For many candidates, Tuesday’s hustings was a gruelling experience. While some thrived under the pressure, others seemed unprepared for an in-depth examination of their manifesto points.
However, with no hustings yesterday – a break in Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union’s (TCDSU) electoral tradition – it was obvious that candidates had regrouped and prepared themselves for what many likely anticipated as the toughest examination of their policies to date at this evening’s Media Hustings, run by The University Times and Trinity News. What’s more, there was a notable change in demeanour on the part of several candidates, with some seemingly more at ease with their surroundings as they finally started to get to grips with the pressure-cooker atmosphere of hustings.
Strong performances by candidates in each of the contested races highlighted, for the first time in the election, just how well matched the candidates in these races are. Ultimately, the outcome of the education, entertainments and presidential races may be decided by the ability of candidates to appeal to the residents of Trinity Hall on Monday evening.
President
While the presidential candidates were forced to provide answers to testing questions tonight, both appeared to be hitting their stride at this midway point.
In a more polished performance than Tuesday’s, Daire Hennessy criticised the union’s lack of engagement but, in a noted change of tack from previous hustings, he adopted a more considered approach. Instead, he posited himself as someone inside the union who is aware of its problems. He explicitly linked disengagement with what he considers the exclusionary nature of a union that is “defensive about its problems without addressing them”.
At the same time, Hennessy didn’t pull any punches. Going on the offensive in his approach to central tenets of students politics, he targeted “sabbats trying to get their face out there” in their involvement with grassroots campaigns.
Equally under fire was the union’s connection with the Union of Students in Ireland (USI) with both candidates criticising the national union. Hennessy continued his theme of disengagement, arguing that USI was “equally guilty” as TCDSU for fostering disenfranchisement. Beston, meanwhile, raised issues with USI’s approach to student activism and not standing on the frontlines for its member organisations. This hardline approach marks them apart from previous presidential candidates, who have tended to be more amenable towards the national union.
Asked about her part in campaigning for controversial former presidential candidate Bryan Mallon in her second year, Beston reflected on what was a “difficult situation” for her. Claiming that she has matured since, she stressed that her presidency would see her “able to make decisions a lot more effectively”. If her responses had a wider theme, it was disillusionment with the union – and student politics as a whole – as she discussed activist burn-out, and feeling “policed” in her early days with TCDSU.
Her considered responses to admittedly difficult questions underpinned an assertive performance by Beston. In keeping with the experience that she emphasised when asked what made her a better candidate than Hennessy, she built on the confidence she displayed at Tuesday’s council hustings.
With one hustings left to go, the candidates’ messages are starting to diverge, though perhaps more subtly than in previous years. While Beston and Hennessy share some fundamental similarities – most notably their union experience – tonight’s debate made clear the variation in their approaches. Only time will tell which way voters will swing.
Education
Once again, the education race proved to be a tight contest, with Niamh McCay and Sally Anne McCarthy attempting to point out intricate points of their manifesto in the hopes of distinguishing themselves from each other.
Confidence and positivity are quickly becoming buzzwords for McCay’s campaign. This evening, however, McCay swapped her exuberant persona for a more reserved approach as she sought to showcase her knowledge. Once again, McCarthy was strong on her frustration with the way things are currently being run – bringing a very personal element tonight by constantly referencing how both her union and personal experiences fuelled her desire for change.
In the context of the supplemental fee debacle that gave rise to Take Back Trinity, candidates were asked about the effectiveness of the union’s student partnership policy. McCay said that rather than a tokenistic gesture, she believed it was an “excellent thing to put students and staff in a better relationship”. McCay admitted that there are difficulties with how it is currently run and insisted that putting students “on the ground” is the best way to listen to both sides.
McCarthy proffered improved class representative training as a way to bridge the gap of disengagement between students and the College. Commenting that the union is “not doing enough”, she argued that every student will see the benefits of tackling the problem at a local level.
When it came to concrete policies that they would introduce to make a difference, McCay spoke of a desire to reintroduce an off-campus officer to ensure that “connections are rebuilt” to keep students fully informed. McCarthy, on the other hand, wants to create an online helpdesk to flag issues and quash rumours related to the Trinity Education Project that “send students in circles”.
As this race continues, it is becoming harder than ever to distinguish between these candidates. With both candidates consistently displaying an obvious knowledge of what the role entails, it remains to be seen which of these candidates will pull ahead in the coming days.
Welfare
Following a performance at hustings on Tuesday that revealed certain gaps in her knowledge, Aisling Leen tonight seized the opportunity to prove she has the concrete experience needed for the welfare position.
Throughout tonight’s questioning, Leen had the chance to directly address some of the criticisms levelled at her in recent days. Clarifying comments she had made previously about how “casual conversations” might not be the best way for students to address difficult issues, Leen said that this comment came from personal experience, when she hadn’t felt comfortable speaking in public spaces about stigmatised problems.
“Destigmatisation doesn’t happen overnight. It’s a long process. I was just trying to explain that I understand that sensitive issues can be difficult to talk about”, she said.
Following questions at the last hustings about her lack of policies around international students, Leen said tonight that she would like to create a position on the welfare committee for an international student to ensure that their voice is represented.
If there is one thing that Leen has been consistent on, it is her promise to be a dependable and compassionate presence on campus. Tonight, she reaffirmed her commitment to accompanying vulnerable students experiencing crisis pregnancies to health centres off campus in order to access abortion services. In terms of other policies, she was critical of the fact that students can’t access free sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing on campus. “Education about STIs is not the issue”, she said, “if you think people are getting tested, then you will”.
However, despite her commitment to supporting students personally, Leen still failed to provide a concrete idea of what her sexual assault policy will actually look like, calling it a “really difficult area”, and noting the difficulty of addressing a criminal issue in a disciplinary manner. She said that she has encountered issues trying to produce one based off current policies in UK universities.
Despite delivering her strongest performance to date, Leen will have to really impress at the final hustings in order to assuage concerns over the vague nature of her flagship campaign promise. Given the limited agency of the welfare officer to implement a college sexual assault reporting policy, it is still not clear whether Leen has provided students with adequate information regarding her role in implementing such a policy.
Communications and Marketing
Responding to challenging questions this evening, sole candidate for the role of Communications and Marketing Officer, Muireann Kane, seemed to go on the defensive.
Kane addressed the creation of the Facebook campaign encouraging students to vote to re-open nominations in the race, calling the campaign “a very thinly veiled attack”. She took issue with the page, calling it hypocritical for highlighting the issue with the race being uncontested but singling her out from three uncontested races.
Asked about the reversal of her decision to have a Facebook page for her own campaign, Kane defended her initial choice, saying she had done a “huge amount of research” to find the best platform to reach out to students.
Following multiple questions regarding the accessibility of her manifesto, Kane addressed criticisms from past hustings saying she “reached out” to students for advice and will ascertain “what students need” going forward. While she displayed a desire to listen to students and receive feedback on her manifesto, Kane was keen to “refute” the claim that her campaign lacked a clear cross-platform visual identity and stressed that she has a “huge amount of experience with branding”.
On the topic of the union’s €70,000 deficit, Kane was reticent to offer any substantive policy solutions besides maintaining a “happy balance” between commercialisation and students’ wishes, without addressing what that balance specifically entails.
While emphasising inclusion and the need to keep students “up to date”, Kane ultimately displayed reluctance to elaborate on her ostensible commitment to source ethical partnerships, a point heavily stressed in her manifesto.
Entertainments
Variations between the candidates’ ambitions for the role of entertainments officer became more apparent tonight, as they were confronted with questions relating to an array of different aspects of the role.
For the first time, candidates were challenged on financial viability. Alcaras appeared unperturbed by monetary concerns, in spite of anguish over the union’s growing deficit. Judith Robinson and Luke Rynne Cullen emphasised the importance of the profitability of events, Rynne Cullen in particular, presenting tangible solutions to maintaining profitability, with ideas including the hiring of Trinity students as photographers and musicians.
Alcaras did not engage much with the question, simply saying: “Students have exams and need to study. What’s the best thing college can do to provide for our students when they’re stressed? Entertainment!”
In answer to a question about exclusivity in ents events, all candidates leaned on points they had already made repeatedly throughout the week. However, the candidates diverged in their views about how they plan to create higher turnout for events.
Rynne Cullen, stressing his experience in promotional work, alluded to using the same methods as club promoters to engage students whilst Alcaras, in keeping with the jovial tone he maintained this evening, referred to low pricing as a way to raise attendance, joking: “I know students don’t have much money. I’m broke myself.” Robinson, meanwhile, stressed that generating publicity for events is “extremely important”.
In response to a question from Twitter about how to protect members of the LGBT community, candidates tended to gloss over the specifics and focused on safety in general. In a comment that came across as dismissive of the spirit of the question, Alcaras stressed that “all people deserve safety, not just the LGBT community”.
Rynne Cullen simply reiterated his Ask for Angela campaign as a safety precaution for people generally feeling uncomfortable. Robinson addressed the issue most directly, speaking on the importance of education beforehand, using workshops on major issues as a way to combat issues of discriminative scenarios.
Distinguishing themselves from their opponents could be a wise tactic for the candidates in this year’s most crowded race. With Rynne Cullen having highlighted his extensive experience, Robinson steadfastly sticking to her manifesto points and Alcaras playing on the lighthearted nature of his campaign, the final hustings on Monday night could be decisive.
Editor of The University Times
In the face of difficult and varied questions, Donal MacNamee took the opportunity to reiterate the finer details of his manifesto points, and defend some of the work of The University Times that has in the past come under scrutiny.
Questioned by Niamh Lynch from Trinity News on whether there is a hierarchical structure within the paper, MacNamee stressed a culture of inclusivity, where “people felt like they could run”. O’Mahony suggested taking on hordes of new writers may cause a “bottleneck” of material: yet MacNamee disagreed, preferring “a lot of content” to “too little”.
The issue of funding recurred this evening, with Lynch challenging MacNamee’s plans for securing sponsorship. He promised to seek advice from large on-campus societies who have successfully courted funding – having already sought advice from Trinity Law Society – from outside firms, but aside from this failed to outline how he would go about attracting these large companies to invest in the paper.
MacNamee was not thrown when Lynch suggested that sponsorship arrangements with outside companies could impede the paper’s independence: “We are not going to let an outside firm dictate our editorial policy.” Similarly, when questioned on the decision to post several articles relating to right-wing student journal the Burkean, MacNamee stood by the paper’s “very rigorous editorial process”.
When O’Mahony pressed MacNamee for the details of a community engagement role within the paper, he was eager to elaborate. Admitting that he hadn’t “had the chance to fully flesh it out” at previous hustings, he vowed to prioritise ensuring that the paper will “do better in terms of engaging with students”.
Throughout the campaign, MacNamee has maintained a sense of diplomacy in his answers. However, facing largely similar questions at every hustings so far, he has leaned heavily on his manifesto points and offered little detail in his vision for the paper.
Jack Synnott, Orla Murnaghan, Robert Quinn, Rachel O’Leary, Aoife Kearins, Patrick O’Donoghue, Ciaran Molloy, Conor O’Brien, Eliana Jordan, Cormac Watson, Jordan Nann, Imogen McGuckin and Malachi Ó Marcaigh also contributed reporting to this piece.
