Monday, 11 February 2008
Academic Affairs or Who Cares?
Guy or Stewart? EUSA insider or quasi insider? With both of these candidatures in the offing for a while, can an AA candidate actually make the election interesting? Or will this just be a boring race with a bit of personality politics?
A few opening comments ...
One year ago, when the opening hours of the election saw a glut of candidates put themselves forward, I questioned whether it was going too early too soon. Josh won by that strategy. So this year the candidates seem to have gone even earlier.
With Harry Cole announcing his election candidature many weeks ago, it appears that Adam Ramsay decided he had to go early too. And at least this year his website seems half decent. Nick Ward is also standing - and is the 'Labour' candidate. Now, whilst this election could degenerate into a series of tags of what each candiate is and isn't, I'll be interested in seeing how Nick differentiates himself from the pack of Labour type casts.
And with Nick & Harry announcing their manifestoes very early, will Adam cherry pick from them or come up with a rerun of his 2007 manifesto?
With Harry Cole announcing his election candidature many weeks ago, it appears that Adam Ramsay decided he had to go early too. And at least this year his website seems half decent. Nick Ward is also standing - and is the 'Labour' candidate. Now, whilst this election could degenerate into a series of tags of what each candiate is and isn't, I'll be interested in seeing how Nick differentiates himself from the pack of Labour type casts.
And with Nick & Harry announcing their manifestoes very early, will Adam cherry pick from them or come up with a rerun of his 2007 manifesto?
Monday, 4 February 2008
Murmurings of Change
Can it really be that time of year again? It appears so. Murmurings of change is what can be heard. Murmurings of whether this blog would be back, have been heard. Well, it will be and is back.
Sunday, 19 August 2007
Aviation: The benefits to expand
Heathrow. Often described as the only building site in the world to have an airport. Or the only shopping mall in the world to have an airport. The source of much derision and the constant source of criticism in the last two weeks. If it wasn’t he happy, clappy anti-aviation brigade (see below), it was every minister, trade spokesman or national newspaper. Heathrow bashing, it seems, is a national sport.
It shouldn’t be, and to be brutally honest, if people had got their acts together we wouldn’t be in this situation. In 2002, the first ground was cut on Europe’s biggest building site – Heathrow Terminal 5 (T5). T5 is massive – the largest freestanding building in the UK and Europe, the size of vast number of football pitches, and a fully integrated transport hub. Only thing was, that when first proposed, T5 was meant to open in 2002. On schedule, on budget and on track to open its boarding gates next March, it will relieve vast pressure on the older facilities in LHR, taking capacity limits to 60m, and allowing Terminals 1 & 2 to be demolished to be replaced by Heathrow East, hopefully ready for the London Olympics in 2012.
So, why did it take so long? Because of NIMBYs. The Not In My Back Yard brigade stalled, and caused endless delays to the whole process, with the longest planning enquiry in British history. And now, we are left with those delays. And now we get the complaints. Its difficult to think, but without Heathrow, London and the UK would be a poorer place. Literally. Heathrow brings in over £5bn directly into the GDP of the UK. It supports over 70000 jobs in the London area, and nearly 500000 jobs across the UK. It provides many communities with their income, and brings direct investment links to the financial heart of the UK.
And this is a bad thing? Most mainstream people don’t see the investment, the income and support to the UK economy as a bad thing. However, there seems to be hardcore element of the populous who don’t get it. They seem to think that Heathrow has sprung up overnight – it hasn’t: it’s been there over 50 years, and plays a crucial role in how diverse, and multi-cultural the UK and London has become. Every day that goes by in the last 10 years, Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam have increased capacity, built new terminals and runways and have eaten into Heathrow’s lead as the most important destination in Europe.
Heathrow needs to be allowed to expand and grow, it needs to be allowed to move forward and improve its facilities. If it isn’t, it isn’t just Heathrow that will suffer, it will be London and the UK which will – and if that happens, the problems will be bigger than anyone will want to know about.
It shouldn’t be, and to be brutally honest, if people had got their acts together we wouldn’t be in this situation. In 2002, the first ground was cut on Europe’s biggest building site – Heathrow Terminal 5 (T5). T5 is massive – the largest freestanding building in the UK and Europe, the size of vast number of football pitches, and a fully integrated transport hub. Only thing was, that when first proposed, T5 was meant to open in 2002. On schedule, on budget and on track to open its boarding gates next March, it will relieve vast pressure on the older facilities in LHR, taking capacity limits to 60m, and allowing Terminals 1 & 2 to be demolished to be replaced by Heathrow East, hopefully ready for the London Olympics in 2012.
So, why did it take so long? Because of NIMBYs. The Not In My Back Yard brigade stalled, and caused endless delays to the whole process, with the longest planning enquiry in British history. And now, we are left with those delays. And now we get the complaints. Its difficult to think, but without Heathrow, London and the UK would be a poorer place. Literally. Heathrow brings in over £5bn directly into the GDP of the UK. It supports over 70000 jobs in the London area, and nearly 500000 jobs across the UK. It provides many communities with their income, and brings direct investment links to the financial heart of the UK.
And this is a bad thing? Most mainstream people don’t see the investment, the income and support to the UK economy as a bad thing. However, there seems to be hardcore element of the populous who don’t get it. They seem to think that Heathrow has sprung up overnight – it hasn’t: it’s been there over 50 years, and plays a crucial role in how diverse, and multi-cultural the UK and London has become. Every day that goes by in the last 10 years, Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam have increased capacity, built new terminals and runways and have eaten into Heathrow’s lead as the most important destination in Europe.
Heathrow needs to be allowed to expand and grow, it needs to be allowed to move forward and improve its facilities. If it isn’t, it isn’t just Heathrow that will suffer, it will be London and the UK which will – and if that happens, the problems will be bigger than anyone will want to know about.
Aviation: The Threat – to whom?
So as the hour approaches when the Climate Camp takes over Heathrow’s terminals, a little bit of thought and a large amount of anger. First of two postings on the subject.
I’m angry at the Climate Change Camp. Now this may come as no surprise to those of you who know that I’m pro-aviation and pro-airport expansion. No, this particular anger is directed at the liars, hypocrites and other assorted evils who have organised the camp. When BAA tried to get an injunction against a large number of organisations – one move which I will admit was “plane stupid” on their part, and somewhat counter productive – the press was full of commentary on the issues at hand. Many, many members of the organisations that BAA was trying to stop from getting to close to the terminals and other facilities appeared in a constant stream on TV saying how BAA was trying to “curb [their] freedoms” and “reduce [their] of speech and expression”. The usual things the people say when someone is trying to shut them down – and to be fair, I’m all for freedom of speech: I might not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it. One caveat: as long as you do it legally.
These protesters arrived last Sunday at Imperial College’s playing fields and decided to squat on it. Illegally. Now, this simply isn’t on – you can’t trespass on land and claim it as your own. Its 1800s a number of European nations did that, and now we realise it might not have been the cleverest thing to do. So taking this on board, and noting that they (the protesters) are on land that isn’t there, and claiming anyone can have access, so they are doing as much, what do you think they do when journalists want to go onto the land? They ban them. They frogmarch them off, they are rude, insulting and down-right dangerous to them, saying they aren’t allowed onto the land. How exactly does that work? What mentality is that? It seems for the protesters, there are two sets of rules – one for them, one for everyone else.
Next up it is the protesters contempt for the Police. Heathrow is a security target. Every person in Britain can’t deny that Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group would have the press day of their dreams if they staged an attack on such a prominent and important British target. Now the protesters have chosen to set up camp very close to the airport, and as has been shown before (cf. G8 at Gleneagles, May Day protests in London, etc.), they aren’t exactly the most law abiding bunch in the world. Nor do they know exactly who’s entering the site of theirs – just look the part, be anti-aviation/anti-capitalist or the like and you are in. So how easy would it be for any terrorist to slip in and cause havoc? Of course the police are right to invoke the Terrorism Act to stop and search vehicles and people. Can you imagine the field day the press and public would have if something happened and they hadn’t done the appropriate checks.
And then comes the “peaceful protests”. Only one word springs to mind: lies. Or liars. The day of the court injunction, BBC London News interviewed someone from Plane Stupid outside court and asked if they would be able to promise that no disruption would be caused to the public – they couldn’t make that promise. They couldn’t even promise that they’d be peaceful. We know Plane Stupid like to break the law – they invaded the secure area at Nottingham East Midlands Airport earlier this year, and broke countless laws. This week they’ve already caused public order offences, and trespass at three private facilities in and around the London area. You can’t trust them as far as you can throw them.
No one is doubting the evidence of Climate Change. Its been proven in countless reports that the CO2 produced by aviation is smaller than that of many heavy industries and many of the UK’s diesel trains on some routes. But, the methodology taken by the protesters behaviour is entirely unacceptable. Any breaking of the laws in such a sensitive area should be dealt with harshly and most severely. Disrupting the public, causing possible security threats and upsetting law abiding citizens is one thing; protesting peacefully is another. It seems these protesters don’t know the difference.
I’m angry at the Climate Change Camp. Now this may come as no surprise to those of you who know that I’m pro-aviation and pro-airport expansion. No, this particular anger is directed at the liars, hypocrites and other assorted evils who have organised the camp. When BAA tried to get an injunction against a large number of organisations – one move which I will admit was “plane stupid” on their part, and somewhat counter productive – the press was full of commentary on the issues at hand. Many, many members of the organisations that BAA was trying to stop from getting to close to the terminals and other facilities appeared in a constant stream on TV saying how BAA was trying to “curb [their] freedoms” and “reduce [their] of speech and expression”. The usual things the people say when someone is trying to shut them down – and to be fair, I’m all for freedom of speech: I might not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it. One caveat: as long as you do it legally.
These protesters arrived last Sunday at Imperial College’s playing fields and decided to squat on it. Illegally. Now, this simply isn’t on – you can’t trespass on land and claim it as your own. Its 1800s a number of European nations did that, and now we realise it might not have been the cleverest thing to do. So taking this on board, and noting that they (the protesters) are on land that isn’t there, and claiming anyone can have access, so they are doing as much, what do you think they do when journalists want to go onto the land? They ban them. They frogmarch them off, they are rude, insulting and down-right dangerous to them, saying they aren’t allowed onto the land. How exactly does that work? What mentality is that? It seems for the protesters, there are two sets of rules – one for them, one for everyone else.
Next up it is the protesters contempt for the Police. Heathrow is a security target. Every person in Britain can’t deny that Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group would have the press day of their dreams if they staged an attack on such a prominent and important British target. Now the protesters have chosen to set up camp very close to the airport, and as has been shown before (cf. G8 at Gleneagles, May Day protests in London, etc.), they aren’t exactly the most law abiding bunch in the world. Nor do they know exactly who’s entering the site of theirs – just look the part, be anti-aviation/anti-capitalist or the like and you are in. So how easy would it be for any terrorist to slip in and cause havoc? Of course the police are right to invoke the Terrorism Act to stop and search vehicles and people. Can you imagine the field day the press and public would have if something happened and they hadn’t done the appropriate checks.
And then comes the “peaceful protests”. Only one word springs to mind: lies. Or liars. The day of the court injunction, BBC London News interviewed someone from Plane Stupid outside court and asked if they would be able to promise that no disruption would be caused to the public – they couldn’t make that promise. They couldn’t even promise that they’d be peaceful. We know Plane Stupid like to break the law – they invaded the secure area at Nottingham East Midlands Airport earlier this year, and broke countless laws. This week they’ve already caused public order offences, and trespass at three private facilities in and around the London area. You can’t trust them as far as you can throw them.
No one is doubting the evidence of Climate Change. Its been proven in countless reports that the CO2 produced by aviation is smaller than that of many heavy industries and many of the UK’s diesel trains on some routes. But, the methodology taken by the protesters behaviour is entirely unacceptable. Any breaking of the laws in such a sensitive area should be dealt with harshly and most severely. Disrupting the public, causing possible security threats and upsetting law abiding citizens is one thing; protesting peacefully is another. It seems these protesters don’t know the difference.
Monday, 13 August 2007
Blogging Update
Many months have indeed past since the EUSA Elections and it may appear that this blog has died. Alas, no, it hasn't. It's just been resting!
As such, expect more commentary from here soon, but also commentary on all things London, as I move south to start my career in what will be the brother blog to this. The URL is http://www.jordandiaslondon.blogspot.com and more details will be posted in the coming days.
This blog will continue to have hard hitting comments on a number of issues, including local and national politics, and also a continual look at EUSA. Enjoy.
As such, expect more commentary from here soon, but also commentary on all things London, as I move south to start my career in what will be the brother blog to this. The URL is http://www.jordandiaslondon.blogspot.com and more details will be posted in the coming days.
This blog will continue to have hard hitting comments on a number of issues, including local and national politics, and also a continual look at EUSA. Enjoy.
Sunday, 18 March 2007
Why I didn't run for EUSA Sabbatical
A question I have been asked a number of times over the last two months is why I wasn't running for EUSA Sabbatical. I want to put these comments on the record, because I feel it is something I should do.
Running for Sabb is a hard job. It isn't something you do lightly, and it isn't something you do if you aren't 100% in the right frame of mind to do. When I discussed who was running for what this year with a number of people, the names that kept coming up for President & VPS (the only two positions I have ever considered running for amongst the Sabbs), were those who I believed were strong candidates, and candidates who came with a substantial backing from certain areas. EUSA is becoming a harder place for the non-aligned, and independent candidates to mount a successful and viable campaign.
Having run for President last year, I believed I could run again if I wanted to - I had a manifesto framework designed, and I had ideas on what I wanted. However, I lacked two things: I didn't have a team of people behind me - unlike people like Josh, Adam, Tom and Stuart; more crucially, I didn't have the mental fight to go 12 rounds with any of them. I would have loved to be EUSA President or VPS - over the years I have been involved with EUSA, I have stood on many of the things that my 2006 Presidential campaign were based - and I believe that these are at the heart of what makes a Students' Association.
Students aren't interested in party politics - people got really aggrieved and annoyed when EUSA decided it would try and "be clever" by taking a stance in the Rectorial elections. People get turned off by the constant political infighting, and people don't even know that the elections are happening. It takes wide scale change for people to be more interested, and with turn out breaking 20% this year, it is a start. It is a choice I made to sit this battle out - I believe I have given everything I can to EUSA and given the opportunities to people to vote for me and vote for what I believe in. People have - on a regular basis - decided against voting for me: for a number of reasons. It is something I obviously wish they didn't do, but that is democracy.
Having fought the fight, having got involved and having decided that as a person I had done my upmost to improve student life in Edinburgh, I believed it was time for me to step aside, and move on to other things. Of course, it isn't an easy decision: leaving something that you have heavily been involved in for the better part of 4 years is something that can't be done lightly. But that is what I am doing.
I probably haven't explained this as best as I can, for which I apologise, but I hope this makes my views a little clearer.
Running for Sabb is a hard job. It isn't something you do lightly, and it isn't something you do if you aren't 100% in the right frame of mind to do. When I discussed who was running for what this year with a number of people, the names that kept coming up for President & VPS (the only two positions I have ever considered running for amongst the Sabbs), were those who I believed were strong candidates, and candidates who came with a substantial backing from certain areas. EUSA is becoming a harder place for the non-aligned, and independent candidates to mount a successful and viable campaign.
Having run for President last year, I believed I could run again if I wanted to - I had a manifesto framework designed, and I had ideas on what I wanted. However, I lacked two things: I didn't have a team of people behind me - unlike people like Josh, Adam, Tom and Stuart; more crucially, I didn't have the mental fight to go 12 rounds with any of them. I would have loved to be EUSA President or VPS - over the years I have been involved with EUSA, I have stood on many of the things that my 2006 Presidential campaign were based - and I believe that these are at the heart of what makes a Students' Association.
Students aren't interested in party politics - people got really aggrieved and annoyed when EUSA decided it would try and "be clever" by taking a stance in the Rectorial elections. People get turned off by the constant political infighting, and people don't even know that the elections are happening. It takes wide scale change for people to be more interested, and with turn out breaking 20% this year, it is a start. It is a choice I made to sit this battle out - I believe I have given everything I can to EUSA and given the opportunities to people to vote for me and vote for what I believe in. People have - on a regular basis - decided against voting for me: for a number of reasons. It is something I obviously wish they didn't do, but that is democracy.
Having fought the fight, having got involved and having decided that as a person I had done my upmost to improve student life in Edinburgh, I believed it was time for me to step aside, and move on to other things. Of course, it isn't an easy decision: leaving something that you have heavily been involved in for the better part of 4 years is something that can't be done lightly. But that is what I am doing.
I probably haven't explained this as best as I can, for which I apologise, but I hope this makes my views a little clearer.
Friday, 9 March 2007
Looking Forward ...
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.
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.
Saturday, 3 March 2007
Post Race Analysis - Overall
Well, what can be taken away from these elections? Is it about hard campaigning; cheating; being from one political faction or another? Or can nothing be taken away?
Well look at the break up.
The Sabbaticals are split, with two Labour members - one of whom (Josh) is in Labour Students, whereas the other (Tom) has made a pact with the Green Devil in return for his safe package to election. Anna also made an 'informal' alliance with the Greens, and Gordon is so close to be a Labour Club person, that he is one. So an even split, although crucially the President continues to be red, rather than green.
The SRC Exec is also taking a red tinge to it, with the 4 of the 6 non-Association Exec Members also being red, against the crucial votes of Emma's more neutral political viewpoints and Jonathan's right leaning political character. It will be interesting to see what policy decisions come out of this body that would await the SRC's approval.
The Unions are full of former Sabbs, and this seems to be the only part of the Ballot paper which the red Labour boys/girls did worse than the Greens, and I wonder how this interaction will work in reference to the new VPS.
The debate and discussions that will happen it might well surround the Sabbaticals itself - will Tom surivive a whole year? Will Josh be able to work with Tom for that long? Will something else come along? Difficult to say currenly - there are simply too many factors to be able to clearly say one over the other.
Well look at the break up.
The Sabbaticals are split, with two Labour members - one of whom (Josh) is in Labour Students, whereas the other (Tom) has made a pact with the Green Devil in return for his safe package to election. Anna also made an 'informal' alliance with the Greens, and Gordon is so close to be a Labour Club person, that he is one. So an even split, although crucially the President continues to be red, rather than green.
The SRC Exec is also taking a red tinge to it, with the 4 of the 6 non-Association Exec Members also being red, against the crucial votes of Emma's more neutral political viewpoints and Jonathan's right leaning political character. It will be interesting to see what policy decisions come out of this body that would await the SRC's approval.
The Unions are full of former Sabbs, and this seems to be the only part of the Ballot paper which the red Labour boys/girls did worse than the Greens, and I wonder how this interaction will work in reference to the new VPS.
The debate and discussions that will happen it might well surround the Sabbaticals itself - will Tom surivive a whole year? Will Josh be able to work with Tom for that long? Will something else come along? Difficult to say currenly - there are simply too many factors to be able to clearly say one over the other.
Post Race Analysis - CoM/Union Exec
The last part of the Analysis is in the Unions, sitting at the bottom of the ballot paper. With three distinct categories, there were three very interesting results.
In the Senior Member battle, Ben McNab took home the bacon, polling over half the votes in the first round, and winning by a clear majority. I'm sure that Ben will do a good job, but I am disappointed he got elected. Paul is a good friend of mine, so I would have loved to see him on the Committee, especially as he heavily uses the Unions, and was until the end of the last festival one of the senior staff in the Pleasance (the proper Pleasance, not Pleasance at Potterrow). Iain has been doing a damn good job for the previous three years and I think he too would have been a great continuance in the role.
What however annoys me the most - and why I gave Ben the lowest preference - is that he wants to "resign" at the end of each year to fight his seat again, in a John Major-esque put up and shut up. The point of the Senior Member is that they are there for three years to provide continuity and a guiding hand in a Committee which has its membership change annually. Ben's rather odd decision is jepoardising the stability of the committee, which isn't big, isn't smart and really isn't rather clever. Also by resigning each year (something he would have to do well before nominations open), would mean that Committee of Management would be short of a Senior Member for upto 3 of its 8 annual meetings.
Looking at the Union Executive, and again, it is full of the returners - not a single new person elected; although at least this year the members of UnionExec have a mandate, after the 3 being returned unopposed last year. Ellie Price's "upgrade" from 1st Year Union Exec member is to be congratulated, and gives the Green's a continued voice. Pete Harris makes his return from Canada - although I'm wondering if we can keep our Moose, and if that will keep him there (see his website for more info): he's not caused us any trouble this year, and I quite would like that to continue. James Wallace also makes a return for a 3rd Year on Union Exec - quite an impressive run of results, and something that rivals the Senior Members for continuity. However, with James possibly off to Texas for 2007-2008, will his stay be a short one to the end of May, with the seat coming available again in the October Elections. If so, expect it to be highly contested, and a chance for the losers to get in.
Commitee of Management was a much tighter election with the final two positions being elected at the death, in a battle that looked to go any way depending on who was dropping out. With Tom French "elected elsewhere" (and how many of those in the room wish he wasn't) and James Wallace elected above, the field was cut to 10. It was a surprise that the polling numbers came in as they did. Rosy's excellent performance in the first round is testament to a good clean campaign, a good facebook group, an excellent website - which related to what she was standing for (unlike Nick & Katherine) - and probably because she asked lots of people to vote for her for this position, rather than spending time asking them to vote for other people or vote for other positions: I'm guessing this is what happened to Katherine, Nick, Stewart, Stephen, Ondrej and Alasdair.
All suffered really quite badly, and peformed a lot worse than expected. Tim Goodwin was in the lead from the start, and to be honest that is what you expect from a Sabbatical, so Tim Gee polling lower numbers than Rosy is surprising - no doubt this is in part due to the Green vote being split between himself & Alasdair. Having a total of 3 Sabbaticals on the CoM will be tough next year, and having two former VPSs as well as the current one will also be interesting - especially as Pete & Tim Gee both "supported" Tom this year. It is therefore upto the rest of the Committee to ensure that he does not get away with blue murder or just putting things through. Of the 6 ordinary members who will make up the Committee until after the October elections, only Rosy is the complete new comer to EUSA politics, and Commitee of Management: best of luck, because it's going to be a tough year.
In the Senior Member battle, Ben McNab took home the bacon, polling over half the votes in the first round, and winning by a clear majority. I'm sure that Ben will do a good job, but I am disappointed he got elected. Paul is a good friend of mine, so I would have loved to see him on the Committee, especially as he heavily uses the Unions, and was until the end of the last festival one of the senior staff in the Pleasance (the proper Pleasance, not Pleasance at Potterrow). Iain has been doing a damn good job for the previous three years and I think he too would have been a great continuance in the role.
What however annoys me the most - and why I gave Ben the lowest preference - is that he wants to "resign" at the end of each year to fight his seat again, in a John Major-esque put up and shut up. The point of the Senior Member is that they are there for three years to provide continuity and a guiding hand in a Committee which has its membership change annually. Ben's rather odd decision is jepoardising the stability of the committee, which isn't big, isn't smart and really isn't rather clever. Also by resigning each year (something he would have to do well before nominations open), would mean that Committee of Management would be short of a Senior Member for upto 3 of its 8 annual meetings.
Looking at the Union Executive, and again, it is full of the returners - not a single new person elected; although at least this year the members of UnionExec have a mandate, after the 3 being returned unopposed last year. Ellie Price's "upgrade" from 1st Year Union Exec member is to be congratulated, and gives the Green's a continued voice. Pete Harris makes his return from Canada - although I'm wondering if we can keep our Moose, and if that will keep him there (see his website for more info): he's not caused us any trouble this year, and I quite would like that to continue. James Wallace also makes a return for a 3rd Year on Union Exec - quite an impressive run of results, and something that rivals the Senior Members for continuity. However, with James possibly off to Texas for 2007-2008, will his stay be a short one to the end of May, with the seat coming available again in the October Elections. If so, expect it to be highly contested, and a chance for the losers to get in.
Commitee of Management was a much tighter election with the final two positions being elected at the death, in a battle that looked to go any way depending on who was dropping out. With Tom French "elected elsewhere" (and how many of those in the room wish he wasn't) and James Wallace elected above, the field was cut to 10. It was a surprise that the polling numbers came in as they did. Rosy's excellent performance in the first round is testament to a good clean campaign, a good facebook group, an excellent website - which related to what she was standing for (unlike Nick & Katherine) - and probably because she asked lots of people to vote for her for this position, rather than spending time asking them to vote for other people or vote for other positions: I'm guessing this is what happened to Katherine, Nick, Stewart, Stephen, Ondrej and Alasdair.
All suffered really quite badly, and peformed a lot worse than expected. Tim Goodwin was in the lead from the start, and to be honest that is what you expect from a Sabbatical, so Tim Gee polling lower numbers than Rosy is surprising - no doubt this is in part due to the Green vote being split between himself & Alasdair. Having a total of 3 Sabbaticals on the CoM will be tough next year, and having two former VPSs as well as the current one will also be interesting - especially as Pete & Tim Gee both "supported" Tom this year. It is therefore upto the rest of the Committee to ensure that he does not get away with blue murder or just putting things through. Of the 6 ordinary members who will make up the Committee until after the October elections, only Rosy is the complete new comer to EUSA politics, and Commitee of Management: best of luck, because it's going to be a tough year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
