‘You Know I’m No Good’ at Battle of the Bands. The rest of the night should be filled with our own talented DJs. Thus, for £45, we, as consumers, get a night of dance and modern, high quality music. The university has talented student musicians which deserve to be showcased instead of a bunch of expensive and unremarkable has-beens. To further add insult to our wallets the Union have organised the £35 Colours and Societies’ Balls which included free wine, a three course meal, a deluxe hotel location and free transport. On Thursday 29th May the Union’s the free Laurels take place, which include a meal and drinks for all. For no free food, no free drink, and our own location we are paying double the money for the year’s main event. The union can organise a successful event at little or no cost to the attendees. Why then does it choose to rip-off students at their final farewell? If the union is really a ‘profit-free’ organisation then they are being a spendthrift with the money they swindle out of the students who pay it to represent them. As students we have entered the world of academia. Our union is belittling our intelligence if it believes that we can be appeased with the musical crud left at the bottom of the expense pile. It is patronising us with excessive pricing for an event which does not fulfil its criteria. Here is our complaint about Summer Ball 2008. Where is yours? Sir: I would like to express my distaste at something that I heard at the AUC elections on Monday 19 May. Darea Ellis, the newly elected editor of The Score, was asked how she would ensure that sports were better publicised in The Orbital. Her response was that club presidents should be blackmailed into not sending their results and match reports to The Founder, if they do, they should have their funding cut. This seems rather bizarre considering that the two biggest sporting successes this year (Men’s Football winning the ULU Cup and the rowers’ success at the Allom Cup) were only covered by The Founder. Anonymous I did it my way tf editorial team Editor-in-Chief Jack Lenox Deputy Editor Cristina Lynch Arts Editor Beth Turrell Media Editor Jesse Klein Sports Editor Barry de Silva Podcast Editor Tom Matthews Webmaster Adrian Hayter Editor 08-09 Jessica Freeman Chief Subeditor 08-09 Camille Nedelec-Lucas Business & Advertising Manager Simon Hepher Business Assistant Bonita Norris The Founder is the independent student newspaper of Royal Holloway, University of London. We distribute at least 5,000 free copies every fortnight during term time around campus and to popular student venues in and around Egham. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Editor-in- Chief or of Wise News and Media Ltd, especially of comment and opinion pieces. Every effort has been made to contact the holders of copyright for any material used in this issue, and to ensure the accuracy of this fortnight’s stories. For advertising and sponsorship enquiries, please contact the Business & Advertising Manager: simon@thefounder.co.uk Want to write for thefounder? No problem! Just get in touch! Web www.thefounder.co.uk Email editor@thefounder.co.uk The Founder is published by Wise News and Media Ltd and printed by Mortons Print Ltd All copyright is the exclusive property of Wise News and Media Ltd No part of this publication is to be reproduced, stored on a retrieval system or submitted in any form or by any means, without prior permission of the publisher © Wise News and Media Ltd. 2008, 53 Glebe Road, Egham Surrey, TW20 8BU Designed by Jack Lenox and Jessica Freeman 23rd Issue Well, this is the 23rd time I have spent no less than two straight days (with very little sleep) laying out this newspaper for your reading pleasure. Alas, this is the last time I’ll be doing it. Apparently, I’m also supposed to be doing this irritating thing called a degree and it’s suffering without my attention. It genuinely does seem like only yesterday that I sat down with a few fellow freshers in Wedderburn and discussed the idea of starting a newspaper. It’s all very vivid: from the first ever business meeting (which I think was with Mick at Gemini Taxis) to the evening that Simon, Mike and I went out under cover of darkness to stick up our rather enigmatic posters: “The Founder - coming soon”. On a chilly December morning (Friday 8th, 2006) a pallet arrived at the Union with 4,000 newspapers on it. There were the looks of disbelief on the faces of the then President and VPComServ, Rob Coveney and Harry Bryant respectively. Then the look of mild frustration on Rob’s face when he realised that my article about the smoking ban (which had been proposed at the previous GM) was wildly inaccurate! Yet, on the whole, it went down pretty well. I hope that everyone has noticed it gradually getting better and whether you enjoy what you read or not, I hope that everyone at least appreciates what we’re trying to do. Indeed, if you’re reading this bizarre little comment then you must read this whole thing quite carefully! I would like to thank all those who have helped the cause over the past two years, the editors from the first year: Beth Turrell, Michael Dean, Dan Nicholls, Tim Ruffles, Joe Fitzpatrick, Lara Stavrinou, Allison Ealey, Will Sudlow; newcomers in the second year: Fern Riddell, Cristina Lynch, Jesse Klein, Barry de Silva, Adrian Hayter, Tom Matthews and Morgan Hamilton-Griffin. Of course, this paper wouldn’t be what it is without the tireless work of Simon Hepher running the business side, it would have been more or less impossible without him. But most of all, I want to thank you, the students of Royal Holloway. I hope that you all have a great Summer. Long may this last. JL
The Founder | Wednesday 28 May 2008 Special Feature 15 The Modern Cult of Personality Nick Teasdale compares cultural attitudes in Britain, Russia and the USA Suspend your disbelief and imagine the following: It is spring 2003, and hundreds of students gather in Trafalgar Square to catch a glimpse of a political superstar: Prime Minister Tony Blair. He stands in front of the National Gallery, addressing the crowd. The familiar gestures are there to be seen. You hear that earnest and emphatic style of delivery, replete with dramatic pauses. The eyebrows dance; the smile gleams. He speaks on behalf of the British public, and he is clearly in his element. Feeling the hand of history on his shoulder, Blair advocates pre-emptive military action, preaching the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East. An assertive foreign policy, delivered through a coalition of the willing, can re-shape the world in the wake of 9/11; for the kaleidoscope has been shaken (here he re-visits the phraseology of an earlier, muchadmired speech) and the pieces have yet to settle. Pre-emptive action; regime-change; 45 minutes; WMD; Britain’s moral imperative; the Special Relationship: these ideas are consumed by students standing in awed-silence, feeding off every word. New Labour, New Britain. And a new world-order, too. The reader may be puzzled by this account of a pro-Blair, pro-war youth rally, and with good reason: I made it up. Blair perhaps dreamt of support like this, but the rally makes no sense in a British political context. In reality, people rallied against Blair, not for him. In February 2003 over 750,000 people of all ages marched through London, protesting against Blair’s decision to support the American invasion of Iraq. Blair once stated that he did not “seek unpopularity as a badge of honour”; unpopularity was simply the “price of leadership and the cost of conviction”. It is true that, in the run-up to the 1997 general election, Blair’s photograph was prominent in the Labour Party’s campaign literature: his face filled the front cover of the party manifesto. Adoring crowds did greet him upon his arrival in Downing Street. But Blair’s value as an electoral asset was severely compromised during his second term in office. There is a reason for this, quite Failed cult of personality Tony Blair at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland Photograph: World Economic Forum aside from the Iraq war: British people soon tire of personality cults. In cultural terms, the political cult of personality is an alien concept. British television celebrities enjoy more respect than politicians. Writing in The Times recently, Alice Miles proposed that public interest in politics could be reinvigorated through appointments to the House of Lords by popular petition; she anticipated that Ant and Dec and Davina McCall would benefit from this hypothetical system. Professional politicians could never hope to gain enough signatures; the British attitude to politics, mired in apathy and cynicism, would prevent this. It is this cynicism that makes it difficult for us to comprehend foreign examples of the political cult of personality. There is a country where largescale political idol-worship exists within the framework of an ostensibly free society. That country is Russia. And the man who commands the zeitgeist? Former President and new Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Like Blair, Putin has overseen an economic resurgence at home. Putin has also embraced an imperialist defence policy, brutally crushing dissent in Chechnya. Blair often refuted the claim that his attempt at spreading liberal values through “ Blair once stated that he did not “seek unpopularity as a badge of honour”; unpopularity was simply the “price of leadership and the cost of conviction” ” military action was essentially imperialist. Putin tends not to be so equivocal when discussing his desire to promote Russian influence abroad. His nostalgia for a Russian empire is explicit: he once remarked that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the twentieth century. Yet in most respects, the two men have nothing in common. Unlike Blair, Putin is still adored by his people. Now that his constitutional limit of two presidential terms has expired, Putin retains his popularity and his grip on power. As Prime Minister he will serve under his chosen successor, new President Dmitry Medvedev; but as Chairman of the United Russia Party, the largest party in the Russian parliament (the Duma), Putin continues to hold all executive power. Medvedev has no popular supportbase to call his own; Russians voted for him purely because of Putin’s endorsement. Medvedev would be rendered politically impotent and unable to govern effectively through the Duma were Putin to retract this endorsement. Putin is too popular and therefore too powerful to be crossed by the new head of state. According to a recent opinion poll conducted by Moscow nongovernmental organisation the Levada Centre, Putin’s approval rating in Russia stands at 86%. This is the highest genuine approval rating for any statesman in the world. 66% of Russians believe it is a good thing that nearly all power lies in the hands of Vladimir Putin. Putin’s popularity amongst the young is especially striking for a man who has dominated Russian politics since 1999. This support is widespread and perhaps best demonstrated through a strange phenomenon: the Nashi youth movement. We are in Moscow. It is the evening of 2 March 2008, and a concert attended by thousands of young people begins in Red Square. On stage, a Russian rock star wearing a black beret sings, playing acoustic guitar. Massive video screens bathe the audience in light. Two musicians on electric guitar enter the fray as the lead singer launches into an aggressive, triumphant chorus. This is a patriotic rock anthem, and the guitars give voice to a rhapsody of escalating notes. In Red Square, hundreds of Russian flags wave in time; banners emblazoned with slogans rise from the crowd. St. Basil’s Cathedral is illuminated by orange flood lights. There are no stars out tonight; a heavy blanket of cloud looms large over the city. The snow turns gradually to rain. The song has reached its climax and a woman on loud speaker takes her cue, announcing the arrival of President Putin and his chosen successor, First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. According to overwhelmingly-favourable exit polls in today’s election, Medvedev is now President-elect. Stage lights flare and the crowd screams; two men in black stride up to the microphones. Vladimir Putin, the most popular man in Russia, has joined his protégé on stage for a victory speech. Medvedev begins: “This is a special day for our country. We are choosing a course for a pretty long period of time… We shall maintain the course that President Putin has proposed… We will continue to move ahead together.” It is a deferential, cautious and uninspiring speech. The crowd begins to chant: “Putin! Putin! Putin! Putin! Putin!” Medvedev shifts uncomfortably on his feet, glancing at his mentor. Putin’s face breaks into a broad smile as he presses his lips to the microphone. This is a man who knows how to work an audience. Putin, his voice characteristically highpitched, shouts: “You’re freezing!” The crowd, buffeted by snow, rain and sleet, bellows back: “No!” Putin asks: “Can you give me one minute?” His audience roars back: “Yes!”
Page 1 and 2: Darning Jilly Students off to Edinb
Page 3 and 4: The Founder | Wednesday 28 May 2008
Page 13: The Founder | Wednesday 28 May 2008

Students unimpressed as Union announces Summer ... - The Founder

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?