On Tuesday, the Dialectic Union held a special election-themed debate, inviting four candidates for York Students’ Union’s Union Affairs Officer to debate the motion “This House Believes that the York Student Union is fit for purpose.” The evening began with a flash poll of the audience; 18 were in favour, 59 opposed and 22 abstentions.
The debate was conducted in British Parliamentary Style, with the proposition speakers (Lewis Parrey and Simon Edwards) beginning with a defence of York SU’s broad purpose and the need to cater to an extensive variety of societies and sports teams.
The opposition, led by Woody Ross and seconded by Jacob Boneham, focused on York SU’s dependence on the University and corporate partners for its funding as evidence that it does not, and cannot, truly operate with students’ interests at heart.
The themes of the debate were predictable, with funding and finance being a central element of both teams’ arguments. Student safety, a particularly current issue, was referenced frequently in relation to York SU’s financial partnership with organisations accused of neglecting safety concerns. Rent prices and the Union’s negotiation for an increase of 6% next year instead of 9% were cited as both a success and a failure by the opposing teams.
Rent increases were a crucial point of criticism from the opposition, who formed their argument around the claims that York SU was overly complicated and opaque and failed to properly represent students because of its financial dependence on the university and corporate partners. Indeed, some £2 million per year is given to the Union by the University for its work in enriching student life, with this being the standard model for Student Union funding across the country.
It does, of course, bring into question the extent to which York SU can represent students on the issues that are most important, such as rent prices, but there were no alternatives proposed by the opposition on this subject. The opposition criticised the current Union Officers for ‘settling’ for a 6% rent spike and went as far as to suggest that the Union should be fighting to lower rent prices year on year – whether this is at all feasible is up to you to decide.
If the opposition speakers could be criticised for being too idealistic, suggesting few holistic fixes to the problems they rightly outlined, then the proposition speakers could be criticised for debating the wrong motion entirely.
Both proposition speakers, but especially Simon Edwards, mainly focused on the hypothetical that if we didn’t have York SU, students would end up worse off. Whilst this is undoubtedly true, and the point was eloquently made, it did little to advance the argument that York SU is fit for purpose.
As to whether or not York SU is really fit for purpose, there was no clear conclusion. The audience left more divided than before the debate; in truth the answer to the question lies in how cynical you are. Many people, myself included, feel as though the Union’s financial ties and obligations obscure its ‘purpose’, that is, to represent us and advocate on our behalf. Others reconcile with the Union’s imperfections and subscribe to the idea that, as a member of the audience suggested, it is being in the room that makes the difference.
In any case, the changing of the guard with this year’s elections is cause for hope that new ideas will help create a better student experience for all.