Elections Coverage – Was Remington Spa a joke?

So the elections are over, and the results are in. Congratulations to those who won, and to those who did not. Everyone who ran a campaign should be proud of themselves, running in these elections is a huge feat to undertake.

However, the candidate I want to talk about is Remington Spa, (the guy whose name I misspelt ‘Reamington’ all night when I live blogged the hustings).

He claimed he was not a joke candidate – he told me so himself – but it was hard to take him seriously when his answer to most questions was: “I want to make the SU great again”. Nonetheless, within all the rhetoric, and satirical banter that was being thrown around this past week, I think he raised some real points about the running of the SU.

The supposed ‘joke candidate’ had seemingly more engagement with the student body that the serious candidates

I want to talk about his responses during the hustings. One of the main things that Remington said, and a point he started the evening off with, was that the SU isn’t taken seriously. While his campaign might play into that, he very fairly raised the point that the supposed ‘joke candidate’ had seemingly more engagement with the student body that the serious candidates. It is true to some extent, he engaged people all week, and I think that is both a positive and a negative thing.

It is an issue that was raised time and time again in questions and answers from all the candidates. There simply is not enough student involvement, and that has been established in multiple articles published by The Boar. So whether said jokingly or not, it is a legitimate stance to take that people think these elections are a bit naff and don’t affect them as students.

Remington actually suggested other forms of engagement, such as humour. In his case, it has seemed to work. You may not like his campaign, or you may think it is all a joke, but he has participated in some important conversations.

Remington Spa campaigning hard | Image: Charlie Hindhaugh

When asked what his main priority was, he said his standard catch phrase: “make the SU great again”. However, he elaborated and talked about how there are a lot of East Asian students on this campus who A) don’t feel represented, or b) don’t engage with the democracy and vote. He raised a really important point about how we can make our international students (who are something like 40% of us) feel involved.

When asked about conflict of interest, for example between the university and the students, he answered that they should stop making us look so “stupid” – okay a bit of a empty answer. But, he also said that the University should respect the Union and the students – which again, is something students call for.

Another example is, when asked about mental health, he specifically called up the mental health issues for international students. He said that students may come from countries or households where mental health isn’t taken seriously or is stigmatised, and the SU needs to adapt its welfare to include that. Again, a solid and valid point for these elections.

He argued for a “mature” balance between being a diplomat and a campaigner

He argued for a “mature” balance between being a diplomat and a campaigner, and made the very important point that he was the only “ethnic minority” presidential candidate. While Pilot also acknowledged his need for collaboration with other students, being male and white, Remington called out the often talked about fact that our SABB team from the last elections mainly consists of white males. Not very representative, if you ask me.

For improvements in the SU, he called for knowing what the SABB team actually does (a point I made myself in an article this week).

Remington is full of satirical banter, and jokes about “making the SU great again” (which he’ll tell you many times if you let him). But, beneath all this, he raises some serious issues about non-binary/white representation, and how the SU needs to adapt its policies to include international students. His campaign may have been a joke, but some of what he said should seriously be taken into consideration by the incoming SABB team and Warwick students in general.

In the first round, 28% voted for Remington, (36% for Luke, and 33.4% for George). It is great that he is engaging people, but is it worrying that so many people voted for him? I think while a lot of what he said should be taken seriously and is obviously not a joke, I also think that support for him says a lot about how much the student body thinks these elections are irrelevant and unimportant to their Warwick experience.