The referendum result indicates as much about student opinion as a ritually sacrificed chicken

As you may have found on the Guild of Students website, the results of the referendum are as follows:

Total Votes Cast 2155
Total Valid Votes 2116

yes Votes 1681
No Votes 337
Abstains 98

The results are now being reported to the Trustee board who will take the referendum as poll for student opinion to decided on the new structure.

I’m not surprised with this result; however I do feel that as a test of student opinion that the results are somewhat invalidated by the way the guild conducted the referendum; by employing students to hand out leaflets and put up posters for the yes campaign, Using a professional marketing department for the yes campaign material, Using guild Facebook group/events, e-mails, Residence associations and student groups for coercive messages for the yes campaign, full time officers campaigning against students in the middle of their essay deadlines and exams and all at a cost that can probably be measured in the thousands- I feel that the result is somewhat less indicative of student opinion and somewhat more telling of the guilds campaigning resources.

The No campaign was invited to a public debate, which on many points it won, and Tom guise even ended the debate with vague promises of reform the steering group structure, which I eagerly await... however the event was poorly advertised and only around 10 students attended and while the no campaigners where debating at the public debate, paid flyers where spreading out across campus delivering “vote yes” material... To be cynical, I would say that the debate was deliberately under promoted...

For me the biggest dangers now are that post grads have become jettisoned by the guild, the yes campaigners have been claiming that postgrads can represent undergrads and we should break proportional representation. This one of the daftest moves by the guild in recent year’s postgraduates and undergrads are two groups with very different experiences, with many differing needs which are clearly not relative, postgrads should not have to compete with undergrads for fair representation.... but on this point what I’m most confused by is how this came about? When Tom Guise originally came up with this model in June of last year (before all the consultation) postgrads where given fair proportional representation... somehow in consultation despite no one asking for it and even some criticism of the lack of PG representation. Postgrad representation was lost..... but why and how?

The new steering group structure will mean students relying (they shouldn’t have to) an officer not trying ride roughshod over students with differing views, yes that officer will receive clear guidance through forums… if somewhat disparate… but they won’t have to listen … or act… or even interpret what they hear… at the different forums in any mandated way….

It will be very easy for officer to say for instance, “we’ve done a lot of straw polls, market research/ surveys talked to many students; individually, in focus groups and forums…. And they way we see the data is …. students want this”… no one can really compete with the officer because they are hub of so much information, which is only available to the average student in the form of basic minutes and partially revealed research. Obviously this is a system open to abuse and safeguards need to be in place or well we could have more events like this referendum...

Guild council will become smaller... less regular (once a term) ... less representative (two representatives representing all cultural groups??) and arguably less powerful... in my view a disaster ... somehow the new “open forums” which sound great are meant make up for this, but come on, all they are is a little quality time with the officer team, shouldn’t we be getting that anyway? I don’t want to sacrifice genuine representation for these open forums, as EEO I have set up open forums in my own remit last term, but I never thought that somehow meant I didn’t need to go to guild council....

The way these reforms have been pushed through is undemocratic, tom originally came up with these proposals last year, way before the consultation and they have changed very little, except small things like the abandonment of postgraduates... during this past year I have asked to be allowed to attend and be allowed to see the minutes of the democracy review group or whatever it was called... these requests have been constantly denied and despite many negative reactions in consultation very little has changed from the proposed structures of June and certainly in no sense has the underlying logic of centralisation changed.

I am for serious changes to guild democratic structures (and if anyone wants to hear what they would be, I would only be too happy to oblige) but I’m against these changes, I’m against more executive power, I’m for fair representation and I’m against the way these changes have been pushed through.

I and the other no campaigners intend on continuing our campaign if you fancy joining please do join the FB group and message one of the admins.