So elections are over for another year, and as the dust begins to settle and my headache from results nights slowly fades the reality is actually, as usual, a lot duller and more inconsequential then it could have been, and sometimes seemed during the campaign.
There were, essentially, no upsets. The majority of the sabbatical positions were, much like last year, won by an established, student politics insider with a reliable, non controversial track record. Sam Maguire in my mind might as well be Kallum with an Irish accent – Kallum O’Taylor if you will, and the loose clusters of radicals and reformers and “up yours YUSU” candidates that emerge every year now lie thoroughly beaten about the battlefield, forced to pick up their tattered standards and retreat back to the fringes of student political life. Except Jack Coy of course, who actually did rather well for a man dressed as a crab.
However, you may have noticed that during the last few days of the campaign, that several candidates, particularly the sitting sabbs, began openly trumpeting each other’s good graces from the rooftops, publically endorsing each other on facebook and the like. Of course, everybody knows stuff like this happens; having the support of JCRC chairs for example has been informally regarded as one of key deciders in locking up the support of a college’s likely voters and major opinion formers, not to mention often winning you a guided campaign tour of the blocks. Similarly I remember being at a coup’d’etat event during last year’s elections at which I sighted a most amusing tableau of the current sabbatical officers (who at the time were all mere candidates for their positions) hovering around the distinctive form of Kallum Taylor like moths to a flame, whilst Chris West, who’s re-election campaign for Student Activities was floundering, looked on mournfully from a corner table. West lost, and his assassin, none other than our own Anna McGivern, was amongst those standing just a few feet from Taylor.
Now, obviously it’s next to impossible to stop this sort of thing happening, and I’m far from suggesting that it’s the deciding factor in the elections, it isn’t, although it certainly doesn’t hurt. Similarly, I don’t see anything particularly wrong with endorsements per se, In fact one of my main problems with YUSU elections is that the seemingly endless list of rules turn them into something resembling a vicar’s tea party. If you’ve got something to say you need to be allowed to say it, because by not saying it there’s a chance we could end up electing some total berk. However, having candidates and sabbs openly telling people who to vote for on social media does raise an interesting question about the union’s policy regarding endorsements.
The letter of the law in YUSU’s election regulations is that societies, sports clubs and the student media cannot endorse candidates. In our particular case as a student newspaper the rules are even more stringent, heavily dictating what we can publish during elections, lest our musings affect the results of the plebiscite. But an individual is free to endorse whomever they like in a personal capacity, regardless of position, even Kallum Taylor himself, although Taylor has generally been a gentleman and declined to use this right, to his credit.
So if they can do it, why can’t we? Because the rule doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the impact of the endorsement. The conventional joke goes that an endorsement from Vision or Nouse would probably hinder, rather than help a candidate, whether as the support of a sitting sabbatical officer and all the apparatchiks and general hangers on that go with them is a potentially serious boon to a campaign, not to mention an endorsement from a candidate in another race, or a second preference endorsement from another candidate in the same race. After all, Student politicians tend to be avid social-mediaphiles with umpteen thousands of facebook friends and thus their name and brand is at least equal too if not more politically valuable than the endorsement of a sports team or a student newspaper.
It’s all perfectly within the rules, but there’s just something not quite cricket about it. The message YUSU could be seen to be giving out is that only their guys should be allowed to influence the elections, taking great steps to silence potentially powerful dissenting voices from outside the bubble, whilst allowing insiders to politically manoeuvre to their hearts content.
Of course, the argument that YUSU would no doubt use if quizzed as to why societies shouldn’t be allowed to endorse is that it’s extremely difficult to ensure that a societal endorsement is an accurate representation of the will of that society at large, which is probably about fair. Not everyone within Vision or Rugby or PantSoc will have voted for the same people, although on many occasions informal societal voter blocs do form. But surely they could find ways to make societal endorsements more representative: an open vote within the society, a quota that has to be reached before an endorsement can be valid. Or, if they’d prefer, at very least make it so that candidates running in the elections and sitting YUSU officers are not allowed to endorse either, because at the moment, there’s something of a double standard. The desire to prevent anyone or anything from influencing the elections one way or another is admiral, but YUSU’s policy for doing so seems oddly selective, in fact it’s almost as if our union has deliberately locked external actors out so that they’re free to duke things out amongst themselves. In the words of Tyrion Lannister (yes, I know I’m quoting a Game of Thrones character) “When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” And sometimes, just sometimes, it feels like that’s exactly what YUSU is afraid of.
Per se. Vicar’s/vicars’. Equal to. Admirable.
These things hurt me, please proof.
But but but, Bob Hughes did it last year too and none of you complained about that. I wonder why? Oh no, I know why – you liked Bob. Vision doesn’t appear to like any of the current sabbs, with the exception of Dan Whitmore who… wasn’t endorsed by any of the current sabbs and crucially, didn’t win. If Dan had won/been endorsed by the very people you are complaining about I’m not sure Vision would have posted this article.
Top article! Very true. @oh behave, get a life loser
@George Hughes, as a member of Dan Whitmore’s campaign team comments like that don’t exactly help the argument.
The article raises an interesting point, but I don’t think allowing societies as a whole to back a candidate is a good idea.
I didn’t join a society as a political body, I joined to learn how to produce and edit, and anybody who wanted any involvement in student television should feel welcome. Say my society had decided to hold a vote to endorse Chris Wall (with appropriate quotas and all) and I didn’t support him (though I did, he was a great station director), I don’t think it’s right that I should feel compelled to leave on behalf of my political views if I disapprove strongly enough or feel an odd-one-out in a society I joined for apolitical reasons.
I really resent having to comment on my own articles but I can see some stuff is going to become a theme which should be headed off.
@Oh,Behave Bit presumptuous I think there. I admittedly didn’t pay as much attention to elections last year as a Fresher but I had no idea Bob Hughes did that, nor did I ever particularly see why everyone rated him so highly. I also think I make it clear in the article that this sort of thing has no doubt gone on before and not just this year. This just seems like your whole point is that we have spurious motives for publishing the article and makes no reference to the points raised in the article, which is just playing the man and not the ball.
Just speaking generally, the whole point of this article has nothing to do with whether you supported Maguire or Whitmore or whoever, it’s about whether endorsements from sabbs and other candidates are fair and whether the best solution to this is to ban them from making endorsements or to let groups like the papers and the sports teams endorse to even out the playing field. Even if I did support Whitmore, he already lost. This article doesn’t help the man in any way, it’s about what policy we should pursue in future elections.
Which brings me to @apolitical society member. Thank you very much for making a comment which actually questions the things that I actually wrote and not what you may or may not think you know about this paper or Helena Horton. Basically, I totally agree with what you say and it had occurred to me whilst writing this. For the reasons you mention I would prefer that neither societies nor sabbs and candidates were allowed to endorse, all I would say is that in my mind letting societies endorse is preferable to a system where YUSU have a rule which gives disproportionate levels of political influence to people inside their bubble.
What on earth does Helena Horton have to do with this article?
I do apologise. That was a reference to another comment in the queue which didn’t appear to make it past moderation, probably because it was based on the weird assumption that Helena Horton wrote this, but it’s good to see you skirting the actual article once again.
A better question would be. What on earth does Daniel Whitmore have to do with this article? Your comment has nothing to do with the piece, it’s just a theory you have about whether or not this article would have been published if Daniel bloody Whitmore had won, and I’m telling you it would. Because it’s a call for something to be changed in future, the campaign is over. No article can change the results of an election which has already happened. Now you can believe that or not. I don’t care. But you don’t seem to actually want to debate the article, you apparently just wanted to have a pop at the paper it’s published in to get a few up votes. Which you’ve achieved. Well done. This is precisely why I don’t comment on my own articles.
Firstly, don’t feed the trolls Tom…
That aside, very interesting points raised. Completely agree about the double standards, SABBs should not be allowed to endorse as it is just another way in which student politics at York is entrenched in social elitism – rather than being based on a candidate’s abilities. Would not be surprised if Oh Behave and their upvoters are all YUSU fanboys/clubmembers.
if we’re gonna discuss election rules wouldn’t it be more meaningful to discuss the campaigning itself?
seems like every year the winner’s the one with the most cardboard on campus?
I love how York Vision do nothing but complain about Kallum Taylor turning YUSU into some sort of glamorous centre where all those who dream of (York) stardom and celebrity flock without realising that they’re the ones creating this image through their over- indulgent coverage of him. Honestly, if we were all that influenced by the movements of Kal Tay then everyone would be sporting double denim and wearing scarves indoors. Thankfully, York students appear to be capable of independent thoughts and thus this has not caught on. So regardless of who the sabbs endorse, I really don’t think that their might and majesty is going to make its mark on the outcome.
The thing that YUSU has got right here, in comparison to JCRC elections is that individuals regardless of position have the right to endorse anyone they see fit. However to endorse someone through their ties with YUSU as an entity would be double standards. Not once did a current Sabb state that the views of YUSU were to back ‘… ….’s’ campaign, so this article is really null and void, unless you believe people in YUSU sabb positions aren’t entitled to their opinion, because it carries more weight than another person.
It can also be quite handy to know opinions of people who have worked with those up for election. For instance JCRC chairs backing may need to be taken with a pinch of salt, but these guys have worked with most of the candidates, they will have encountered them doing the job they advertise as having done so well during campaigning. If someone had done their job badly I would like these people to be able to voice this, rather than be banned from doing so.
Depends how you define the YUSU bubble though, as JCRCs aren’t part of Yusu technically (not if Yusu have their CSA way…).