Right after the Elections 2013 people complained on twitter about another election won by the so-called “SUSU Clique”. You can read about that term not only there. In articles in beloved publication “Soton Tab” and in comments underneath it the term will be mentioned. What is behind this? Is there a close team that always will run the Union? Yes. But is this a problem?
So for another year @YourSUSU will be controlled by the ‘SUSU clique’ who the majority oppose on major policies. #votesusu@danpalmer
Last year I was an Erasmus Student in Southampton. Because I am very interested in Media, I joined Surge and SUSUtv and later I wrote articles for the WessexScene as well. I thought it was very easy to get in to all of these SUSU outlets and I was welcomed by all of them with an open heart.
Very soon I realized there is a group of people who tends to be at SUSU more often and who are engaged in Union Politics more closely than others. But I thought this was solely due to their openness to volunteer for SUSU. This is because I also saw new people joining the groups. I saw people getting involved. Everyone who got involved with the Union had the same chance to become something bigger in SUSU later on. Of course, friendships are developing between thepeople working closely together. That’s how it works.
Great to see the SUSU clique on fine form in the #votesusu elections. Glad the union budget is still spent so wisely on popularity contests.@zinar7
Well. If you want to, you call the people forming the different departments of the Union the “SUSU Clique”. And you can go on record saying that these people are something like a sworn clan where outsiders don’t stand a chance. A world of its own where the needs of students are forgotten and only the needs of this special group are seen.
As an example you could take the NUS Referendum where Sabbs and the so-called “SUSU Clique” were rejected. The question is: Was it like that? I actually heard that SUSU could have done the affiliation without asking the Students in a Referendum. Still they did. But why? If it was only for the gains of the individuals they could have been quiet and just done it. But that’s not what happened. Because it was such a big decision and because they weren’t sure whether the students thought the same way they asked the Students and they voted against affiliation. To me this doesn’t look like a cliquey thing to do. It seems like a democratic thing to do. Asking the electorate if there is a controversial topic. So why create a conspiracy theory about SUSU? It is nonsense.
In my opinion it isn’t a bad thing that people who are involved with SUSU are friends and do things together. Everyone can get in if he or she wants to. It isn’t hard. Of course, if you weren’t involved with the Union before and want to be the top leader, it will be hard. But even that is possible, because the Elections are done by popular vote. The reason those who are already involved with SUSU are elected is because most voters seem to acknowledge this. It looks like this person cares for Union Politics. This person has already shown he or she cares about the Union and therefore also about the students.
This all shows to me that having a group that cares about students is a positive thing. And because this group is always open for new members and not an exclusive group, it is not bad. It is natural because people with similar interests will do things together and will most likely form a friendship group. I really don’t see anything scandalous about it.