The Societies Section, and LSU as a whole, are limited in terms of space and infrastructure, so a manifesto purely based around increasing engagement may not be feasible – unfortunately, everything has limits, and I would be concerned about any long-term impacts pushing these limits could have.
The idea of a ‘Swap Week’ has been mentioned many times by previous candidates – who either were not elected, or who decided against implementing it. I’d argue that this means it is not necessarily an idea that either voters or voted in officers have deemed important. It is a shame that neither this, nor the other points within this manifesto, are particularly new or original from the candidate.
When looking at both the ‘Swap Week’ and ‘London Societies Development’ concepts, put forward by either candidate, I would be interested to know how they plan to incentivise current societies to participate. There seems to be very little consideration given to the fact that society committees are run by those volunteering their time, who may need encouragement to branch out beyond their own society and members.
While it is a nice touch to include some of the achievements of previous Societies Officers, there is no mention of how these would actually be improved, developed or expanded upon – and as such, feels like a redundant point to include in a manifesto.
When looking into both manifestos, it is a shame that there is very little mention of some pressing issues within the Societies Section and LSU – such as engagement with Loughborough College, collaboration with other sections, including the new Enterprise EO and its conflicts with certain existing societies, and the pressing concern of changing spaces and developments within both the University and the Union.
While both manifestos contain some very positive points, I’d be interested in delving more into where their priorities for the section lie.