Exec Elections Leaflet Three 29. 02. 16
Bubble Debate - Overview How do I Know Who to Vote For? Sport, Societies and Welfare and Diversity Manifesto Critiques
MANIFESTO CRITIQUES Bubble Debate – Overview
EDITORIAL We’re almost at the end, and what a campaigning period it’s been! Yesterday saw the candidates battle it out in the Bubble Debates in which some got a little heated! I hope you engaged with our Label Live Reports on the Bubble Debates yesterday, which are still available for you to find out more on now, just head to the elections website! I have to say a big thank you to the Label volunteers who have contributed over the last few weeks and helped to create those conversations about candidates online and on campus. Our leaflets have been a small part of our content and we really hope that you have found them interesting, current and beneficial. This final update provides you with our last manifesto critiques of candidates for Sport, Societies and Welfare for you to consider. All that waits now is Results Night! Judging by last year, it will be a busy one, we’ll be preparing Label Issue 5 whilst the majority of you are out partying, so we hope you’ll pick up a copy when it’s out on Friday! We wish all candidates an unbiased good luck from Label and hope that you’ve enjoyed our coverage on you! If you’re one of the lucky winners on Wednesday, no doubt there’ll be more coverage about you this week and beyond! Katie Wilson Label Editor 2
The Bubble Debate is always known to be an unmissable event on the Loughborough Students’ calendar. Everything that goes down can and mostly likely will decide the future of the Union. All roles include – in no particular order - Union Affairs, Media, College, Education, Rag, Action, Welfare and Diversity, Finance and Commercial Services, President and Sport. Each candidate comes to the podium to contest their role and ultimately convince both the immediate audience and those watching at home. Whether they’re up against another candidate or not, the threat of RON still lingers and is as ever omnipresent. This year, the Bubble Debate was held at Martin Hall, which may be seen as a more intimate platform to evaluate the potential candidates for 2016/17. Over 6 hours, each sections had their own slot with time to present equal representations of their manifesto and why they should be elected for their particular role. Criticism is one of the key elements which essentially make a debate, a debate. Audiences from the Martin Hall itself, Twitter and YikYak were encouraged to get involved, and of course, not all of these were all constructive compliments. Additionally, each candidate this year has been reported through the new Exec Elections website during the debate – though this heightens the immediacy and excitement of the debate, there have been some negative responses despite the levelled and fair accounts reported. But what is a debate without varied viewpoints? You can catch up on all the action as it was streamed and reported live through execelections.lsu.co.uk, and see which candidate responded best to the grilling of students, alumni and previous EOs and who ultimately deserves your vote. Alice Priestley Label Features Editor
Illustration by Alice Bindloss
SPORT CANDIDATES LUKE THOMSON
JACK MYNOTT
One of Luke’s propositions in his bid to become the next Sport EO is a full-scale review of the AU. It could argued that this full scale review should have been conducted at the start of his current year in office, allowing him to achieve more, and making a second year in the position unnecessary. However, the candidates get less than a year to put their ideas into practice, so it could be that until Luke was in charge of his section he didn’t know this review would be required. Given Luke’s experience, he may well be the best person to do this, as he will know how to conduct this review, and most importantly where to start!
Jack’s manifesto starts with a vow to win BUCS for the 37th year. However, those in the sporting know may argue that as Sport EO this will not be within Jack’s control. It is the competing athletes, players and coaches themselves, as well as their counterparts from other establishments that will ultimately determine this.
Luke suggests that the AU need to improve communication with the student community and, to this end, he wants to reinstate WoW. This may well succeed in bringing the AU to students’ doorsteps, giving them a more intimate connection with the people who work within it, and the teams under its control; however, it was discontinued for a reason. Although this may be successful in the short term, this could just be an abortive idea, especially with print journalism continuing to decline. The final point in Luke’s manifesto centres on finance and external financial opportunities. No doubt students will be pleased that Luke wants to stop costs being “continually passed onto students” as they have been in recent years, but there isn’t too much detail regarding his financial plan in the manifesto. Read Label’s interview with Luke to find out about these plans in more detail!
His second point is a financial one. He wishes to use a “performance driven model” to ensure the continued development of successful teams. In theory this seems like a logical thing to do, as those who perform well will receive increased financial support for their efforts. But could this mean that teams who don’t do so well under the new financial system turn against their new Sport EO? Jack’s further four points centre on his main focus of “BUCS excellence with regard to sporting elite, and increasing student participation”. One of these points is to enhance the ‘Big Match’ reputation, increasing spectatorship to sports. A new focus on sports such as American Football will undoubtedly improve spectatorship, but this will only transfer the issue to a different sport, as many will continue to suffer with unpopularity. Another of his aims is to evolve the current state of Loughborough Sport, not change it. In saying this, is he suggesting that the continuation of Luke’s office is an equally viable option as the one he is putting forward? Jack’s final two points, regarding MyLifestyle and the CVA will hopefully engage more students, but it’s up to students to apply themselves, and again Jack could have little influence over this.
Leanna Kightley Label Assistant Editor 3
SOCIETIES CANDIDATES ESTHER MALKINSON
JOE ROSS-NELSON
Esther begins her manifesto for societies by outlining her own experience in the societies section, in setting up her own society and working within the societies exec. This is a strong opening as it pulls on relevant experience and doesn’t waste time discussing anything not relevant to the position in question. However it may have benefited Esther to say briefly how exactly this experience will help her in her potential role.
Joe Ross-Nelson’s manifesto takes a similar structure but begins with him outlying an enthusiasm for the societies executive. Perhaps starting with an outlining of his experience would have had more of an impact but it is refreshing to see a candidate leave their experience at the door and focus on enthusiasm and passion.
Following this Esther outlines her manifesto points clearly and precisely, which can be a mixed blessing for candidates. Although it shows a clarity and focus it can seem to specific, and not seem to encompass a wider commitment to the role. Esther’s manifesto points have both of these effects to some degree. Her first point, about a societies from a hat social to increase involvement between societies is a positive idea on the surface but has often needed elaboration in debates and interviews. This also goes for her second point about a #NeverTooLate hashtag an idea that Esther has to repeatedly explain how it will simply go beyond a hashtag although her efforts do not always clear thing up. Her final point about wanting to meet with all societies has been possibly the most questioned as many see it impossible to meet with so many societies. Esther has admitted that it would be tough and that it made need tweaking but her commitment to the point remains strong. Overall Esther’s manifesto has possibly created more questions than it has answered and many of her points have needed clarifying and expanding. To her credit however she has stood beside these points throughout the campaign even if they may need to be rethought or revamped. 4
Joe then wastes no time outlining no less than five different manifesto points. As is to be expected, doing this means that Joe isn’t quite able to give as much detail as might be appropriate. A couple of points seem slightly too vague, such as a drive for ‘college enrichment’ and ‘department engagement’ and perhaps Joe would have benefited from using his word count to clarify these ideas rather than trying to pack in as many points as possible. His idea for societies forums to increase feedback seems that it could be useful and does make a strong start to his manifesto points. Other points are more focused, such as a plan for societies targets building on from the societies appraisals that are already in place. It’s good here to see Joe building on prior work done and it shows a good knowledge of the section. His final point of societies stories, highlighting some of the good work down by societies is another positive idea but is perhaps a tad thin for a closing statement and could perhaps have been cut to expand on other points. What this closing point does do however is highlight Joe’s clear enthusiasm for the societies exec. Joe has talked frequently about being friendly and approachable in his campaign and this is shown in his manifesto and it makes clear that his passion will certainly carry through were he to be elected. Jamie Hutton Label News Editor
Illustration by Greg Carter
WELFARE AND DIVERSITY
CANDIDATES
NUZHAT FATIMA
CHARLIE DALE
Nuzhat Fatima is running to be the next EO for Welfare and Diversity during 2016/17. Her manifesto is divided into clear sections of what she wants to achieve for the section and for whom these ideas are designed.
Charlie Dale is running to be your next EO for the Welfare and Diversity section. With a shedload of experience, including being the chair of the LGBT+ Association for two years, LGBT Officer on the Welfare and Diversity committee for a year and currently being the Vice Chair of the Section, Dale appears to be very well-informed about the section which is vital.
Under the title “LIBERATION”, Fatima aims to implement a “Safe Space” catered to all liberation groups, which include mature students, LGBT, Ethnic Minorities Network, HeadsUp, the Disabilities Network, Women’s Network and Sexual Health Co-Coordinator. This would be available to all students, where they can “express themselves fully without fear of being made to feel unwelcome, or unsafe” based on who they are/where they are from. This takes into account not just physical features but includes mental health, too which is a crucial element to acknowledge. Under “ACCESSIBILITY”, Fatima proposes a “continuous Q&A Forum”, which allows for students to post “anonymous question regarding wellbeing”. Furthermore, she proposes a “long term goal” of running the £1 night bus during nights out organised by the Union. Fatima will implement “better training for all liberation officers”, which will “equip students with better knowledge on mental health, disability, race, class, sexuality, gender, age and ethnicity”. Under “COOPERATION”, Fatima offers a wider opportunity to celebrate religious events, incorporating “Eid celebrations in collaboration with Muslim students” should this fall during the semester. Ensuring the Disabilities Network and Mature students “have a committee” and more effective marketing by the Union is her final point. With a great deal of supporting points, who will get your vote for the next EO for Welfare and Diversity?
She says that her experience listed has “provided [her] with a comprehensive understanding of what the role entails” – and hopefully also what needs to be done for her post to be a success. Altogether, Charlie Dale has four key objectives that she aims to implement in the next year of 2016-17. Firstly, improvement of “cohesion and strength of the section”, secondly, “increase fluidity between the different Associations and its members”, thirdly, “increase the level of cross-platforming between sections” and finally, “increase diversity of events and engagement with the student body and improve communication”. She aims to do this through organising and running more ‘collaborative events and campaigns’, and ‘create more opportunities for students to engage such as volunteering with societies’. All the previous points will undoubtedly maintain and improve Welfare and Diversity’s main objectives, but what precise ideas will prove the development of the section?
Alice Priestley Label Features Editor 5
GOOD BAD JELLYBEANS &
Exec Elections 2016 has taken Loughborough by storm: campus, town, social media, not one has been left unaffected by the influence of #EE2016. Even the relatively new app Yik Yak couldn’t evade the reach of the elections this year. Being in my second year, I only have EE2015 to compare to, but by comparison this year’s Exec Elections have been remarkable. The camaraderie between all the candidates, even those running for the same position is admirable. If only the politicians in the House of Commons could show such decorum. It has been two weeks of good, clean, fun, yet fair campaigning which all began with the release of candidate manifestos. The way the elections were run this year meant that manifestos were released before the live launch, thus allowing students to read manifestos before becoming consumed in the hype of Campaign Week, enabling students to find out what issues really mattered to the candidates as opposed to what they would be wearing all week. The efficiency LSU Media has displayed during the elections has meant that students have been well informed at all times. From finding out the latest candidate to be banned from LCR press releases to real-time photos of campaigns, the critical coverage LSU Media has given the elections has been unequivocally thorough. 6
The release of RON manifestos this year also caused quite a stir but has now made it easier for the average voter to fully understand what their options are when going to vote. The omnipresence of RON has challenged some candidates, especially those uncontested. Hopefully the RON manifestos allow candidates to amend any inaccuracies or shortcomings in their manifestos before voting commences. The quality of campaigning also exceeded that of last years, in my opinion. In comparison to EE2015 the standard of candidates, campaigning and the presentation of teams is commendable. The union and Elections Committee should be applauded for their ability to implement and govern a strict but fair budget for all candidates. As well, in supplying the candidates with 10 t-shirts and guiding them through the design process meant that no one candidate or team had an unfair aesthetic advantage. EE2016 has seen candidates take social media by storm, from parody songs to celebrity endorsements to national media coverage. The innovation and originality that the candidates approached the elections with has been exceptional. The astuteness the Elections Committee exhibited while governing proceedings did lead to numerous bans being publicised, with the first being handed out within hours of Campaign Week beginning. Over the course of last week there were five bans dished out for various reasons resulting in varying lengths of campaign bans. Campaign week saw Luke Thomson, Esther Malkinson, Jack Mynott, James Rowe and Andrew Stainthorpe. With bans galore in full swing, the question remains that with the bans having such a brief life expectancy, as to not punish to the detriment of the campaign, were there really a suitable punishment or, with so many of them being dished out did they run the risk of being ineffective?
Beatrice Quarshie Label Features Editor
Design by Holly Kemp
e h T e h T e h T
How do I know who to vote for? The time has come for us to take these elections seriously. Whoever you vote to be your next Executive Officers will affect your University experience. Whilst being a part of campaigning is fun, it is important to remember to vote wisely based on what the candidate will be bringing to the role, rather than their funky costumes or funny videos. So how do you know who to vote for? Manifestos! Be sure to look at all the candidates’ manifestos online at the LSU Website before you cast your vote. You need to know what the candidate is aiming to do within the role to decide whether they have good ideas and whether those ideas could benefit you. Also, check out the RON manifestos which critiques all the candidates statements. This will provide you with a more analytical voting mind set. The Bubble Debate! Whether you watched it or missed it make sure you watch it again or read up on it before casting your vote. You’ll hear from the candidates themselves and will be able to judge how well they respond to the questions asked and the interrogation they receive over their manifesto. You’ll also get a feel for their personality and work ethic. Social Media! This should be your last resort, but if you have been unable to look at the manifestos then submit your vote based on the candidates Facebook, Twitter or Instagram profiles or who you have seen most of. At least this way you could judge that they are hard working and dedicated to the role, wanting as many people as possible to know about them.
Overheard Loughborough
“The more you do, the more you get criticised” “Ooh a baby, I can feel my womb, it speaks to me.”
TOP
TWEETS
Bea @B_trisss Feb 26 Goodbye Free Sweets! #EE2016 Jess Excell @President_LSU Feb 28 Some sassy debates going on over in Martin Hall ..Hope you’re tuned in online & getting involved with #EE2016 PGR President Team @pgr_president Feb 28 Someone will have to expain YikYak to us one day #EE2016 making us feel incredibly old! PGR President Team @pgr_president Feb 28 Really interesting to see the dynamics between two candidates and a single candidate at Bubble Debate #EE2016
Abbey Gardner
7
?
ears Exec Y is h T e v Ha Forgotten s e t a id d n Ca
Loughborough London is a Post-Grad campus located on the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Loughborough London is part of Loughborough Students’ Union; with the current and future executive team representing their views in the same way they do at the University and the College (there’s another debate there if you want one!). At Loughborough London LSU has a committee, voted on by the students at Loughborough London - lsu.co.uk/london/committee/. Within the 250 word manifesto only one candidate mentioned Loughborough London with Anna Milewska (running for Action EO) stating that she wants to strengthen the relationship with the London Action Rep. However, this was the only mention of Loughborough London in manifestos, compared to the College being mentioned in four manifestos (six if you include the College EO manifestos) and the university being mentioned in seven manifestos.
However, maybe this isn’t entirely the fault of the candidates, maybe this is a wider issue of understanding how Loughborough London actually fits in within LSU. Whilst I am disappointed to see very little discussion about Loughborough London and the lack of interaction with the students there when LSU itself doesn’t know where it stands, how can the candidates? Jennifer Taylor in her interview with Label when asked about Loughborough London reflects this potentially confused relationship saying: “I’m not really 100% sure about the LSU London situation; I just know that Exec spend a lot of their time there. It’s still something that’s growing and they’re still learning how much input they need to put in there”. Clearly development is needed to improve the relationship with LSU and Loughborough London, hopefully next years Executive team bring this with them. I hoped we’d see some engagement with London in the Bubble Debates, seeking to engage the postgraduates in London. It could be possible that in a 250-word manifesto there simply wasn’t space to mention Loughborough London, or more worryingly the candidates have simply forgotten about them. Jack Berisford Chair of Hall Media Disclaimer: Exec Elections Leaflet Three 29. 02. 16
Bubble Debate - Overview How do I Know Who to Vote For? Sport, Societies and Welfare and Diversity Manifesto Critiques
Label is the publication of Loughborough Students’ Union. The opinions contained are those of individual contributors, not of Loughborough Students’ Union, the editorial team, or any other officer of the union unless otherwise stated. Cover Design by Liam Cooke & Greg Carter
Design by Holly Kemp
We’re now most of the way through the Exec Elections with 18 candidates running for 11 positions to represent the students of Loughborough University, Loughborough College and Loughborough London. Whilst we’ve heard many ways the candidates will be improving the student experience here in Loughborough at the College and University, we’ve heard very little about the way the candidates want to work with Loughborough London.
In Label interviews with one of the candidates running for Union President, Andrew Stainthorpe was questioned about how he would work with Loughborough London. Though he answered the questions and has considered how Loughborough London may fit in in future years, it’s clear that further development of the relationship LSU and London is needed.