Sugar threats, booing and opposing manifestos: LUSU education candidates face chaos at Q&A

Tensions rose during candidate questions on Monday evening when one of the Education Officer candidates’ statements led to a loud reaction from the audience.

Candidates Matthew Lamb, Morgan O’Carroll and Niamh McAuley each delivered their plans and answered questions about their manifestos in a discussion chaired by Jack Watson and Ella Smith.

The debate was perhaps the most contentious of the night, as tensions rose due to statements and reactions from the candidates and the audience. We’ve compiled everything that went down in the 45 minute long discussion, so you don’t have to.

Tensions rose during the education debate with audience disturbances, controversial statements and accusations of not reading manifestos

Via LA1TV on YouTube

Morgan discussed the importance of increasing flagship careers fairs for availability, improving transparency for post-grads and updating the academic rep system to make it more clear and accessible. Niamh emphasised her experience as a faculty rep for FASS, and said that she wants to get students more involved with academic reform. “You have a stake in your education here at Lancaster,” she added. Matthew caused chaos in the lecture hall when he declared that he wants to stop “these academic strikes,” and “close the Sugarhouse, sell the Sugarhouse.”

“LUSU is broken, LUSU needs reform,” he shouted to boos from one side of the audience and cheers and banging on tables from his friends on the other side.

Noise levels got out of hand

Jack had to remind the audience several times to remain quiet and “respectful” while the candidates spoke after Matthew’s supporters continued to bang on the tables and cheer, and the discussions soon got back underway as the floor opened for question.

Most Read

The hardest Russell group unis to get into, based on offer rate – and it’s not just Oxbridge

This video of Lacey from MAFS and her mum at the club has leaked and I don’t know how to feel

Um, leaks have confirmed which couples get married on Love Is Blind and I am NOT okay

Candidate tells Matthew Lamb he has not read her manifesto after confusing question

Matthew Lamb, candidate for Education Officer. Via LA1TV on YouTube

When Matthew was asked to direct a question to both of his co-candidates, he asked how they will “realistically” free up Wednesday afternoons from academic periods without cutting student numbers, which he alleged was on both of their manifestos.

Niamh responded by saying: “I don’t particularly think you have read my manifesto as I have not mentioned that.” However, she continued that it is “really important that students are allowed to enjoy the extra-curricular activities.”

“I haven’t particularly mentioned it,” she concluded, “but it is work that I will definitely continue on.”

Morgan then confirmed that he is the “only one” that has discussed this on their manifesto, and and said that “regardless of how many students are at the university… everybody deserves a free period during the week,” as it is part of university policy and proven to improve both educational work and student mental health.

Candidates debated the value of reading weeks

Niamh McAuley, candidate for Education Officer. Via LA1TV on YouTube

An audience member asked the candidates about their plans for reading weeks, which were one focus of Niamh’s campaign and a topic that each candidate felt passionately about. Morgan emphasised that every student needs a reading week in order to decrease stress and assist mental health and wellbeing. Matthew, however, disagreed, and called reading weeks a “holiday,” stating to more upset from the audience that some subjects are more strenuous than others, and that is why they don’t have reading weeks.

Niamh agreed with Morgan, and argued that reading weeks should be standardised, saying that as a LICA student, her reading week is a valued chance for her to “consolidate learning.” Both Niamh and Morgan agreed that the impending changes to the curriculum made reading weeks even more relevant.

Discussions drew to a close with a quieter audience

Morgan O’Carroll, candidate for Education Officer. Via LA1TV on YouTube

The debate ended on a calmer, but still contentious, note, as the candidates discussed the use of AI in education in response to a question from the audience.

Matthew used his response to criticise Lancaster University, saying that students use AI because of a lack of support from the university, saying: “We have students and they get sent off to do coursework and then they are basically left to it with little support…if you have more support in education, reduce the class sizes, then you can tackle the issue.”

Niamh and Morgan offered their thoughts on how rules for AI within universities should work. Niamh stated that she believes that AI is a useful tool that can help consolidate notes, however she believed that the uni’s procedures and rules around the use of AI by students should be constantly reviewed in a process that involves getting feedback from students as AI and education develops further.

Morgan, meanwhile, discussed how the usefulness and practicalities of AI differ between all departments. He advocated for an umbrella set of rules on AI to be placed by the university, however he stated that these rules would need more specific sub-regulations for each department.

Lancaster University has been contacted for comment. 

Lancaster University Students’ Union declined to comment as the election is ongoing.

Featured image via LA1TV on YouTube