Although Vision doesn’t have a letters section anymore, a student got in touch with us wanting to air a complaint about the YUSU referendum.
Dear Sir,
I am writing this letter to be published in this open forum with the purpose of expressing my discontent and disappointment in the way in which the campaigns for these last referenda have been run.
I find it highly ironic that a series of referenda purporting to be concerned with democracy have been conducted in a highly undemocratic way – pushed through without proper explanation or balanced arguments. For example, there was no ‘No’ reasoning at the point of voting for several of the motions but campus is almost completely covered in non-informative “Vote ye5” signs.
This is important because I firmly believe that if students knew what these proposals entailed in their entirety and were presented with the facts and a balanced argument, then they may vote or have voted differently.
To be clear, I have no issues with a truly democratic campaign and result. If I am in the minority when I say that I wish to keep what little tradition we have alive in our colleges and to defend against their absorption into YUSU for example, then so be it. However, if people are disappointed in the outcome after they find that they did not fully understand what they voted for, I will be ashamed to count myself a member of a highly undemocratic and unrepresentative union.
I strongly recommend members of YUSU to carefully read the details of the proposals or to abstain if they cannot be bothered. And I beseech the president and the officers to reconsider their approach to campaigning now and in the future.
Yours sincerely,
Anonymous
Kallum’s response to the anonymous letter.
Dear YUSU member,
I’m glad that this member of YUSU has decided to make their voice heard, expressing their discontent with the Union and the simply, embarrassing lack of a debate on the 5 issues which students could vote on in this term’s referenda.
That’s exactly YUSU’s problem and exactly why some of the motions proposed were proposed in the first place. This Union has for too long been steered by the same old suspects, who enjoy the comfort of being the only ones who know about what’s going on, and how to get this or that.
Now, it’s with a massive relief (and a lot of bloody excitement!) that we can now introduce the new bye-laws for a new system which was, let us not forget, put together from almost half an entire terms consultation with students of all types and affiliations, after, let us not forget, nearly 2 years’ worth of criticism of the old system! A huge amount of the feedback we got from that consultation was from students saying they wanted to be given more information and more balanced debate about ideas than they get from the current democratic system. So we’re providing exactly that with a new model that will allow more students, more opportunities than ever before to grab a hold of YUSU and get them to hear them out with any ideas or problems about YUSU, or the University, or beyond. When we INFORM, CONSULT and INVOLVE students with policy, we are obliged to inform students first, providing balanced information about the advantages and disadvantages of a policy, and how it may affect students. That’s the kind of balance we’re missing at the moment when NO campaigners don’t step up and get the word out about both sides of an idea.
It was a bit of a joke that the ‘no’ campaigns were so weak, to be honest. We did have some ‘no’ campaign coordinators, but I’d be equally frustrated with them (as well as the whole process) for not doing their own bit to get word out… But then again, there is the aspect that some of them may have been hoping for an incredibly low turnout… Knowing that the proposals put forward were based on evidence, consultation, and heaps of support and issues over time they were difficult issues to oppose. What’s the next best option if you can’t win? Well, a draw… And in voting terms, that would mean no change.
The YE5 campaign was strong, and I make no apologies for people maybe mistaking the YE5 campaign page for an Official YUSU general referendum page. The no campaigns which existed where a damp squib at best, and it was those which relied on apathy. Ultimately, the issues weren’t contentious enough to invite real debate, so no strong NO arguments were presented. Again, I make no apologies for restating that our new system requires us to consult with students about their views on an issue, only taking it to Referendum if there’s no consensus, meaning we know that the issues which go to Referendum are the issues students care about and are divided over.
I’m glad you’ve made your views known, but I hope you appreciate mine. One final point, is that I think it’s refreshing to actually see the YUSU Officers take a stance on issues, rather than dithering and sitting on the fence. That’s what’s led to this in-built apathy culture on campus which we’re trying to change.
Please do come and have a chat with me about any of the above if you like, all you have to do is give me a shout – honest – I’d appreciate it, especially as you feel so strongly.
Yours,
Kallum
Makes an excellent point about democracy!
So what if four of the referenda were rushed through forcefully. So what if four of the campaigns in favour were uninformative. So what if the uncaring, apathetic, disillusioned and alienated student body made little effort to mount ‘No’ campaigns, or to actually vote at all.
So what did anybody expect? This isn’t unexpected. I mean, stop the press! Vast majority of students disinclined to have anything to do with bullshit union that they know there’s little point engaging with… Democratic campaigns exposed as populism granting decisions the illusion of democratic legitimacy…
I have been at this university for 4 years, and I have yet to see a referendum run democratically! There is no source of impartial information on motions, all the information comes from “yes” or “no” campaigns. Typically the “yes” campaign has a lot longer to research and gain/make resources and posters and know a lot more about the details of the motion, while the “no” campaign has little time and little information. The “yes” campaign have very strict penalties if they break any of the rules laid out by the democracy committee and the returning officer, while the “no” campaign have no penalties or restrictions at all, and can use any tactics they want, including slander and lies.
In this particular referendum it wasn’t the student body proposing and campaigning for motions and then voting the tell the Union what they want, it was the Union telling students what to vote for, and that seems even worse
Can we have a referendum on whether or not 5% is an acceptable percentage of the student body to enact sweeping legislation which affects us all?
There’s apathy, and then there’s 7.5% of the Student Body. That doesn’t look like apathy to me, that looks like a conscious choice.
Listen, I got a referendum on getting YUSU to support leaving the EU.
You can do anything. I am one man. I am John Galt.
Kallum,
The open letter raised the issue of how completely uninformative the “YE5” campaign was. The postering around campus gave no information at all, and the YUSU/vote site gave very little. There was no information at all given about the democratic reform motion without reading a 60 page document, which I doubt many people did. Instead of responding to criticisms of the “yes” campaign you just insult the “no” campaigns. And in response to the criticism about the lack of information given by the “YE5” campaign, you just used buzz words like “INFORM, CONSULT and INVOLVE” which still provides absolutely no information.
You claim you want people to be more involved with YUSU and student politics, and yet those who are politically involved get insulted and discouraged by you and other officers, who are the very people who are supposed to be encouraging us! A couple of weeks ago Thomas Ron called all Assembly attendees “hacks”, and you yourself just used the words “a joke”, ”weak” and “damp squib” to describe people’s attempts to get involved. Why would anybody get/stay involved if they’re just going to be insulted?
Those who are politically engaged and go to assemblies do not “enjoy the comfort of being the only ones who know about what’s going on”. Quite the opposite. In my experience the politically active do a lot to try and engage others, through sharing events such as assemblies on social media sites and running for positions in assemblies that involving publicising and engaging others (elections were usually not uncontested)
“Ultimately, the issues weren’t contentious enough to invite real debate, so no strong NO arguments were presented”. Obviously you haven’t been paying attention over the past week, because there were many arguments against some of the motions, particularly the democratic reform motion. 118 people voted against that motion, which considering there was no “proper explanation or balanced arguments” and we have an “apathy culture” on campus is actually quite a lot.
I already covered why “NO campaigners don’t step up and get the word out about both sides of an idea” in my previous comment.
It was good of you to take the time to read the open letter and respond to it, but that was NOT an adequate response.
See the above for my take on YUSU, their pet penguin and their collective dodgy doings.
And see the above for my take on YUSU-OS, the brand new totally non-satirical software based on YUSU!
For what it’s worth “almost half an entire terms consultation” is four weeks or so, to make out this is a long thought out reform is disingenuous.
Who proposed the motions? Kallum & co
Who ran the debates? Kallum & co
Who ran the ye5 campaign? Kallum & co
Who is pushing through these changes even though there isn’t a mandate? Kallum
Surely this isn’t democratic? The only people commenting in the papers are Kallum and his cronies. Why is nobody reviewing this decision? What are the trustees doing?
“almost half an entire terms consultation” -wow Kallum sounds like you put in a lot of stellar hard work there.