Candidates' Forum summary (part 3)

At this point, I've typed quite a bit. All further questions were posed by students watching the debate. I'm going to be selective and post the one that referred back to a CRO-posed question. There's just too many to type in full.

David from the Faculty of Arts noticed (as did I) that Sopotiuk did not answer the question posed of him concerning involvement in the Canadian Federation of Students. David asked Sopotiuk to clarify his position, and asked why CFS supported the elimination of the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation, which he (David) viewed as a helpful resource for students.

Sopotiuk (SU) answered that a large deal of the money spent on the CMSF was spent on bureaucracy, and it will be replaced with the Canada Student Grant Program, which he prefers. He also noted the benefit to UMSU being a part of CFS given the federation's vast network of campuses across Canada, including all unions in Manitoba. (In fact, the Red River College Students' Association is part of CASA, not CFS.)

In his own response, Singer (CS) declared the new Canada Student Grant Program to be less of a long-term investment than was the CMSF.

And again, Cairns (RC) didn't have anything nice to say about CFS. Enough said.

To wrap up, I was pleased to see the debates were so well-attended. There were a few hacks present who were being boisterous in supporting their slate, but it seemed that most people were there to listen.

Students United did a good job today promoting their diversity and experience. One weakness I didn't feel that they properly addressed was Sopotiuk's readiness for the task of President, given the fact that he's a University 1 student. When asked about it, Sopotiuk admitted that this was a "valid concern," but argued that he had matured by taking a few years off after high school to "find himself." He doesn't have the gift of oratory like many other candidates, which really showed today. I think it hurt him, but was it enough to turn people off from voting for him? We'll see.

Clean Slate has a full slate of experienced candidates. Unfortunately, they were late getting their posters up and had their leaflets confiscated during the campaign. The debate was their chance to differentiate themselves. But too often, they compared their positions to that of other slates without explaining what made them different. When they did try to differentiate themselves, they used terms like "middle of the road," which people associate with fence-sitting and not taking a stance.

What can you say about the Regressive Conservatives? They put on a good show today. They used humour well, and they were brutally honest, which young people flock to when evaluating politicians. That said, they also were strongly antagonistic to student groups, and student group members is a demographic that actually votes in UMSU elections. While they appear principled at times, they don't appear to have really fleshed out their policies concerning student groups either.

I'll have a final analysis later tonight.