Apathy declares Victory in the Union Elections!

I'm declaring victory in the upcoming Union elections. That's right, 'upcoming' – the voting hasn't even started yet at the time of writing. But I'm confident of winning, so confident that I haven't even bothered putting up a banner in the Quad.

I'm the self-appointed head of the Apathy Party. My credentials are impeccable – I didn't vote last year, I won't vote this year and I don't give a monkeys who gets elected.

The Apathy Party will declare victory when voter turnout is below 50%. At last year's election we won by a landslide – turnout was just 12.7%. Of the 14,000 students eligible to vote, just 1,774 could be bothered to log-on. Yes, 'log-on' – students don't even have to schlep their way to actual polling booths. Online voting was a response to low turnout in previous years – "students today are, like, internet citizens, yeah? How can we expect them to vote, you know, offline?".

Here's the real reason for low turnout: most people don't care who runs the Union. That's a fact. The bit that is debatable is whether low turnout is a symptom or a problem.

You could say that things on campus are generally okay and that low-turnout is a symptom of that. The visible bits of the Union seem to work. If I want a sandwich I don't need to walk to Tesco, because the Union has got its baps out on campus. And at a higher level too, things are ticking along. The Union hasn't had to give up and close down. Each year they need officers, they hold an election and they end up with new officers. Bish bash bosh.

But I think low turnout is more of a problem than that. Here's why: the candidates are in a shouting contest with each other, and MOST students don't hear anything meaningful. If they did, they would vote.
 Meaningful, that's the key. The manifestos are full of phrases that mean bugger all. Empty truisms that you couldn't disagree with. Oppose fees, eh? Nobody WANTS to pay them. (And nobody already at UEA will have to).

As last year's winners, the Apathy Party has advice for this year's candidates: drop any reference to "listening" or "voice". As in, "I promise to listen…and give students a voice". Candidates, YOU are not listening. Students have a voice and they're telling you that they don't find you compelling.

There's a certain type of person who will resist this view and claim that the Union IS relevant. The logic of this is that students who don't vote are wrong (and probably stupid). To appreciate the average student's mindset, these critics should try making their arguments backwards: what are the problems to which the UEA Union is the answer? Here's the Apathy response: it ain't fascism or Nestle chocolate bars.

All students, voters and non-voters alike, need a Union that plays the card they've been dealt. The Government is trying to turn undergrads into consumers, and universities are partnering in that. We don't like it but that's the reality.

So students don't need a Union that stands at the edge and shouts "£9000 is too much". They need a Union that advances their members' status as consumers. A Union that has a view of what £27,000 worth of education LOOKS like, and finds out whether its members are getting it. A Union that could do THAT would attract masses of voters away from the Apathy Party.