The Historical Society (Hist) held an emergency debate on Tuesday 25th February at 5pm “given the sudden and unprecedented rise in the RON campaign for the TCDSU presidential race”.
Tom Francis, Chair of the Hist, opened the debate to a small audience in the Hist Convo room and stated the reasoning behind the ad-hoc debate was because the “RON campaign was picking up a lot of steam”. He declared that the Presidential candidates declined their invitation to speak at the debate, stating that together “They decided that it was against the campaign rules to campaign here”, however the “EC [Electoral Commission] maintains that it was an EC decision.”
Meanwhile, the EC issued a statement that they “had received no such application from The Hist with respect to this [Husting]”, and “the Electoral Commission received no communication from The Hist prior to the announcement of this event”.
The RON campaign also did not officially send representatives to the vote, as they wish to remain anonymous
Speaking in favour of a RON vote was Ava Murphy and Ruby Rodgers.
Ava Murphy spoke of the “shocking lack of diversity in this race”, highlighting the fact that no women are running for the presidential position. Murphy went on to add that “our campus has a rampant problem of sexism” and questioned whether the current candidates would be equipped to handle this issue.
Murphy believes that none of the three presidential candidates are satisfactory.
“I do think there is a place for Giovanni in the Students’ Union, but I don’t think the President is the place for him right now”. Murphy also contended that Giovanni’s manifesto regarding a transgender mentorship programme run in conjunction with the disability service demonstrates a “lack of research and lack of understanding”. Murphy also questioned whether Li would be fit to be President of TCDSU due to him being “seventeen”.
Nineteen year old Li told the paper: “My unique experiences in diplomacy has given me heavy insights into a world where one may think ideas are impossible, but I have a possible solution for all my manifesto points”.
Patrick Keegan recently supported the general election campaign of Sinn Féin’s Chris Andrews, an action which Murphy believes makes Keegan a “Students’ Union candidate being blinded by party affiliations”. Murphy acknowledges that Keegan’s manifesto is full of action, however she insists that there are “no indications of what kind of action this will be”.
In a comment to the paper on these criticisms, Keegan stated: “I have canvassed for Chris Andrews. Chris is a dedicated Republican who has been a great voice on Palestine within the party.” He further stated “ Direct Actions could include things like an occupation, a blockade. These campaigns could even include things like street art, walk outs, or die-ins.”
Ava Murphy had doubts regarding the strength of Seán Thim O’Leary’s manifesto, however she also acknowledged that they were her former S2S mentor and were good at their job. Murphy considered the lobbying aspect of their campaign to be dubious and did not have clear steps to achieve change. She also complimented TCDSU President Jenny Maguire, stating “Maguire is basically like Jesus and Seán is just there”.
In a comment to The University Times O’Leary stated that “I do agree with the principles the RON campaign seeks to defend and can see why concerns emerged”. They also said they have not been contacted by the RON campaign with concerns. On lobbying they stated “I demonstrably get work done through committees, both inside and outside of the SU” and that “direct action is a key tool of the union”.
Ruby Rodgers also expressed concern over Keegan and O’Leary’s political party affiliations, namely Keegan’s pro-Sinn Féin stance and O’Leary’s position as Chairperson of Trinity Social Democrats. Rodgers raised the arguments that these political affiliations may alienate students who do not support these parties.
Rodgers also has doubts regarding the competency of the candidates. She stated that, despite his role in the SU, Li “has not submitted a single report to council”, when, in Rodgers’ estimation two should have been provided thus far.
Rodgers reminisced on the successes of the SU in recent years, including the BDS encampment and the abolition of the overnight guest policy. Regarding this, she commented, “I would make the case that none of these would have been done” if the three candidates had been in office.
Ruby Rodgers made the argument that even if no one else steps up following a successful RON vote, the current three candidates may run again. Rodgers believes that at least at that stage, the student body can be content that all alternative avenues have been explored.
Rodgers also noted that “ironically Seán is one of the people who tried to impeach Lázsló”, which disqualified them from being a good candidate in their opinion.
Speaking against a RON vote was Tom Merton and Rehan Hanneef.
A self-described “contrarian by nature”, Tom Merton spoke against the alternative RON vote. Merton argued that “the implications of reopening the nominations would be, in my opinion, disastrous”. He believes that it’s “not just the voters who would lose interest in a second campaign”, but that “the quality of the reporting on the election would also decrease” mainly because “students just want to pass exams”.
The overarching message of Tom Merton’s speech was that he believes the current candidates are all suitable ones. “I feel like each candidate offers something different”. As Merton outlined, they “have all held positions in the Students’ Union”, similar to the current TCDSU President Jenny Maguire (formerly LGBTQ+ Officer), and Lázsló Molnárfi (former School Convenor for Social Sciences and Philosophy).
Merton stated, “I can’t see how their experience is so radically different to what we’ve had before – so much so that they can’t be trusted to run the SU”. He urged people not to vote for RON, as “we’re going to get the same type of people [running again]”.
Rehan Hanneef believes “a RON campaign would lead to a worse Union”. He argued that a successful RON vote “doesn’t necessarily bring someone better, but opens the door to potentially bringing someone worse”. Hanneef expressed his dislike of the election season. At the thought of another round of hustings and voting, Hanneef said, “It’s just going to be a hassle”.
Hanneef also argued against a RON vote due to the logistics of running another campaign. He spoke of the work that would be required of a new candidate to catch up to the social media presence and established campaigns of those currently in the running. Hanneef highlighted that another election at the end of the academic year could delay the chosen President from engaging with the necessary planning for the upcoming year.
Merton considers Keegan’s talk of “direct action” brands him as a left wing candidate, that O’Leary’s involvement with the SocDems means they’re a “centre-left – of which there’s a consensus on campus”- candidate, and that Li’s apolitical background may favour “those who seek a right-wing candidate”.
The debate saw viable arguments for and against a RON vote, but whether the RON campaign has enough momentum to outperform the presidential candidates remains unclear. In The University Times’ poll which closed last Friday, RON had a 20.4% vote share in the TCDSU Presidential race.
As voting continues, questions surrounding the competence, experience and abilities of the candidates remain a topic of student discussion.
