Where was the debate?
Philip Kent demands the right to publicly grill election candidates, else #voteicu gets it!
On the Wednesday before elections opened, members of the Union had their questions answered live on STOIC by candidates for the ICU Sabbatical Positions, as well as the faculty union presidents and the student trustees. This is a fantastic idea – if the candidates want our vote, they should be prepared to answer our questions and be subject to our scrutiny.
If only that’s how it worked. The programme itself was excellent, very well put together with some brilliant commentary by the people in the ‘Felix Studio’. However, the format of the programme could do with improvement, as it came across as simply a platform for the candidates to say ‘Hi’ – not that this is bad, in fact, it’s important that we all get to know them.
As it so happened, one of my questions came up for the Felix Editor candidates. To my disappointment, in a question where I asked for details on how the potential editors would change the journalistic output of Felix, the three of them proceeded to answer the complete opposite: how they would improve the satirical output. Needless to say, I was annoyed, and so proceeded to question them on Twitter (and then challenge them on their replies).
Candidates need to be scrutinised on their policies: they can promise no end of wonderful things, but if people don’t actually challenge them to see if the policies are realistic, or that they have been properly thought through, then there is a risk that a bad candidate is elected. Who isn’t won over by tales of wonder and awe (and free sweets)?
Whilst this allows the electoral body to challenge the candidates – grilling them as they deserve, there are other benefits also: candidates can fight amongst themselves. Whilst this could lead to petty fighting and generally disgusting tactics, we can hope that Imperial students are above this, and can engage in an open and honest debate. This not only teaches us more about the candidates’ policies (and how practical they are), but also gives us a honest idea as to what the candidate is like as a person, away from the superficial image given off by campaigning.
We saw this in 2010 with the General Election – the three party leaders were put head to head in a (strangely entertaining) debate. It may not have changed many people’s vote (bar a somewhat temporary boost in support for the Liberal Democrats), but it gave the public a chance to make their mark. The only thing I would change is to allow the audience to fight back at the candidates – make them prove themselves to the electorate. Just less “I agree with Nick”!
I have support in this, @EsotericGamer and @ICUChris both called for a proper debate – this should send a message. It may be too late for this year, but that does not mean that next year’s candidates can’t be subject to the interrogation they deserve. Let us scrutinise them in public for everyone to see, and in return ICU gets the best set of sabbatical officers that they could possibly have. In the meantime, back to Twitter.
Reminder: If you’re reading this on Friday, and you have not yet voted – remember to have your say! Voting closes at 23:59 at www.imperialcollegeunion.org/elections.
