Organisation and time management skills are usually considered desirable leadership qualities. Turning up half an hour late and sweating profusely, Tom Howard did little to instil faith in his waiting interviewers. In contrast, arriving on the dot of one, beaming and freshly deodorised, Mark Fletcher made his almost boundless enthusiasm immediately apparent. Daniel Perrett, the slate candidate, sidled in and huddled on the corner of the sofa.

This set the tone for the entire interview. At every juncture Fletcher’s JCR, May Ball and Welfare experience lent an air of authority to his confident answers. Reflecting on his battle over room rents with the Jesus College authorities this term, he admitted that “you sometimes have to sacrifice a relationship”. Although agreeing that CUSU has to co-operate with the University, he did not shy away from the prospect of having to hold senior figures to account and seems to have a solid grasp of the task required of him. Perrett’s limited knowledge of student politics was obvious straight away. He claims to understand the problems inherent in “maintaining a solid working relationship with the University”, but stands by his manifesto commitment to being “a President who will gatecrash the all-powerful covens of senior bureaucrats”. Howard believes that “you have to have a dialogue” but explained that CUSU “can’t be the University’s bitch”.

On many issues there appears to be common ground between Fletcher and Howard, with issues such as street lighting and mental health campaigns featuring prominently. They do offer differing perspectives on the manner in which the President should lead the CUSU team. Howard believes that the role demands that a concerted effort be made to “sound out the views of real students” although he is unsure how to go about this. Fletcher stuck to the well-tested Ferguson model of compromise and consensus within the executive. When it was suggested to him that he might be seen as endorsing a John Major style of leadership he seemed surprised, but not unduly offended.

look, I’m not asking you to trust me

Perrett views the leadership aspect of the CUSU Presidency as less important. Repeatedly questioned on his manifesto pledges he somewhat surprisingly maintained “I don’t think people should trust me”. He sees himself as being “the Exec’s dogsbody” if elected and, while promising “a little less timidity” in his style, emphatically declared that a ‘top-down’ leadership structure is “not how you get things done”.

While a more pro-active campaigning union is a major focus for all three hopefuls, they each offer different ideas of what this should entail. Perrett’s affiliation to A Little More Action, with their emphasis on the process of campaigning, seems to have little grounding in reality. Talking about a demonstration at Sussex University, he explains that “what it achieved or it didn’t [achieve] is immaterial to the fact that students were involved in campaigning”. He trumpeted his successes in direct action with the Education Not For Sale ‘sit-in’ held on the Sidgwick site last term. The demonstration attracted fewer than 50 people and appears to have achieved little in the way of concession from the University.

Fletcher and Howard’s proposals are more modest than Perrett’s demands for increased student representation. Fletcher admits that his proposals on rent negotiations are less than bold, and concedes that the accusation “vote Fletch, get Ferg (again)” is fairly accurate. He is effusive in his praise of Ferguson’s tenure, describing it as “a base on which we need to build”. Howard maintains that his rather standard concerns over lighting and welfare are salient campaign issues, while praising Ferguson for “keeping politics out of CUSU”.
The issue of CUSUents is a glaring ommision from all three manifestos, surprising given that it provides around a fifth of CUSU’s revenue and that last year it lost £17,000 through gross financial mismanagement. Under questioning, none of the three exhibit any understanding of how the Ents programme functions, with Fletcher admitting “I’ve shied away from it on my manifesto… I don’t know enough about it”. Little enthusiasm was shown for CUSUents as a high-profile demonstration of CUSU’s work and questions on how it can be improved were met with uneasy silences. Perrett did, however, venture the suggestion of “non-alcoholic nights at Cindies”.

The President’s responsibility as Chief Financial Officer of CUSU came up in relation to the CUSUents debacle. Fletcher cites his experience at managing the JCSU and Jesus May Ball budgets as evidence of his suitability for the role. Howard highlights what he has learnt as Bar Officer at Girton, defending himself strongly against accusations of financial blunders made as last year’s Spring Ball Drinks Officer. Perrett had not even realised that Chief Financial Officer was part of the job description, perhaps thinking that the £400,000 budget would write itself. Despite possessing no experience in financial matters, he confidently declares “I have no reason to think I would not be capable”.

An hour of discussion left a great many questions unanswered. Perrett’s position at the head of a slate that includes several charismatic left-wing activists with considerably more experience than him was the most puzzling. Fletcher’s well-rehearsed soundbites give weight to rumours that he has been planning to run since last year. By contrast, Howard’s lack of self-confidence, which may be the result of his last minute decision to stand, became increasingly apparent, often undermining sound and constructive ideas.

He calls Mo Mowlam his political role-model while Fletcher’s is Barack Obama. Perrett does not have one. He expressed his dismay at leadership in general. The absence of warring Churchills or reforming Peels in their answers was telling. Patriotic last stands and Great Reform Acts may yet be some way off.