The Students’ Union is currently at a very unusual point in its 132-year existence.
By some measures, it is truly at its peak: serving some 50,000 students, UCL Union is one of the largest in the country and holds real influence in Westminster. Just two years ago, it co-founded a national advocacy group that brought together 24 Russell Group students’ unions to form a cohesive student voice, independent of the hopeless National Union of Students.
By other measures, nothing has really changed. The Union continues to struggle to engage with the wider student body, with just two in ten UCL students voting in last year’s Leadership Race. It nonetheless claimed the title of being the largest student election in the UK, almost solely by virtue of the University’s relentless commercial expansion.
In our special election issue, The Cheese Grater reveals the true scale of the UCL Union’s apathy crisis. New polling by our investigations team reveals that almost 70% of students had little idea what the Union’s sabbatical officers do, whilst over half did not have an opinion about them—our correspondent Go Kitajima explains further.
While there is no doubt the sabbs are doing much impressive work behind the scenes, none of it means anything if students do not see it. Readers probably did not know, for example, that Welfare and Community Officer Rachel Lim is currently in a battle with UCL over the dire conditions of its halls. Indeed, this paper was the only UCL publication to have reported on any Union proceedings in recent memory. The first task for the new leadership must be to take a good, long think about why the Union keeps failing to communicate to students the value of its work.
The emergent sabbatical team should be under no illusion about the difficulty of the political challenges that lie ahead. It’s an open secret among Union and media circles that the incumbent sabb team doesn’t get on all that well, nor did the last, nor the one before it. Partly, this is because the sabb team consists of six officers with six different, and often clashing, ideas and personalities. While some officers got on well with each other, this year’s leadership ultimately failed to offer a cohesive vision to get behind, relying heavily on whatever the Union’s top bureaucrats tell them to do—earning President Goksu Danaci the accusation of being a “puppet president”, according to one candidate interviewed.
The Union “deep state”, as we have affectionately referred to it, is a group of very mild mannered senior executives at 25 Gordon Street, most of whom were sabb officers back in the day. To their absolute credit—these were the same people who, just nine years ago, saved the Union from the brink of bankruptcy after the sabbs pissed off the University so bad the Provost had their funding frozen.
Unfortunately, this experience also helped shape a culture of risk-adverse thinking that no doubt contributed to the Union’s reputation for being slow to change. Loyal readers will know this paper has never shied from criticising the lack of transparency with what the “real adults” are up to and have often questioned their ethos of running the Union like a commercial enterprise. To buck this trend and rebuild trust in our democracy, UCL needs a strong elected student leadership willing to hold senior management to account, but also responsible enough to act on its advice when it is called for.
Indeed, one consequence of the Union’s commercialisation is that it now has a far greater incentive to maintain a closer relationship with UCL. The Union already sells you your pints, coffees, and everyday groceries, but it wants to go further. The University has recently agreed to fund facilities upgrades like the new TeamUCL Gym and, soon, the Print Room Cafe. Meanwhile, high-level negotiations have been underway for almost two years to decide who will pay for a future Union building.
All this is to say that the stakes have never been higher. At this election, students will be deciding which six candidates are going to lead a multi-million pound charitable organisation with an annual turnover of £16m—hardly your average club or soc. So far, the Union’s success has been largely contingent upon its improving relationship with Provost Michael Spence and the suits at Bidborough House. How closely the emergent Union leadership chooses to align itself to the University’s commercial agenda will have long-term implications for student life at UCL—for better or worse.
Therefore, when readers vote in this year’s Leadership Race, we urge you to vote for a candidate who is serious about what they claim to be standing for. No doubt some candidates will promise you the world—mostly fantasy economics; even more will repackage the status quo using the same wishy-washy language to say very little with so many words. If none of them are good enough for you, don’t settle—vote re-open nominations if you have to, and use your preference votes wisely.
Regardless of the results, The Cheese Grater hopes that the emergent sabbatical leadership will take seriously the duties of public office and be prepared for the pressure of good-faith media scrutiny. The last thing UCL needs right now is another LinkedIn warrior who cares more about their career than their job. More than ever, we need student leaders with a clear vision for real change, who have the ability to energise the Union, and are ready to hit the ground running from day one.
Of course—it almost goes without saying—nothing will ever change unless you vote. Make your voice heard this election here before polls close tomorrow noon.
