Hustings: Part Two

YUSU Presidential Candidates Grant Bradley, Charles Bushby, Tom Langrish and Tim Ngwena

• Women’s Officer

Amal Ali and Ellie Kuper Thomas's speech outlined their experience as members of Women’s Committee and their commitment to female welfare issues especially in relation to the development of Heslington East. They stressed the need for a harassment-free campus, echoing their campaign catchphrase: “Whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no.” They also expressed their wish to destigmatise the term feminism, raise awareness of sex and sexuality issues, and bring the morning after pill to campus.

When asked whether men should be allowed in Women’s Committe, Kuper Thomas suggested that male sexuality was the flip-side of female sexuality and thus men have a fundamental role to play in the committee.

• LGBT Officer

First up, James Ball and Mandi Madavo portrayed themselves as an “injection of vitality,” bringing a “fresh outlook” to the LGBT table and challenging the conventional power structure which they qualified as pervasively hierarchical. Their opponents, Peter Medley and Elanin Vince, laid out practical policies of increased inclusion and accessibility, emphasising the need to “catch up with other unis” in terms of providing a “safe space” for LGBT members, as well as “putting the T back in LGBT”.

Both sets of candidates expressed the desire to foster links between LGBT and the ISA, the GSA, NGS, as well as religious groups such as the CU. Questions from the floor brought an avalanche of praise for the current LGBT officers and raised the issue of the representation of asexuality on campus.

• Disability Officer

Claire Cornock took the floor next as sole candidate for the role of disability officer. She described her commitment to teaching as a PhD student, and her work with unseen disabilities such as dyslexia. She hopes to rebrand training sessions in order to make them more appealing to students as well as staff. Although she was unsure about the question “Which college needs the most effort to improve disability support?”, Cornock expressed her desire to find out and liaise with relevant authorities in order to address such issues.

• Student Action Officer

Rachel Hesselwood, another uncontested candidate, summarised her wide-ranging volunteering experience both within and outside Student Action, emphasising her enthusiasm for the task, especially in the aftermath of the loss of the SDC sabbatical position. Seeking to raise the profile and increase the publicity of Student Action activities, Hesselwood stated her desire to see students gain national recognition for their volunteering hours. The question “How much action should students get?” was met by a diplomatic “Well, it depends on the personality.”

• RAG Officer

Sarah Goss and Will Scobie having dropped out of the race, Iszi Chew was the first to take the floor, describing herself as “enthusiastic and dedicated,” especially since she is running on her own, a challenge, she says, that she is “willing to face.” Answering the question of what her favourite charity was, Chew stated she was “quite anti-child abuse”.

Helen Fry and Zoe Stones’s well-rehearsed speech impressed with its fun-loving repartee: “I don’t like to brag, but I do like to RAG.”

• Academic Affairs Officer

Academic Affairs Officer is one of the new roles created by the split of Academic and Welfare, and saw Charlie Leyland, current YUSU Academic and Welfare Officer, running uncontested. In her speech Leyland emphasised how she had so far delivered on her policies, such as looking into longer library opening hours. She also discussed how she was “excited” by the division of the role before going on to state her policies for the coming year.

Priorities included building on work she has carried out this year to improve student representation in academic departments, looking into a review of term dates, making departments more accountable for providing students with career support and standardising and improving feedback for essays.

During questioning Leyland asserted her belief that the splitting of the role would not have any negative effects and that she was choosing to stand for Academic Officer because she believed that York’s representation in this area was lagging far behind other universities. She stressed her strong knowledge of all 26 academic departments and her wish to see best practise implemented in all of them.

• Welfare Officer

Next up was the other half of the split role, the hotly contested position of Welfare Officer, with Jenny Coyle, Matt Pallas and Ben Humphrys all running for the position.

Jenny Coyle was up first, and emphasised how she would bring an “alternative approach” to the position. She stressed that despite having limited involvement with welfare committees she was genuinely committed to student welfare. Her policies included launching a campaign to help students better manage their finances whilst at university, ensuring student safety on campus through better lighting as well as adequate provision of condoms, rape alarms and spikeys, especially at campus events.

Next up was Ben Humphrys, who particulary stressed his commitment to holding the university to account for student accommodation as well as to improving what he considered to be an "under-performing health centre". He also wanted to improve online welfare facilites, with a system where students could rate their landlords. Additionally, he stressed student safety through better lighting and an increased use of the YUSU magic bus service.

Last up was Matt Pallas, who stated how he wanted to see more comprehensive and longer-term campaigns to raise awareness of welfare issues. He also wanted to see GUM provision on campus to provide more regular STI testing and proposed a week of housing events and a housing fair in the spring term to help and advise students looking for properties. Finally he stated his belief that the careers service needed to broaden its appeal as it was too focused on the “ABC jobs” - accounting, banking and consultancy.

During questioning the candidates were also asked whether the splitting of the role would have any negative effects. They all agreed that it would not, with Humphrys asserting that it must be seen as “one job done by two people”. Other questions included how they would work with ISA and GSA to reach all students with Coyle stating how she believed regular contact was crucial. The question of whether YUSU’s £1 a pint night encouraged binge drinking was also asked, with Pallas believing that it did and expressed his wish to see the Courtyard accredited as a responsible alcohol provider.

• President

The final position of the night and of Hustings 2009 was President, with four candidates standing, and the lecture hall filling up considerably. First up was Grant Bradley, who admitted his lack of experience or campus presence. However he stressed his commitment to representing all students through directly engaging with them through an online forum and lectures.

Bradley asserted that a review of campus accommodation needed to be conducted to resolve problems as well as matching the success of the Courtyard in the other college bars.

Next to speak was Charles Bushby who began by criticising the work of Tom Scott, calling his leadership over the last year “ineffectual”. He stated his belief that societies have suffered and proposed a long term plan to ensure adequate funding for them as well as working more closely with colleges to make sure their interests are preserved and students get the maximum support and range of activities.

Next to take the floor was Tom Langrish who stated he had the potential to be a “strong leader”. Langrish described his extensive experience representing students at departmental, university and national level. He outlined five policies - to secure JCR representation at Senate and the University Council, to double turnout at UGMs, to restructure the media charter, to launch a student experience survey and to create regular Student Union podcasts.

The final candidate was Tim Ngwena, who opted not to talk about his policies, which he advised people to look at online. Instead, he talked about "who he is". He described himself as a “natural leader” with wide ranging experience within sports clubs, societies and currently as Chair of Fusion. He believed that his wide range of experience across all areas of university life equipped him to effectively represent all students.

After the speeches all of the candidates faced a long list of questions from the audience. These ranged from what was their definition of a President to what they felt about the fact that no women were running for the role. All believed that a President's prime role was as a representative and all expressed regret that a woman was not standing, but believed that this was not necessarily a problem, as they could all adequately represent women’s interests.

They also all expressed the wish to make YUSU more visible and accessible so that more students would feel engaged with student politics.

A question about facilities in new Goodricke was raised, with Ngwena stating it must not be allowed to become “another Travelodge” with many areas of student life needing to be considered. Bradley also asserted that students needed to be asked about they would expect, a view echoed by Bushby who stated that a “two-tier” campus must not be allowed to develop. Finally Langrish stated he had already gone to the Goodricke JCR and said they had considered a cash point and an FTR bus service as the most crucial facilities.

They faced further questioning on the media charter; all believed it had good intentions and was essential for protecting student welfare but that the time had come to undertake a review of it and ensure it fully supported freedom of speech. All candidates also pledged to work more closely with both the ISA and the GSA. Asked if President was just a 9 to 5 job, all candidates passionately argued that it was not, promising to make themselves avaliable 24/7 and give 100% commitment to the role.

The questioning ended on a more light-hearted note with a stream of quick fire questioning. All candidates were asked their worst experience; Ngwena's involved running naked down Cliffords Tower, Bradley's, an incident on an EasyJet flight, Bushby’s, general student drunkenness and Langrish admitted to showing far too much in a music exam due to an undone zip.

Candidates were then asked who they would vote for if they were not standing, Ngwena and Langrish chose each other, Bradley also supported Langrish and Bushby slipped up, stating he would vote for “Graham”. Asked Nouse or Vision, Ngwena, Langrish and Bradley all favoured Nouse with only Bushby choosing Vision. Finally candidates were asked whether they preferred to be “laid back or on top”, with Ngwena and Bradley choosing the latter, Langrish and Bushby the former.

All candidates showed talent and conviction and performed well in response to questioning. However with Hustings now out of the way, all candidates and their campaign teams will have to work hard to build on the positive work already done to engage with students and secure their votes.

Add Comment

You must log in to submit a comment.