So as the dust begins to settle in the 2007 EUSA General Elections, the first (possibly of many, but lets see how it goes) part of the analysis into the race. This isn't going to be a Grand National style race re-run to see where the runners and riders fell, but more or a look at the results.
Josh's win over Adam was less of a surprise - simply because for many the race was too close to call throughout the contest, with the two neck and neck. The margin of victory though was a surprise - I wouldn't have expected a 600+ vote win, and would have thought that Chris Williams' transfers would have come into play. However, a turn out in excess of 4700 for the Presidential vote is unheard of, and that really would have affected the way that voters cast their vote (Josh won with nearly 900 more votes than Tim Goodwin did last year). I wonder what a couple more candidates would have done - especially if they were none EUSA hacks, who would have brought some more uninterested and normally non-participating students into the Elections. Josh also is the second Labour-based President, following Tim, and the question now has to be asked - are we in a Labour era, following the three P&P Presidents (Will Garton, Steve Cockburn, Ruth Cameron)?
Where does the win leave EUSA? Well I believe that Josh will have a postive effect on EUSA - his policies seem to have some sound backing behind them. He does need to ensure he represents all students, as I believe Tim Goodwin has done, and does not lead EUSA down a merry Party Political path like Ruth Cameron. Josh may well be a Labour student and be proud of it, but he will no doubt get a lot of stick from some of the defeated Green elements - anyone at the count last night will have been hard pushed not to notice Tim Gee's body language when congratulating Josh on stage: it could not have said "I don't like your win" any clearer or louder.
Josh will have a tough year ahead: he will be working with Mark Ballard as Rector - a man who has made it quite clear that he supported another candidate in these elections; and Josh will also have to deal with the fall out from the Holyrood Elections. If Labour retains power, I hope Josh uses the Political Capital he has for the benefit of students, rather than for himself. Josh also will have to deal with a couple of other factors that will spring up during the year, and I haven't even mentioned the VPS yet.
As for Adam - a year back in the backbenches, taking a step down from External Convenor. Adam has two options: he can continue his fight from regularly turning up to the SRC sub-committees, and push for the policy he can actively engage with; alternatively he can take a route take by many defeated Sabb candidates (Pat Hannon, Gill Dunn, Sara Bodle spring to mind), who get quickly bored of the SRC and don't engage. Adam also has the option to run again next year, if he feels it's the right thing to do - or will it be a different P&P candidate? The choice is his.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Ok, I'm aware that I seem to be on a different planet to you good sir, but no one seriously considers Josh working with Mark Ballard to be potentially problematic?
What are these factors that will spring up during the year?
Thank you for this blog-adding an extra, interesting dimension to the madness.
OK seriously Jordan. Please tell us EXACTLY what you mean by saying that Ballard has "made it quite clear that he has supported another candidate in the elections." I don't reckon that comment is at all justified.
Ellie - Mark hasn't refuted any of the claims in the Holyrood article which make the same suggestions as I do. If Mark truly hasn't supported Adam then he can say as much. If it really is true that he supported no candidate, then why did he vote in these elections? (For reference, he was noted by a friend of mine to be voting the Potterrow Offices as a Life Member).
Jordan -
I have carefully reread the article to summarise the supposed claims which it makes. Aside from the bit of video filmed in the parliament - which I have already explained - we have the following evidence against Ballard:
He has "come under fire", been "hit with accusations", is "widely believed" to be "quite clearly pushing" Adam. "I am worried that he is getting involved", says the labour club president, whilst other accusations are "being claimed by a separate anonomous source", and "fears have been expressed".
That is nothing but opinion. What's more, it's the opinion of Tom O'Grady, Josh Macalister, and one other "unamed source". Elections are of course a nervous and stressful time for everyone, but I really don't see how these claims can be taken at face value without even suggestions for how Mark supposedly helped Adam, let alone genuine proof.
As to your other claims. I see nothing wrong in Mark exercising his right to vote secretly and democratically. I was not aware that he had not refuted the claims (are you sure?) but in that case am confident he will do so soon.
I am not writing this because of sour grapes. Josh ran an excellent and above-board campaign, and he obviously deserved to win given that he got the highest number of votes ever. I am very impressed, and sure that he will be a fantastic president.
However, the facts regarding Adam and Mark must be set straight. I seriously and sincerely do not believe the rector was in any way involved in Adam's campaign.
Since Josh and Tom have made a public fuss about this, I hope they will have the grace to either have a public investigation, or publically clear both Mark and Adam of any wrong-doing. It is in the best interests of EUSA that no students or staff have false accusations hanging over in them in the future.
Jordan, for the last bloody time - I am not a labour based president. let me reiterate this.
when i was elected, i was politically independant. i won't deny that this eyar i have joined the party, but strictly as an individual, and i am certainly not a member of Labour Students.
you may recall last year as well that the majority of the labour club (with the exception of Stewart McLennan actually) were out campaigning for Laura, and actively campaigning against me. i couldn't give a monkey's about that, but it does go to show i'm not "a labour based president".
your problem seems to be that you think there really is some kind of party political conspiracy going on, and that there really are two factions. this means that you will just invent factions when you feel like it - labelling adam knight as a green simply because he was running against a labour club member is a great example! how about this one - you label will garton, steven cockburn and ruth cameron as a all part of the green / p&p alliance of eveil - yet garton and cockburn are both members of the labour party! so you clearly have no understanding of these factions you have created!
you also, having never held a high level association position, have absolutley zero understanding of how the exec works. i have been a rep for four years now, on the exec for three of them. firstly, being a first year convenor is no bad thing, and makes sweet FA difference to how well you can do your job. secondly, no one takes orders from anyone else. to suggest otherwise, particularlyl when you no knowledge of how it really works, is not so much ridiculous as naive bullshitting.
yours, etc.
Tim
Post a Comment