Chair: Hugh Gately, Auditor of the Literary and Debating Society

Candidates: Adam Mullins, Danny Saunders, Peter Ó Neill, Seán de Búrca

Format:

• Mix of general questions and targeted questions
• Candidates given 2 minutes each to answer general questions
• Candidates given 2 minutes 30 seconds to answer targeted questions, followed by 30-second responses from the other three candidates
• Debate alternated between panel questions and audience contributions

Opening moment:
Candidates were asked to do keepie-uppies with a football, in a nod to Catherine Connolly’s famous campaign moment.

Keepie-uppies scores:

• Adam: 10
• Danny: 10
• Peter: 5
• Seán: 3

Key Issues

Housing and engagement with local government

Candidates were asked whether the students’ union should work more closely with local authorities on the housing crisis.

Adam

• Initially cautious about political entanglement with parties.
• Described the housing situation as “cat”.
• Said the SU must move beyond advocacy and actually push decision-makers.

Danny

• Criticised the university for building accommodation students cannot afford.
• Said the SU should intervene between government and universities to ensure fair prices.

Peter

• Praised local councillors as “unsung heroes”.
• Proposed building a rent registry to gather accurate data to lobby government.
• Suggested the SU could even run a candidate in local elections.

Seán

• Strongly supportive of engagement with politicians.
• Said local authorities could enforce rules on short-term lets and Airbnbs.
• Argued national government ultimately controls housing supply.

Student discounts across the city

Danny proposed expanding city-wide student deals, working with businesses such as barbers and repair shops to offer off-peak discounts.

Responses:

• Peter and Seán pointed to the existing MyAMLE student discounts app.
• Adam said businesses he works with through the student pantry would be open to participating.

Transparency in the Students’ Union

Peter criticised a lack of transparency and called for clearer reporting of how the SU spends its budget.

• Said students contribute over €600,000 annually and should see “every penny accounted for”.
• Proposed regular updates and stronger democratic engagement.

Responses:

• Seán said the union sometimes focuses on doing work rather than publicising it.
• Adam argued the SU president holds disproportionate power.
• Danny said many students simply do not know what the SU does and that communication must improve.

Campus events and social life

Candidates were asked how they would revive large-scale events and concerts.

Adam

• Said campus demand is clearly there when events do happen.

Danny

• Linked the need for events to the cost-of-living crisis and student morale.

Peter

• Highlighted organising the Arts Ball and proposed initiatives like a battle of the bands and bringing bigger music events back to campus.

Seán

• Warned large events are expensive, saying it costs around €70,000 to protect the quadrangle during events like G-Ball.
• Suggested building momentum through smaller events first.

Parking and commuting

Parking pressures for commuting students were widely acknowledged.

Peter

• Called for better public transport and night buses.
• Warned against expanding parking if future transport projects reduce demand.

Seán

• Said the SU is negotiating to open Deacy Park car park to students.
• Criticised the imbalance between staff and student parking.

Adam

• Described parking as a daily problem in his work with the student pantry.
• Said the university management team has resisted changes.

Danny

• Proposed a part-time commuter officer within the SU.
• Called for a formal university action plan on commuting.

Student housing co-operatives

Seán was asked about the Edinburgh housing co-op model.

Seán

• Said it could not be achieved in one term but was worth pursuing.
• Argued co-ops give students control over their housing.

Responses:

• Adam: ambitious but feasible.
• Danny: any effort tackling the housing crisis should be explored.
• Peter: argued stronger housing data is needed before pursuing co-ops.

Reaching students not engaged with the SU

Danny

• Said the SU must reach the entire 20,000-student body.
• Proposed outreach tables across campus and QR codes in lecture halls.

Peter

• Suggested rotating union office hours around campus.

Seán

• Called for stronger class-rep engagement and social media outreach.

Adam

• Said the union must represent students beyond the core activist group and include campuses such as Shannon.

Four-day teaching week

Peter

• Said the policy responds to demand from students struggling with commuting and housing.

Seán

• Opposed a compressed week, arguing it would lead to long days without breaks.

Adam

• Said STEM courses would struggle with such scheduling.

Danny

• Suggested different schools could rotate days off to ease pressure on parking.

Technion partnership and protest

Candidates were asked how the SU should respond to the university’s partnership with Technion – Israel Institute of Technology.

Danny

• Said protests have lost momentum and the SU could take more radical action.
• Suggested tearing up agreements to show opposition.

Peter

• Supported the referendum campaign and said strong student opposition must be demonstrated.

Seán

• Said he has repeatedly raised the issue with university leadership and demanded legal advice on the partnership.

Adam

• Argued the SU must move beyond “performative activism” and take stronger direct action.

Candidate-to-candidate questions

Candidates were allowed to challenge each other directly.

• Adam → Seán: Asked why reading weeks had not been raised with the university management team.
  • Seán: Said the SU has no seat on that committee but has increased representation on teaching committees.
• Danny → Peter: Accused a member of Peter’s campaign team of taking down another candidate’s poster.
  • Peter: Said the poster had simply been brought to his table and criticised the accusation.
• Seán → Peter: Asked why a rent registry is needed when the SU previously conducted an accommodation survey.
  • Peter: Said the previous survey reached only 1,800 students and new data is needed annually.
• Peter: declined to pose a question