Last week, we published the blurbs for the 2016 OUSA executive candidates. They sent us their blurbs so that you could have an idea of what they stand for.
To those campaigning, you are trying to be student politicians. Can’t you rise above the dirty politics? Most students don’t care about the stuff you want them to. Really, we just want to laugh at your videos.
Get your shit together and focus on a decent campaign instead of bitching at each other or Critic. Do some research to get some decent policies thought out instead of being so concerned as to how you can stop someone else winning.
It will make you look far less foolish than you look right now.
After years of Critic publishing the candidates’ blurbs in whatever order we fancy and even occasionally endorsing candidates, this year some people had to have a whine. Apparently having your blurb positioned under the title is enough to sway the election and to order them in the order we received them wasn’t fair enough.
The options given to Critic by the OUSA acting president and returning officer were to “either pull Critic or cut the six pages out of issue 24”. Now, due to our “refusal to remove the relevant blurbs”, OUSA are looking at “possible penalties”.
Yes, we are still confused why anyone thinks this is a decision for OUSA.
The issue for the exec (four of whom are running for the 2016 executive) is that five of the blurbs, which were first under the headings, belong to those running on the same ticket. A ticket is a bunch of candidates campaigning together and this year, one ticket in particular seems to be the big threat.
In this issue, we go a bit more in-depth than just self-promoting blurbs, asking the candidates how they will implement their policies and why you should vote for them. Someone will probably have a cry about this issue too, but hopefully they won’t try to cut pages out.
Watching the discussion in the forums last week, it was impossible not to be bias towards certain candidates and doubtful of others. Just like you, we can spot a moron when we see one. The good candidates did what we should expect – they had prepared answers, they were talking to students, and they did the research behind their ideas.
Also, there’s a thing called media independence. It means that we, as media, can say whatever we want.
Two weeks of lectures left! Play nice xxxx
Josie Cochrane
Critic Editor
