The Guild Elections 2026 – What is the Point?

In a recent article, I examined the impact of openly activist antizionist student leaders holding prominent Guild and Students’ Union positions, focusing in particular on figures like Antonia Listrat. Despite being elected to represent the full student body, her tenure reflected a consistent prioritisation of ideological campaigning over student representation. That included promoting BDS, legitimising misinformation about Israel, and dismissing or excusing hostility toward students who disagreed with her views.

This year’s Guild elections offered a test of whether that approach would continue.

Listrat ran again in the 2026 election, this time alongside a coordinated slate calling itself the “Liberation Committee.” Their campaign made clear that their focus remained on advancing a specific political agenda centred on Israel rather than addressing the day-to-day concerns of students on campus. 

Hoping to better understand their platform, I approached their stand to ask questions and have a conversation. That attempt ended almost immediately once they learned I was Jewish. I was told to move along and no further discussion was entertained.

Listrat herself did not win re-election. However, several members of her cohort did secure positions within the Guild, including Ahmed Sidahmed, Nyamesumpa Abbey, Ikra Hussain, and Saja Abdallah. Their success reflects something more important than any single race outcome. It shows that the broader movement behind them has gained traction and now has a meaningful presence within student leadership.

This raises a more serious question than simply who won or lost. What does this mean for the direction of campus culture, and for students who do not align with this ideology?

The issue is not that these students hold strong political views. Universities should be places where political ideas are debated and challenged. The problem is what happens when those views begin to shape the boundaries of who is allowed to participate in that conversation. My own experience at their campaign stand was not an isolated moment. It reflects a broader pattern in which certain identities or viewpoints are treated as disqualifying rather than engaging.

There have been further instances where my views are not welcomed on campus. Whenever I try to have a fair debate about what is happening in the Middle East it is never civil. Most students simply start shouting or refusing to even look at both sides of the conflict the moment I try to talk about Israel in a neutral or positive way. 

Even without Listrat holding office, the underlying ideology has not disappeared, with there being an increased presence on social media. If anything, these results suggest it has become more embedded. When activists frame their success in terms of institutional endorsement and electoral validation, it signals that their approach is not only tolerated but rewarded.

That raises a fundamental question that has yet to be answered clearly. What is the end goal of this movement on campus?

If the objective is to push for divestment, sever academic partnerships, and align the university with a specific geopolitical position, what follows after that? Is the expectation that students and faculty who disagree simply conform, remain silent, or remove themselves from campus life altogether? And if so, is that an outcome the university is willing to accept as consistent with its commitment to open inquiry?

Some students may choose to self-censor in response to social pressure. Others will not. The tension created by these dynamics will not resolve itself. These activists cannot achieve their stated geopolitical aims through campus politics alone, which means frustration will persist. When the presence of dissenting students remains unchanged, that frustration risks being redirected inward, toward peers rather than policies. This can be shown especially in the banning of the Friends of Palestine action group by the University. 

At the same time, there has been little evidence of meaningful institutional intervention to ensure that student leadership remains accountable to the full student body. That leaves the trajectory of campus discourse increasingly shaped by those most willing to organise, mobilise, and assert control over the conversation.

If universities are to remain spaces for genuine intellectual engagement, that cannot go unchallenged.

Students who believe in open dialogue, consistent standards of reasoning, and the ability to express differing views without exclusion need to recognise what is happening and respond accordingly. That does not mean matching hostility with hostility. It means organising more effectively, participating in student governance, and refusing to allow a small but highly motivated faction to define the terms of acceptable discourse for everyone else.

The outcome of this election is not the end of the story. It is a signal of where things are heading if no one is willing to push back.