This afternoon, candidates running in the Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union (TCDSU) elections were interviewed by Trinity FM and Trinity News, focusing on their manifestos and experience ahead of next week’s vote. Following the standard set last year with their first election interview, the focus was on pushing candidates on the gaps in their policy. Today’s interview, however, was notable not just for the in-depth questions but for the candidates’ tendency to agree with each other on topics. Aside from one slight disagreement during the presidential candidates’ interview, most discussions took on a level of engagement across roles, continuing the sense of this election period being defined by companionship.
The presidential candidates were the first to be interviewed, outlining their reasons for running. Their answers predominantly followed their manifesto points, with Kevin Keane wishing to improve college life, Bryan Mallon highlighting the issue of student fees and student engagement and Thomas Emmet focusing on engagement both inside and outside of the union. Topics touched on also included mandatory consent workshops, the campaign to repeal the eighth amendment and the political nature of the union, all of which saw the candidates unite in their stances.
However, the only disagreement of all the interviews came when the presidential candidates were asked on the preferendum on Irish unity passed at last night’s council. Mallon immediately voiced his support, both of the preferendum and the political movement it speaks to, saying “I want a united Ireland” and highlighting the need to protect Northern Irish Trinity students “in the wake of Brexit”. Keane stated that he was personally in favour of the preferendum but that was “irrelevant”, and stressed how he wants to “effectively represent” all members of College. Emmet reiterated his ancestral relation to Robert Emmet and called for the union to take a stance on the matter.
It was here that Keane and Emmet disagreed, with Keane voicing reluctance to “idly” take stances within the union, as the trade off could be to alienate some students. Emmet responded that “taking a stance is the point of the SU”. Amid this, Mallon remained silent, but that the focus should remain on “safe-guarding unionist students”.
In contrast to this slight disagreement was the overwhelming merging of opinions and stances among the five welfare candidates. Over questions that pressed candidates on how exactly they would represent students accurately and fulfill manifesto promises, the candidates engaged in a natural and cheerful conversation about their personal attachments to the role and the means of carrying out promises. A discussion about the stigma attached to visiting the welfare officer organically led to aspects of accessibility. Damien McClean noted that, out of 17,000 students, not everyone will be engaged, and Maebh Cullen added that a visit to the welfare office doesn’t have to be conspicuous. Laura Grady agreed, adding that even going for a cup of tea is helpful, while Emma Purser noted that another support is to build a network of friends. As usual, the welfare candidates, be it by nature or design, came across as giggling, lovely people who shared many of the same opinions and passions. However, there is much to consider on whether such effervescence is attractive or alienating for students in need.
The last interview featured candidates for entertainments, communications & marketing, education and Editor of The University Times races, all of which are uncontested. Yet again, there was distinctly more engagement and discussion than one might expect across the disparate roles, with both candidates and questions exploring the possibilities of collaboration between the sabbatical officers and editor.
Interestingly, both Úna Harty, the candidate for communications & marketing, and Jonah Craig, the candidate for entertainments, were both asked to justify their roles in the union. Harty explained that the scope of work to be achieved as communications & marketing is enough to warrant a position, while Craig noted that the Trinity Ents brand is valuable in the College and aids societies as well as students. When asked how she plans to engage students on the outskirts of College life, Alice MacPherson noted the importance of collaborating with communications & marketing on innovative means of communication, such as bringing posters into the bathrooms more. Similarly, when Dominic McGrath was asked about Keane’s manifesto promise to reduce the print run of The University Times, he defended the print edition, 90 per cent of which he stated is read. He also pointed out the value of a physical example of student work, something that Craig enthusiastically agreed with him on. MacPherson also highlighted how the newspaper complements much of what the union does.
If the Trinity FM interviews served to highlight anything, it was the diverse and creative methods of collaboration available across sabbatical positions, something the candidates largely seemed to engage with. It could be that, due to the majority of the races being uncontested, there is less need to compete with one another on manifesto points and more freedom to begin engaging with one another on plans. It is certainly one of the benefits of the election period restructure.
Anna Moran contributed reporting to this piece.
