The Union finally had something to celebrate as the Referendum, which conclud- ed on Thursday 3 February, passed amid a tidal wave of positivity. Over three thou- sand students voted, a record for the Union, and both mo- tions were carried with a ma- jority of around 90%. How- ever not everyone was happy.
The rise of divisive par- tisanship in the UCL Union seems to have peaked at the beginning of the spring term. Accusations of an unfair ‘Vote Yes’ campaign emerged first in Pi Newspaper and then in a number of letters of complaint written to General Secretary Tom Elliott. Some saw officers’ use of iPads to garner votes as irresponsible, and questions were raised over the legitima- cy of the one-sided campaign.
Democracy and Engage- ment Officer Mandy Smith, however, was keen to defend the actions of the ‘Yes’ camp. ‘Campaigning would have come across one sided,’ she explained, ‘but that is noth- ing to do with those sup- porting the proposals and everything to do with those op- posing the proposals.’ Though she may have a point, her comments say a lot about the us-versus-them mentality among Union representatives.
It would appear that no one was willing to campaign against the reforms, despite the availability of funding and re- sources for anyone looking to speak for the ‘No’ side. Smith and several other Union insid- ers have said that the absence of a fair fight was the result of a ‘boycott’ campaign, de- signed to hide the referendum from potential voters in an attempt to render it inquor- ate. Put simply, the opposition wanted less than 10% of the student population to take part so that the vote would be in- valid– they chose to promote apathy over fair campaigning.
Medical and Postgrad Of- ficer Alex Nesbitt, who led the ‘Yes’ campaign, recognised the resistance to the reforms from within the Union. ‘The way to deal with these disagreements,’ he stated, ‘is to engage with the democratic process, rather than to attempt to take it down.’ This isn’t the first instance of foul play we’ve seen in the Union this year. Before the last Union Council meeting, Edu- cation and Campaigns Officer Michael Chessum sat with his band of apostles in a café, ap- parently pinpointing the ex- act moment when a walkout would have maximum effect.
First Executive Com- mittee member Ben Towse threw down his voting pad and flounced out over the con- demnation of criminal dam- age to UCL buildings, then Chessum attempted to lead his troupe from the room. The Sabb had already threat- ened to leave if his suggested amendments weren’t upheld.
Hilariously, the tactic backfired as some of the usual members of Trotsky Inc, like Faculty Rep Andrew Tranter, decided to stay behind and do their job properly. Follow- ing the half-hearted ‘aban- don ship’, the meeting re- mained quorate and motions opposed by the lefties were passed with little opposition.
Towards the end of the meeting a motion emerged proposed by Chessum him- self: to condemn police vio- lence from the student protests on 9 December. Embarrass- ingly, since Chessum and his cronies had long since fled the scene, no one was around to explain it to the meet- ing. Now that’s commitment.
Trying to stage a walk out during a meeting you were elected to attend is an utterly ridiculous concept, no matter who you are. These students were voted in to represent the views of their peers who elected them; they were put in office to vote on issues that will affect the membership.
Tom Elliot, who chairs Union Council, has seen the emergence of the petty bicker- ing and recognises the farcical mock-political situation it has created. ‘Cliques were appar- ent from the start,’ he says, ‘but by reading week of term 1 these had formed into two distinct groups in council. One group would sit on my left, the other on my right, with a gap in the middle.’ Just like real parliament, then. Bless ’em.
Let’s hope the new gover- nance reform gets rid of some of the self-serving pseudo polit- icos on both sides of the divide and begins a new era for Union representation. Bloody likely.