Here you can find a log of our live updates from Candidate Questions 2026, held on Monday 2 March 2026. A recording of LA1TV's livestream of the event can be found on their YouTube channel in two parts: part 1, part 2.

Voting will be open from 10:00 Tuesday 3 March until 18:00 Thursday 5 March. Election results will be announced on Friday 6 March, beginning at 21:30.

Live Feed

21:20 - That brings us to the end of Candidate Questions. Thank you to everybody who's followed along on the SCAN page this evening.

21:17 - When the University is already struggling with recruitment, why do candidates think that management are putting more money into things that students don't care about? Kate says the University spends a 'shocking' amount of money on things students don't care about, and this is largely a result of a lack of student consultation. Kate sees the new Vice-Chancellor as a good step forward, as he appears much more concerned about the student voice. Christina says things like college bar closures and CTP have shown that students aren't consulted. She would push for more student consultation, especially at higher levels of decision making. Sam says she is encouraged by the Vice-Chancellor's goal of improving student engagement in decision making. She wants to ensure the University understands what students value and where this value comes from. Usul is irked by University management not listening to student voices, and believes we should 'just flatten the Ruskin'.
21:12 - What environmental/sustainability policies would candidates support? Usul says they would burn more fossil fuels due to the current cold temperate. Kate says she would encourage more groups to take part in Eco Challenge and better utilise the Eco Hub. Christina would promote the initiatives currently in place, and would encourage student activism and campaigning on campus, especially using Alexandra Square. Sam says that, since declaring a climate emergency in 2022, the University's policies have done more to make them appear green than to tackle the bigger problems, but praises the Net Zero Centre and new solar panels. She says there's a willingness in the University to be more sustainable but it's rarely a major priority, so the SU needs to keep pressure on the University.
21:08 - How would candidates suggesting handling the increasingly hateful culture on campus which some Instagram pages have made clear while recognising the limitations of the role? Sam says they would be more vocal in LUSU's stance against hate speech. She would also empower students to speak up when they see things happen and ensure they know how to respond. Christina says signposting sources of support is key as well as emphasising LUSU's stance and supporting students in getting targeted content taken down. Kate says we've seen how powerful the voices of student groups can be in opposing hateful content online and would work to encourage this alongside amplifying LUSU's stance. Usul reiterates their previous comments about University induction training being insufficient and requiring coverage of incel culture and harassment.

20:58 - How would candidates remove the stigma around students seeking support for disabilities and financial issues? Sam says they would like to see more provisions available to all students, and limited resources like food pantry to be emphasised as open to all. Cost-of-living crisis still has a major impact on students who don't consider themselves to be impoverished. Christina agrees everyone is in the same boat with the cost-of-living crisis, and that campaigning and advertising should be clear, placing resources in quieter spaces in case people feel stigma. Usul says some people can feel crushed by the stigma, even being able to sign up and receive a slot in order to avoid a massive queue could make an impact. Kate says part of the value of the college food banks is that they are in quieter spaces. She says signposting and advertising them as open to all is key to reducing stigma.
20:53 - All the candidates (except Usul) have centred their cost-of-living policies on engaging in discussions with external companies such as UPP and Stagecoach, but current and prior FTOs have struggled to get these companies to enter into serious discussions. How feasible do candidates think it is to try and bring these companies to the discussion table? Kate says that backing from University management and the Vice-Chancellor is a good step forward, gathering data and support from students is important, and pushing forward must be done even if difficult. Christina agrees it will be difficult and that campaign data and evidence is crucial, face-to-face time is important, and the Vice-Chancellor's support can be very helpful. Sam says previous FTOs have made good progress, as evidenced by the University opening discussions with Stagecoach to allieviate pressure on campus parking. She says all the meetings and building relationships is not futile, just slow. Sam emphasises that LUSU could be doing more to support students through the cost-of-living crisis, even without relying on the co-operation of external companies. Usul says it's 'crazy' that driving and parking is barely more expensive than getting the bus. The key to negotiations is finding common issues.
20:46 - What would candidates do to support students with care leaver/estranged status? These students are particularly struggling with rising cost-of-living and rising summer rent at the University. There was previously a fund to support these students, would you reinstate it? Usul acknowledges the seriousness of the question and says they're not the best person to answer it. Kate says we need clear communication to understand where our money goes and ensure there is a clear fund to which students can apply if they need money. Sam says the scheme sounds like it was valuable and this is worth pursuing, she would like to speak to affected students and ensure LUSU is supporting them. Christina says meeting with these students is key, ensuring the SU campaigns the University to support them. She highlights that she would like to see the travel access fund prioritise those students most struggling with finances.
20:41 - Where would the money for a travel access fund come from? Would money be taken from elsewhere? Christina says she would not prioritise the travel access fund over things like sports and societies, and would be looking for funding from the University, who are negotiating with Stagecoach. Sam echoes Christina's statement, as the University know things are unsustainable. Sam says, rather than frequently asking for more discretionary funds for particular projects, the SU should push for a larger block grant from the University. Kate says she would use external funding, whether from the University directly or via alumni donations. Usul says the SU should print more money in order to increase its budget.
20:38 - A growing number of SUs are voting to disaffiliate from the National Union of Students (NUS). Should LUSU hold a referendum on this as well? Sam says yes a vote should be held, preceded by much more information about the current situation. Sam says she has an opinion, but thinks her individual opinion isn't too important, it's more important to inform students so they can decide for themselves. Kate says students need more information and it should be made clear that the money saved from leaving could not immediately be spent, for several years it would be held in case of reaffiliation. Usul say they don't know what the NUS is and 'genuinely' have never heard of it before. Christina describes the £20k membership fee as 'extortionate', and student consultation is needed.
20:33 - Historic problems in SU elections with too few women+ candidates has flipped this year, with only one men+ candidate. Why does the SU seem to struggle to get the balance right, and how can this be fixed? Sam says it's hard to extrapolate too much from a single year. They speculate that the rise in misogyny has played a part in the President candidate in particular. Christina agrees the question would need more research, but the current political/cultural climate has had an impact. Usul says maybe men are intimidated by them. Kate says having no men+ candidates for President is not necessarily evidence that the SU is doing something wrong and is glad women are coming forward to speak their minds. They say larger trends would require further analysis.
20:30 - Many candidates have raised issues with misogyny on campus, Usul has pledged to abolish confession pages. What three-step plans would candidates have to tackle what the SU calls 'inappropriate commentary' on such pages? Kate says it's difficult to police online conduct, signposting and drop-in sessions are needed to support student affected. Usul says the SU needs a stronger stance, and describes the confessions pages as 'secondary school behaviour', particularly condemning the sharing of sexual fantasies. They says the University should include things like incel culture in student induction training. Sam says they would be more vocal about what is happening online and make it clear that harassment, discrimination, and hate comments are unacceptable to the SU. They would look to improve the reporting system, and follow-up on incidents which the SU is aware of to support students and ensure action is taken. Christina says it's important students are aware where to go, that the SU needs to make their opposition clear, and messaging the confessions pages to request takedowns of unacceptable content.
20:25 - The SU sometimes has trouble keeping up with commitments to student initiatives, how would the candidates improve this? Christina says keeping track is important to help the SU stay on top of everything. Sam would push for a person to be assigned to following up with a particular campaign group when their motion passes Union Assembly, and would be willing to meet with student groups and share her experience. Kate says the correct channels need to be signposted and support is needed. Usul says they are the best candidate to terrorise somebody people in order to get things done.
20:22 - How would candidates support students in the cost-of-living crisis? Usul: 'I wouldn't'. Kate says she would improve signposting for existing resources like college food banks, potentially bring back the SU food pantry, and lobby the University for a transport access fund. Sam says she would like to improve Cheap Eats offerings, introduce an SU Food Hatch, based off a system at Bristol, where soup is served for £1 and a hot meal for £2, and is encouraged by the actions of the new Vice-Chancellor so far that discussions on the affordability of rent and transport could be fruitful. Christina says she would also push for a travel access fund with the Vice-Chancellor and would like to revive the SU food pantry. She would also like to increase free food access around exam periods.
20:18 - Sam says most FTOs in recent years have previously been JCR members, contributing to a 'LUSU bubble'. What would candidates do to make sure all students feel represented as a member of the SU? Christina says transparency is key, and so is utilising spaces like Union Assembly which bring students from different areas together. Usul says all FTO roles except President should be abolished, since it is harder for one person to gatekeep things. Kate says ground-level communication is important, open forums and frequent communication channels is the way.
20:15 - Kate asks those with prior experience in SU leadership roles what has prevented them implementing their goals at those levels. Usul believes the question is incriminating and refuses to answer. Christina says she found as JCR President that the role holds less power than the title suggests, it's an unpaid position which requires managing 13 other officers. She says she feels she has helped to advance advocacy for womens+ safety in her role on Women+ in Politics society. Sam says University management do little to work with students, which has stalled progress on campaigns, and says SU support on those campaigns has not always been sufficent.
20:12 - Christina asks what the others is the biggest issue facing students, and how they would tackle it. Sam says the increase in misogyny and discrimination on campus by ensuring the SU vocally opposes these. Kate says a lack of student consultation by the University on big decisions, she would push for me. Usul says the University needs more Engineering buildings.
20:10 - Usul asks the other candidates: how would they bring 'a bit of whimsy' to the role? Kate suggests an office pet, like her gerbil Bill, or a mascot – she would be happy to wear a fursuit. Sam suggests employing Usul as an SU jester. Christina points to her background in musical theatre and suggests an SU musical.
20:08 - Lastly, Usul. They didn't know the had to prepare a speech, so decided to talk about colours. They like light maroon and LUSU purple.
20:06 - Kate next. She's focusing on student safety, making degrees feel 'worth it' and employable, transcript recognition for exec roles, and reducing communing costs.
20:04 - Sam next. She says she's concerned about campus growing increasingly hostile to those who are different, about students' reliance on part-time jobs to get by, and that 'our University is helping to arm Israel and precipitate climate collapse'.
20:01 - Christina first. Her key points are student-led decision making, women's+ safety on and off campus, and funding for student travel to and from campus.
20:00 - Time now for the Presidential candidates. This section is being chaired by Rory O'Ceallaigh. The candidates are: Kate Bracewell, Sam Burgess, Usul Kaboosle, Christina Mallinson, and Re-open Nominations.

19:59 - Some societies compete in national championships but aren't counted as sports teams because these tournaments aren't run through BUCS, and this affects funding. Would you want to change this? Emily says it's something she'd want to look at, pointing also to the difficulty of non-BUCS groups competing in Roses and saying that funding restrictions are unfair. Anna agrees, students competing at the highest level deserve parity in funding.
19:56 - A few years ago, the separate VP Sports and VP Societies and Media roles were merged into Activities Officer; is the Activities Officer role sustainable in the long term? Anna says it's difficult due to the funding needed for two separate full-time roles, but says the additional time and attention which sports and societies could both receive would make a difference. Emily says she thinks the roles should be split again due to the large number of student groups and how needs differ between societies and sports groups.
19:53 - "What are you going to do about the sheer lack of car parking?" Emily says the University oversold parking permits this year, more permits sold than parking spaces on campus. Emily suggests there are more spaces on campus which could be used for car parking, and highlights the 'extortionate' cost. Anna acknowledges the situation as frustrating, especially with the construction of the new energy building on South Campus which has taken up parking spaces. She says parking restrictions imposed by construction need to be minimised and highlights the lack of disabled parking.
19:47 - Both candidates have mentioned wanting to improve trans+ access to sports. What have the candidates done on this so far, and what would they like to do next year? Anna says the EHRC decision has had a 'massively unfair' negative impact on trans access to sport, with national governing bodies imposing restrictions on play as a result. She says she'd like to promote development and turn-up-and-play sessions, where there are not limits on trans involvement, and better signpost trans access. Emily says she's worked to create a list of trans-accessible sports and help give students awareness of the effects of the EHRC ruling. She says she is working with other Activites/Sports Officers at other SUs to create maps of gender neutral facilities for travelling athletes, and is currently working to implement clear communication on trans access as part of sports teams reaffiliation, meaning students will be able to see on the SU website how trans athletes can get involved in each sport.
19:42 - Why is it so hard for society affiliations to be opened? Anna defers to Emily, since she is the current Activities Officer. Emily says the first reason is due to limited staff capacity as a result of funding limits; the second reason is flat floor space and space in general being limited; thirdly, more societies means funds such as the societies pot need to be increased alongside the number of societies but this isn't easy to do.
19:36 - Izzie Sanders from the Lancaster Tab asks about concerns, especially in Instagram comments, that right-wing speech is being suppressed, for instance the inability of the Reform UK Society to affiliate. Do the candidates think Reform UK Society should be allowed to affiliate? Emily says SUs are legally unable to prevent societies from affiliating due to political views. Emily says that the variety of communities on campus needs to be protected and there's no space for others to be made uncomfortable. Emily says that, more broadly, there have been problems with abuse and misogyny in Instagram comments. Anna says that there must be spaces for all to express their views, as long as they aren't encroaching on others' rights. She says Reform UK Society cannot be blanket banned.
19:30 - How are candidates expecting to find more flat floor space for societies? Emily emphasises that LUSU is one of the only SUs in the country without its own building – long term, she would like an SU building. For now, she'd like to address the block-booking of spaces such as Lancaster Arts in the Great Hall and push for a prioritisation of flat floor space in new/refurbished buildings. Anna says if moving equipment from flat floor spaces is an obstacle to student bookings then people should be trained on moving, and students should be able to book spaces during the day if they are unused.
19:26 - What can candidates do to make it easier for student groups to apply for funding, especially transport funding? Anna says funds aren't very well advertised and would want to improve this, as well as keeping applications open throughout all of each term and allow for retrospective applications. Emily clarifies that societies funding comes from a ringfenced fund of ~£10k, applications are approved by Societies Committee and can be made retrospectively. Emily says the new minibuses this year can be booked out by societies and is happy to advocate for more support from the Vice-Chancellor.
19:22 - First question from the floor, this one for Emily: what support has been given this year to society treasurers with the transition to in-house banking this year? For both candidates, what would they do about this next year? Emily says she knows how difficult the transition has been for many societies, and has helped to sort issues, for instance by raising them with the Trustee Board. She acknowledges that it 'has not been a good system this year' and is hopeful that the system in place next year will be much better, standardising training for societies, sports, and JCRs. Anna says her experience as a club captain this year has informed her understanding. She wants to push for more transparency and is looking forward to the standardised training being implemented next year.
19:17 - Emily's question for Anna: what would she do differently with ongoing initiatives and new programmes? Anna says she'd like to extend the Sports Access Fund to those beyond the Widening Participation background to those more broadly financially struggling, and would establish a Societies Access Fund.
19:14 - Anna's question for Emily: how does she currently split her time between sports and societies, and what would she do differently if elected? Emily says it's a 50/50 split in every aspect of the job, and would want to try to focus on a few big things rather than lots of small things if re-elected.
19:13 - Anna now. She mentions her current experience on Sports Committee and the positive impact sports and societies have had on her time as a student. She wants to focus on accessible participation, establishing a Societies Access Fund, prioritising students for bookings and space allocations on campus, and promoting women's inclusion.
19:11 - Emily first. She highlights her experience and some of her achievements as current Activities Officer: securing a Sports Access Fund and promoting involvement for neurodivergent students. Next year, she wants to re-open society affiliations and costs for parking and sports passes.
19:08 - The questions for Activities Officer candidates are starting now. Leah Buttery is chairing this section. The candidates are Emily Houston-Woods, Anna Muchardt, and Re-open Nominations.
19:05 - We're back on the stream now. Looks like the room is taking a short break before the questions for Activities Officer and President candidates.
19:02 - We've temporarily lost the livestream here, we'll get back with more updates as soon as we can.

18:59 - For both candidates: how might you support students looking to stay on for postgraduate study? Navyah says she'd tell such students that she's had a good experience with her postgraduate experience here. Niamh questions how much it's the SU's role to persuade students to stay at Lancaster for postgraduate study, but emphasises the student culture and variety of activities at Lancaster.
18:55 - A question for both candidates: could they elaborate on the changes they'd like to see on AI policy. Niamh says the University needs a working policy, since AI is constantly evolving, and that academic reps and student voices are needed in the process. Navyah highlights the need for different policies in different departments and for students to be supported in disciplinary procedures based on alleged AI use.
18:51 - Niamh asks Navyah if she has been inspired by any policies in Niamh's manifesto, and if she might implement them if elected Navyah says that, if elected, she would like to implement Niamh's AI policy.
18:48 - Navyah asks Niamh about circumstances last year, where Niamh was elected Education Officer but stood down before taking up the role. Niamh says she stood down due to cultural issues in the SU which came to light following the resignation of that year's President, Cerys Evans, and she did not want to be a part of that. She says that she's been even more involved with the SU this year and is satisfied with work which has been done to improve this.
18:46 - Navyah now. Her priorities are transparent assessments, student voice, ensuring access to academic support and resources, and equalising representation between postgraduates and undergraduates.
18:44 - Niamh first. She highlights her three manifesto points: a student-focused AI policy, spread out and fairly balanced assessments & scheduling, and improved communication and transition support during CTP and wider University changes.

18:42 - No more questions from the room, we're now moving onto the questions for Education Officer, which will be chaired by current Education Officer Liz Gillett.

18:41 - How would David incorporate the cost-0f-living campaign started by Cartmel JCR into his work? David highlights the rising cost of campus rent and says that both the University and UPP (campus accommodation providers) are aware that the cost is becoming unsustainable. David says he'd like to make sure that all students are able to afford their accommodation.
18:39 - How would David support JCR officers in their roles? He says JCR Wellbeing Officers would be focused more on promoting campaigns, and he would want to help them fulfill this role.
18:38 - How would David support intersectionality and promote work between different student organisations? David says he'd like to encourage networking events between the JCRs and Liberation/Campaign groups, for example, and work with sports teams, especially on promoting trans inclusion in sports.
18:36 - How would David support student physical health, such as cancer awareness and sexual health? David says he'd like to ensure better training on sexual health awareness for students and help promote and support student campaigns such as cancer awareness.
18:34 - A question from the floor, how would David work to support the ongoing campaign against sexual misconduct which focuses on issues with the University's reporting system? David says he's part of the campaign and noted that the campaign found it difficult to meet with the University. He says he'd like to 'reignite' student campaigns and protests more generally.
18:32: - A question from online asks if David has any ideas for campaigns looking to improve student mental health. David says he wants to encourage the University to provide more mental health support for students and expresses concern about response time with the current systems.
18:30 - A question next from Green Party councillor Maria Deery, who represents the University Ward on Lancaster City Council. Maria asks David how he would want to work with the Council to improve town for students. David says he'd like to continue work on current Wellbeing Office Leah Buttery's Lights Out campaign to improve illumination. He says he'd like to address students currently feeling unsafe, in particular by working with local bars.
18:27 - An audience member asks David how he might reach out to older students. David has said he'd like to encourage participation from mature students by helping them to find their own groups of people and links this back to his policy on inclusivity.
18:24 - David has given his speech. He's highlighted affordability, safety and inclusivity, and accessibility as three main points of his campaign. Since there are no other candidates (except RON), we're skipping right to audience questions.
18:21 - We're getting started with the questions for the Wellbeing Officer election. SU President Rory O'Ceallaigh is chairing this discussion. As a reminder, the candidates for Wellbeing Officer are David Grice and Re-open Nominations.
18:19 - SU President Rory O'Ceallaigh is walking everybody through the format for this evening: candidates each will get 2 minutes to make a speech; then, an each candidate can ask 1 question to the other candidates; lastly, questions will be taken from the audience.