
From drug culture to rent: The LUSU candidiate questions discussions you haven’t heard yet
The event gave 13 candidates the chance to discuss their plans
Lancaster University Students’ Union’s candidate questions took place on Monday night, where those running to be next academic year’s FTOs had the chance to state their manifestos, ask other candidates questions and answer questions from the audience.
The Lancaster Tab has been covering this event through a series of articles on the defining moments of the night – and now, we’ve compiled a list of all of the best topics that were discussed on the night, so you can see where your candidates stood on each important issue.
Wellbeing Officers opened the evening with their key focus points

Via LA1TV on YouTube
Eliza Young and Leah Buttery were first in the hot seats and opened the night by reiterating their manifestos.
Eliza explained that they are fighting for more transparency in the reporting system for harassment faced by students. They shared personal anecdotes of facing homophobia in Lancaster City Centre, and said that they could not imagine “how difficult it must be” for those who experience this on campus, in a setting where their safety should be ensured. They discussed increasing the accessibility of student food pantries, and said that while they were involved in last year’s campus encampment for Palestine, it would not be their “primary function” as Wellbeing Officer.
Leah introduced her manifesto by focussing on her desire to have the university and SU provide free menstrual products in every single bathroom on campus. She advocated for a more trauma-informed mental health service on campus and criticised Lancaster University for “wiping their hands” of violence faced by students in town. She said that she aimed to get the university to increase their support for students who are victim of crimes off-campus.
Most Read
The floor opened for questions
When asked whether they thought wellbeing was an undervalued role in the Students’ Union, both candidates agreed that it was. Leah said that she thought the problem lied in students not understanding what the role is for, stating that she wants to make it clear that the role is political rather than operational, as it represents the student body on the issues that are important to them. Eliza said that wellbeing is seen as a traditionally female role, leading to it being undervalued – however, they emphasised that wellbeing effects every single student.
Eliza and Leah were then asked about their thoughts on campus drug culture, and they both agreed that zero tolerance policies were not realistic. They advocated for a system of educating students further on consuming drugs as safely as possible, with Eliza saying it is about “education not encouragement.”
Tensions rose during the education debate with audience disturbances, controversial statements and accusations of not reading manifestos

Via LA1TV on YouTube
Candidates Matthew Lamb, Morgan O’Carroll and Niamh McAuley answered questions next for the role of Education Officer. This section of the evening was possibly the most controversial, with audience members loudly booing and banging on tables for sections of the candidates’ speeches, until current Activities Officer Jack Watson asked the audience to remain respectful and quiet as the event progressed.
You can read everything that went down in the Education Officer panel here.
Things took a calmer turn

Via LA1TV on YouTube
The audience and candidate environment calmed considerable after many controversial questions, and the Activity Officer candidates, Emily Woods, Finn Van Breugel, Nic Robinson and Tom Hopkins, took to their seats.
In a more relaxed environment, the candidates made their opening statements, before the floor opened for questions.
Lecture-free Wednesdays were a hot topic
When Tom asked the other candidates whether achieving lecture-free Wednesdays was a “false promise” after nine years of this being unsuccessful, Nic said that while she would not be able to complete this by herself in one year she would aim to make “very small steps towards getting it [Wednesday] free,” by communicating with staff and students with what they can and can’t do at the moment to get or give free time for sports games and practices.
Emily said that the lobbying skills she gained from her work in for the Tenants Union would help her in lobbying for academic-free Wednesdays, and added that it was a good time to lobby due to the university undergoing a Curriculum Transformation Programme. Finn argued that athletes should have priority over other students when requesting timetable changes on Wednesday morning, to make it easier for them to take part in their sports.
Candidates discussed ‘toxic’ cultures within athletics
A question from the audience led into a discussion about how the candidates would work to dispel “toxic” cultures that exist within many sports teams.
Finn was diplomatic in his response, stating that he was very aware that he was not a woman and therefore could not understand how it feels to experience some aspects of toxic cultures within sports. He said he aims to listen to all student leaders, especially within male-dominated societies.
Nic said that she wants to create an exec for women in sports, and ensure that the right people are in the “right rooms” for discussions about safe environments, communicating with separated sports to ensure that all teams have an open line of communication.
Emily emphasised that she would have a zero tolerance policy for toxicity within sports, saying that there is “no place” for it in Lancaster, and made it clear that she would give people spaces to raise issues they faced.
Tom said he aims to listen to all voices and focus on educating both male and female students to combat potential toxic environments, while making sure that societies mix at the same time.
‘Students couldn’t afford to live five years ago, they really can’t afford to live now’

Via LA1TV on YouTube
This was a quote from President candidate Rory O’Ceallaigh, and it summarises the strong stances that the final candidates took on in a discussion. The four candidates for President are Adam Baguley, Ben Carter, Ollie Earnshaw and Rory O’Ceallaigh. The candidates went through their manifestos and experience, which they spoke with The Lancaster Tab about in detail in our candidate interviews.
Hot topics for the night were rental costs and the current state of the Students’ Union.
On finance, Adam said that Lancaster University are “profiteering off the students” and declared that management should be “kicked out,” with his aim being to democratise the university and overturn the rental system.
Ben described a “broken LUSU that students are unengaged with,” adding that “this is the fault of the Students’ Union.” He argued that rental prices have reached unsustainable levels, and shared that he aims to keep an eye on off-campus students so that they also have support in fighting for fair rent.
Ollie focused on his experience in fighting for fair rent when he founded the Tenants Union, saying that things would only move upwards from here should he win the election, and that the university should be prioritising getting money into students.
Rory emphasised the rapidly worsening state of student rent, and said that he is confident that he could work with the university to reduce rent by framing his plans in a way that seemingly benefits them, arguing that students would be able to spend more money at “university outlets” if their rent was lower.
Presidential candidates accepted more questions from the audience
Further questions led to one candidate admitting that they do not know what the Full Time Officers do, while another two led to a discussion on the lack of female presence in the presidential candidates and the Students’ Union’s sexual harassment initiatives.
Featured images via LA1TV on YouTube and Lancaster University’s Students’ Union