Many people have asked me over the last few days for my thoughts, predictions and other ideas for the races that are going to happen in 12 months time. It's a hard one to really scope out.
Thinking back to twelve months ago, the money then was that I was would run again this year - against Josh & Adam - in a re-run of last year's External Convener battle. People suggested that Tom French & Steven Lauder would slug it out against Sara Bodle running for VPSA. No one would have mentioned Ben, Anna or Bruce for VPAA and Kwan was fairly unsure if he'd stand again. And Chris Arnold was as anti-EUSA as you could get, let alone thinking about a stab at VPS. Twelve months ago, so many varied names were being suggested from within those elected back then, that you might have put money against any of them.
To use the Grand National analogy a final time - predicting this far out, is like attempting to predict the runners in that race, without seeing what they do in between, knowing their form in the mean time, knowing their handicaps and their advantages.
In twelve months, EUSA could be a very different political animal, and the forthcoming year's Sabbs (those who have just been elected) could turn people on or off to EUSA depending on what they do.
Looking at it objectively, you can pick anyone on CoM or SRC Exec or in SRC and say "they will run because ..." and make your own reasons. People like Katherine Sellar, Nick Ward and Guy Bromley are inevitably going to be linked with standing next year. People who've just been elected for the first time may also be linked with a possible race next year. The issue is - as I say above - what will the next 8 months bring before people begin to make their minds up?
What about the people who aren't "EUSA people" currently? The likes of Will Searle, Chris Arnold and Chris Williams - people who before the beginning of February most people hadn't heard about, and most people would never have imagined standing.
What I want to see is a completely different thing (forgive the political sounding-ness of what follows). I want to see elections for Sabbaticals that are well challenged and where the electorate has a big cross-section of people to choose from. I want to see people from outside EUSA stand, and take part in elections. And I want to see new ideas in the election campaigns. Of course there are people I'd like to see stand and then go on to win, but this far out, I don't know if they will stand come next February.
Put simply - to predict now would be foolhardy, and the merits of it would be very questionable. Feel free to comment.
Showing posts with label Chris Arnold. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Arnold. Show all posts
Friday, 9 March 2007
Friday, 2 March 2007
Post Race Analysis - VPS
Quite frankly, where do I start on this one.
First off, I'm surprised it wasn't closer. I truly believed that this would go to a second round, and that second preference votes would come into play. Secondly, I didn't expect Tom to win as many votes as he did, nor Stuart to get as low a total he did - even Chris' extremely high vote total (higher than mine in last year's Presidential race) is excellent for a candidate who came into the race 4 days before nominations closed and created a manifesto, website and all the rest at such short notice, whereas Tom/Stuart were planning this assault for months.
However, what worries me is Tom himself. As one candidate put it to me last night, Tom is a case of "tick, tock, tick, tock - a bomb waiting to explode". Tom's performance on stage in his acceptance speech was diabolical, and made Tim Cobbett's comments almost look polite. To be honest, I didn't mind Tom's diatribe against me for the entirely reasonable actions I took to protect my intellectual property (as opposed to the ludicrous accusation that I was trying to divert democracy), and was quite touched to get such a large amount of appluase. What frustrated me (amongst other things) was the fact that he didn't even mention his opponents who had worked tirelessly to make the election something; that he made it clear that one Sabbatical had actively helped him in his campaign; that he suggested that Adam Ramsay was the "rightful winner", when the democratic vote (yes, the democracy that Tom is so fond of) had said otherwise; and also Tom's general behaviour on the night.
This is a man who is meant to be in charge of the Association's finances over the next year, and yet doesn't clearly know how to budget £95. His constant cheating and rule breaking frustrates me (as much as it frustrates me that the Returning Officer did nothing), and I am worried for the state of the Unions over the next year. I do hope that the Committee of Management/SRC manage Tom and keep him in line.
I worry also for the state of EUSA if Tom doesn't get his way - Tom has been seen to act like a spoilt three year old when he hasn't got his way before, and if he doesn't agree with things in the next few months, and during his time in Office, then heaven help EUSA. He has to learn how to get on with his colleagues on the Association Exec, and he will need to learn how to mend/build bridges and not destroy them. Last night's speech was the opening gambit to war, not the opening speech to a better EUSA.
Feel free to agree/disagree in the comments.
First off, I'm surprised it wasn't closer. I truly believed that this would go to a second round, and that second preference votes would come into play. Secondly, I didn't expect Tom to win as many votes as he did, nor Stuart to get as low a total he did - even Chris' extremely high vote total (higher than mine in last year's Presidential race) is excellent for a candidate who came into the race 4 days before nominations closed and created a manifesto, website and all the rest at such short notice, whereas Tom/Stuart were planning this assault for months.
However, what worries me is Tom himself. As one candidate put it to me last night, Tom is a case of "tick, tock, tick, tock - a bomb waiting to explode". Tom's performance on stage in his acceptance speech was diabolical, and made Tim Cobbett's comments almost look polite. To be honest, I didn't mind Tom's diatribe against me for the entirely reasonable actions I took to protect my intellectual property (as opposed to the ludicrous accusation that I was trying to divert democracy), and was quite touched to get such a large amount of appluase. What frustrated me (amongst other things) was the fact that he didn't even mention his opponents who had worked tirelessly to make the election something; that he made it clear that one Sabbatical had actively helped him in his campaign; that he suggested that Adam Ramsay was the "rightful winner", when the democratic vote (yes, the democracy that Tom is so fond of) had said otherwise; and also Tom's general behaviour on the night.
This is a man who is meant to be in charge of the Association's finances over the next year, and yet doesn't clearly know how to budget £95. His constant cheating and rule breaking frustrates me (as much as it frustrates me that the Returning Officer did nothing), and I am worried for the state of the Unions over the next year. I do hope that the Committee of Management/SRC manage Tom and keep him in line.
I worry also for the state of EUSA if Tom doesn't get his way - Tom has been seen to act like a spoilt three year old when he hasn't got his way before, and if he doesn't agree with things in the next few months, and during his time in Office, then heaven help EUSA. He has to learn how to get on with his colleagues on the Association Exec, and he will need to learn how to mend/build bridges and not destroy them. Last night's speech was the opening gambit to war, not the opening speech to a better EUSA.
Feel free to agree/disagree in the comments.
Thursday, 1 March 2007
Live Results - VPS
The election has been one of the dirtiest on record, and now comes the fun - the election of the VPS.
So after 3 schools, Stuart leads Tom then Chris 140-79-46
So after 6 schools, Tom leads Stuart then Chris 188-183-82
So after 9 schools, Tom leads Stuart 333-251
So after 12 schools, Tom leads Stuart 696-416
So after 15 schools, Tom leads Stuart 939-531
With 5 schools remaining, Tom leads Stuart 1303-770
With 4 schools remaining, Tom leads Stuart 1370-809
With 3 schools remaining, Tom leads Stuart 1442-842
After Round 1, Chris - 739; Tom French - 1777; Stuart - 995
Tom French elected as the next EUSA VPS. His song is Chumbawamba's classic hit about getting knocked down ....
The nightmare scenario - Tom French & Josh MacAllister elected.
A very interesting and very long speech, in which I, Adam Ramsay and half the P&P people got thanked. He even suggests that Adam Ramsay should be the next President, which is booed out. He thanks Anna Davidson for winning "for being the right person to do the job". To a chorus of boos and slow hand claps he refuses to leave the stage.
A Tim Cobbett-esque speech. EUSA should be warned. The Unions should be worried. Oh dear.
So after 3 schools, Stuart leads Tom then Chris 140-79-46
So after 6 schools, Tom leads Stuart then Chris 188-183-82
So after 9 schools, Tom leads Stuart 333-251
So after 12 schools, Tom leads Stuart 696-416
So after 15 schools, Tom leads Stuart 939-531
With 5 schools remaining, Tom leads Stuart 1303-770
With 4 schools remaining, Tom leads Stuart 1370-809
With 3 schools remaining, Tom leads Stuart 1442-842
After Round 1, Chris - 739; Tom French - 1777; Stuart - 995
Tom French elected as the next EUSA VPS. His song is Chumbawamba's classic hit about getting knocked down ....
The nightmare scenario - Tom French & Josh MacAllister elected.
A very interesting and very long speech, in which I, Adam Ramsay and half the P&P people got thanked. He even suggests that Adam Ramsay should be the next President, which is booed out. He thanks Anna Davidson for winning "for being the right person to do the job". To a chorus of boos and slow hand claps he refuses to leave the stage.
A Tim Cobbett-esque speech. EUSA should be warned. The Unions should be worried. Oh dear.
Sunday, 25 February 2007
Another Day, Another Flyer
The Sunday before election day brings out its usual round of "Pollock Drop" campaigning. With Adam & Tom (the usual double act/couple) already staking claim to the JMC on Saturday Lunch (and with rumours now circulating of them breaking the rules to go canvassing on Saturday), a number of other candidates were also seen out and about in Pollock - all armed with the trusty flyer, and the spiel to give to candidates.
I ask one very important question: this evening, Tom French claims to have visited each and every room in Pollock. Thus far he has had three hours of campaigning/door-to-door time in the blocks and there are over 2000 rooms in Pollock. Either he is super human or he has broken the rules: which is it? Yesterday Adam & him were in the JMC flyering, and had to be removed ... will Graham Boyack finally act and do something decisive about this rule breaking?
Also seen on site were KT, Ben and Anna in the VPAA battle and also Chris Arnold in the VPS race. With less than 4 days left til the polls close (and I'm beginning to think that it can't come soon enough), its beginning to hot up another notch.
I ask one very important question: this evening, Tom French claims to have visited each and every room in Pollock. Thus far he has had three hours of campaigning/door-to-door time in the blocks and there are over 2000 rooms in Pollock. Either he is super human or he has broken the rules: which is it? Yesterday Adam & him were in the JMC flyering, and had to be removed ... will Graham Boyack finally act and do something decisive about this rule breaking?
Also seen on site were KT, Ben and Anna in the VPAA battle and also Chris Arnold in the VPS race. With less than 4 days left til the polls close (and I'm beginning to think that it can't come soon enough), its beginning to hot up another notch.
Friday, 23 February 2007
Fresh Air - VPS
And onto the Vice President Services candidates ... well two out of the three of them. I don't know if Tim Johns forgot about Chris Arnold, but he wasn't there leaving Tom & Stuart to answer the questions. Irony of ironies, he asked them if they came from different part of the political spectrum - which neither could answer ... because they've both been members of the Labour Club.
Usual bank of weird questioning - including one about Rust. And Tom admitted to smacking children with a paddle ... again make up your own minds.
So Arm Wrestle time ... and Stuart was victorious ...
Usual bank of weird questioning - including one about Rust. And Tom admitted to smacking children with a paddle ... again make up your own minds.
So Arm Wrestle time ... and Stuart was victorious ...
And that's that ... obviously the VPAA candidates are of no interest to Fresh Air, because it seems none of them were invited ... or Tim forgot! Still, he has been up for the better part of 24hrs.
Do donate at www.freshair.org.uk and www.myrednoseday.com/radioday
Saturday, 17 February 2007
Looking at ... The Association (Sabbs)
So with the nominations closed, and whilst the candidates are furiously working away touching up their manifestos before the Monday deadline, and everyone pouring over the details in everyone else's battle plans, now is the time to consider the election at hand. Who's standing, what does the initial out look mean, and the rest.
So President first. Well, whilst I'd like to suggest it would be a three way battle, Adam & Josh do have the front running ground. Josh's teaser campaign might leave it late for him to show who he really is, but I've no idea if there are sufficient hits to his website to make up for this. Adam's website is "still coming" (I was in this position last year, so won't throw too many stones), but it does currently look like an extention of the Mark Ballard factory. It looks tacky, and compared with what has been so far a very poor poster campaign (more of which later), it must be hurting. Chris Williams - well, who is Chris? No website. No posters - although there are some rumours circulating about why. Chris however has one key advantage - no political slime that comes with Josh or Adam. If he can get a message out to the voters that he doesn't have the messy political background of the two "heavy hitters" this may play well with people who are sick of EUSA hacks.
Vice President Academic Affairs comes next. It is still very difficult to split any of these candidates. KT's website is now online, and is looking very smart and sleek. No posters are up as yet, but the website makes up for this - especially a very interesting section showing his comparative perfomance against the other candidates. Anna's site is more bare bones still - flash driven, it'll no doubt annoy a few people, but it does lack in content. Bruce's site is also now online, and is very simple, but very effective. There's a lot of stuff about Bruce and its presented in a simple easy manner (like KT's) which will make a lot of people a lot happier. Ben's site is moving slowly, and now includes the yellow used in the Joshesque Teaser posters.
Vice President Services - well this is where it gets dirty. Tom French seems to be having a go at anyone and everyone on the EUSA forums, and whilst this won't play out on a larger scale, the more people that become interested in the elections the more will find out. His website is up, and it is already causing controversy. There is so much on this that needs discussing, I'm not sure where I should start, so this time round I'm going to simply say that using photos of Tom and current Sabbs almost seems like endorsement from them (especially on the front page), and that using supporting quotes makes it seem like the hard sell. I'm not sure. Stuart on the other hand looks to be winning a softer kind of vote, with his interesting slogan. I've seen some of the forthcoming publicity, which does look interesting and could be a vote winner - how good it is can't be judged yet, and if it really will engage people at all is more difficult to guess. However, Tom & Stuart are ahead of Chris Arnold, who's website isn't up as yet, but is promised by this weekend, along with a manifesto thereafter. However - much like the other Chris - if it is a non-political student people want, then Chris is the choice. However much Tom bleets on about not being a Labour member, the choice is stark between "Green-Labour" (Tom), "Tory-Labour" (Stuart) or something non-Labour, non-party poltical.
Vice President Societies & Activities is probably the most difficult to really work out. Gordon's website is still coming - all we have is all we've seen for nearly two weeks with "Flash Gordon". Will Searle may have stolen a slight lead with a fresh looking, very different website. Although not much is there, it looks a lot cleaner, and I can imagine some content will bring it to life.
Societies Convenor has been returned unopposed, which means Katherine Sellar won't have a tough race like Tom French & Steven Lauder did last year. That means no surprises either.
Finance Committee is a mixture. For the first time in years, there is an election for Senior Member of Finance Committee, and with the previous post holder no longer able to stand, the man who took his place at the Bye Elections will face off against the Sabbatical who is probably disliked the most in recent times. Neil versus Tim Cobbett will be interesting - as I've said before the influence on "Diana" on this election will be a deal breaker. What is really disappointing is that for the Finance Student Members, there are only 5 people standing, compared with 10 last year. There's a distinct lack of Sabbatical candidates taking this as 'fall-back' option and so this will be a tight race.
This being the top of ballot, there's going to be an awful lot of development and it will no doubt happen very quickly.
So President first. Well, whilst I'd like to suggest it would be a three way battle, Adam & Josh do have the front running ground. Josh's teaser campaign might leave it late for him to show who he really is, but I've no idea if there are sufficient hits to his website to make up for this. Adam's website is "still coming" (I was in this position last year, so won't throw too many stones), but it does currently look like an extention of the Mark Ballard factory. It looks tacky, and compared with what has been so far a very poor poster campaign (more of which later), it must be hurting. Chris Williams - well, who is Chris? No website. No posters - although there are some rumours circulating about why. Chris however has one key advantage - no political slime that comes with Josh or Adam. If he can get a message out to the voters that he doesn't have the messy political background of the two "heavy hitters" this may play well with people who are sick of EUSA hacks.
Vice President Academic Affairs comes next. It is still very difficult to split any of these candidates. KT's website is now online, and is looking very smart and sleek. No posters are up as yet, but the website makes up for this - especially a very interesting section showing his comparative perfomance against the other candidates. Anna's site is more bare bones still - flash driven, it'll no doubt annoy a few people, but it does lack in content. Bruce's site is also now online, and is very simple, but very effective. There's a lot of stuff about Bruce and its presented in a simple easy manner (like KT's) which will make a lot of people a lot happier. Ben's site is moving slowly, and now includes the yellow used in the Joshesque Teaser posters.
Vice President Services - well this is where it gets dirty. Tom French seems to be having a go at anyone and everyone on the EUSA forums, and whilst this won't play out on a larger scale, the more people that become interested in the elections the more will find out. His website is up, and it is already causing controversy. There is so much on this that needs discussing, I'm not sure where I should start, so this time round I'm going to simply say that using photos of Tom and current Sabbs almost seems like endorsement from them (especially on the front page), and that using supporting quotes makes it seem like the hard sell. I'm not sure. Stuart on the other hand looks to be winning a softer kind of vote, with his interesting slogan. I've seen some of the forthcoming publicity, which does look interesting and could be a vote winner - how good it is can't be judged yet, and if it really will engage people at all is more difficult to guess. However, Tom & Stuart are ahead of Chris Arnold, who's website isn't up as yet, but is promised by this weekend, along with a manifesto thereafter. However - much like the other Chris - if it is a non-political student people want, then Chris is the choice. However much Tom bleets on about not being a Labour member, the choice is stark between "Green-Labour" (Tom), "Tory-Labour" (Stuart) or something non-Labour, non-party poltical.
Vice President Societies & Activities is probably the most difficult to really work out. Gordon's website is still coming - all we have is all we've seen for nearly two weeks with "Flash Gordon". Will Searle may have stolen a slight lead with a fresh looking, very different website. Although not much is there, it looks a lot cleaner, and I can imagine some content will bring it to life.
Societies Convenor has been returned unopposed, which means Katherine Sellar won't have a tough race like Tom French & Steven Lauder did last year. That means no surprises either.
Finance Committee is a mixture. For the first time in years, there is an election for Senior Member of Finance Committee, and with the previous post holder no longer able to stand, the man who took his place at the Bye Elections will face off against the Sabbatical who is probably disliked the most in recent times. Neil versus Tim Cobbett will be interesting - as I've said before the influence on "Diana" on this election will be a deal breaker. What is really disappointing is that for the Finance Student Members, there are only 5 people standing, compared with 10 last year. There's a distinct lack of Sabbatical candidates taking this as 'fall-back' option and so this will be a tight race.
This being the top of ballot, there's going to be an awful lot of development and it will no doubt happen very quickly.
Wednesday, 14 February 2007
Quiet Wednesday
Traditionally the last day and a half of the elections is when it really hots up. Really really hots up. More candidates stand. More people are nominated. Not today however - just a mere 7 candidates.
The biggest news from today is Chris Arnold - http://www.freewebs.com/chrisarnold - standing for VPS. A Potterrow regular, Chris is someone I know very well from my work in Accommodation Services. VPS now has a "non-EUSA" candidate which will really shake up the elections. Tom French & Stuart MacLennan now have some opposition which 'ordinary, non-EUSA' people might well connect with and steal crucial votes. Chris can also tap into the lucrative 1st Year voting market, and this will be a shaping factor in the elections.
Elsewhere its been a quiet day, and I have to say I am really surprised at why people aren't standing. With nominations closing 4 hrs earlier than normal, are there going to be lots of seats unfilled in the SRC? That would really be a disappointment, and I hope that the push of me and others to get these seats filled does pay off.
A footnote to this is something that was pointed out to me by a friend. As things stand, there is only 1 female candidate for Sabbatical. Looking down the list, there are moderately few female candidates. Now, this isn't something that is going to deeply scratch my soul: I've always believed that the best candidates will make up their own decision to stand, and will do so regardless of gender or any other discriminator. I'm only mentioning this here, because someone else mentioned it to me, and it may spark some debate or interest.
The main message is this: if you aren't standing, and think you might want to, then do. You'll only regret not getting involved. The clock is ticking - forms are available online at the EUSA Election site, and nominations close at 12noon sharp. Get involved.
The biggest news from today is Chris Arnold - http://www.freewebs.com/chrisarnold - standing for VPS. A Potterrow regular, Chris is someone I know very well from my work in Accommodation Services. VPS now has a "non-EUSA" candidate which will really shake up the elections. Tom French & Stuart MacLennan now have some opposition which 'ordinary, non-EUSA' people might well connect with and steal crucial votes. Chris can also tap into the lucrative 1st Year voting market, and this will be a shaping factor in the elections.
Elsewhere its been a quiet day, and I have to say I am really surprised at why people aren't standing. With nominations closing 4 hrs earlier than normal, are there going to be lots of seats unfilled in the SRC? That would really be a disappointment, and I hope that the push of me and others to get these seats filled does pay off.
A footnote to this is something that was pointed out to me by a friend. As things stand, there is only 1 female candidate for Sabbatical. Looking down the list, there are moderately few female candidates. Now, this isn't something that is going to deeply scratch my soul: I've always believed that the best candidates will make up their own decision to stand, and will do so regardless of gender or any other discriminator. I'm only mentioning this here, because someone else mentioned it to me, and it may spark some debate or interest.
The main message is this: if you aren't standing, and think you might want to, then do. You'll only regret not getting involved. The clock is ticking - forms are available online at the EUSA Election site, and nominations close at 12noon sharp. Get involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
