The following follows on from several previous posts, outlining the various factional standings. I'd suggest reading them first.
At the moment, NLS and Unity seem to be matched in power stakes, with SAlt holding the balance of power. The Big-I's look to have been absorbed into NLS - while this may not be formally true, the two groups are close enough.
Had Unity not undergone a state-to-state war at the January SGM, they would probably hold a great deal more positions than they currently do. They probably couldn't have seized national Presidency, but certainly several states worth. Time will tell whether these state rivalries will cause a collapse in Unity's structure, or whether they will be sorted out.
NLS is also looking like it might well split soon. This won't be a simple state-by-state split - it's far more fundamental. The differences between the 'hard' and 'soft' left go down to basic ideology.
The names themselves are perhaps misleading - the 'hard' left are generally a lot nicer in my experience, trying to help everyone. What they are 'hard' about are issues such as queer rights, women's liberation and indigenous rights.
The 'soft' left, I've found to be much more aggressive. Less prepared to compromise, less prepared to work with others. Less prepared to stand up for solidarity, more wanting direct control.
To step into UNSW, this division became apparent last year, around the time of working out the Voice ticket. Hard left got Welfare (James Still), Soft got Education (Helen Samardzic). In the past, these two positions were overseen by a single officer, and it was often seen as a stepping stone to Presidency. That hasn't been the case for a few years now (the last being Phuong Au, President in 2008), but the association is still strong in people's minds.
Both Helen and James have indicated an interest in becoming President next year. Both have been working with people on- and off-campus to try and get support for this. If NLS remains part of the Voice coalition, they can't both go for it - they would need to first get endorsement from UNSW NLS. That is, as long as NLS remains a single faction. Shoud it split, Voice will suddenly get a lot more interesting. And probably wouldn't remain in existence.
As for other factions: SAlt are looking up. I'm not happy about this, seeing as how I disagree with some of what they push, and have major issues with the methodology.
I truly believe a left-wing, non-Labor, non-Marxist faction is needed. To fill the void that GL left, something new needs to emerge. But I'm not sure it will - many if not most indies have switched off from NUS, after being ignored for so long. The main uni student environmental group, ASEN, was removed from the NUS Environment OB position at the January SGM.
Something needs to be done. We need a voice at NUS that represents non-party uni students. And we need it to be heard. Much as I hate to admit it, being a committed indie, despising the concept of the party structure - I think we need a Faction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A NUS future needs a real package of reforms
ReplyDeleteThink actual secret ballots (so NUS delegates aren't deterred from making their own informed decisions on what's best for students).
Case in point: Is a Unity faction Environment Officer the best outcome?
Think independent returning officers – The Victorian Electoral Commission perhaps, or anyone with specific credibility in that role and no factional affiliations
Oh, I definitely think NUS needs a heck of a lot of work. This particular series of posts were trying to focus in on the chaos of the factional system, and (to my regret) the necessity of playing into it (at least for the short-term).
ReplyDeleteI was shocked when I discovered that NUS ballots weren't secret - that makes mockery of any claim that delegates represent their campuses, instead of their factions. It's something that needs to change, and quickly. I'm also fairly sure it wouldn't *require* a constitutional change, since that's more a by-laws issue.
Returning officers is another major point, and something that NLS, I believe, has finally cottoned on to. If you cannot trust a returning officer to act impartially, then what point is there even holding a ballot?
We get someone from the AEC to oversee SRC elections at UNSW, I can't see why a similar solution can't be found for NUS.
Professional ro's were hired for the SGM. I believe that will continue into the future, though you never know
ReplyDeleteThe AEC will only oversee elections that have secret ballots and instituting secret ballots would require constitutional change which will never happen because it makes it too hard to ensure that your faction is voting the way that you want.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as someone who was a member of the GL and who went to National Conference with the GL I don't think its possible for a collective based, non-hierarchical faction to survive for long in NUS. NLS, Unity and SAlt are way too uncomfortable engaging with those processes and the kind of people who want to organise collectively and use consensus find it pretty hard to justify spending time in a forum where their policies don't get read, and they are just generally disrespected over spending time doing activism that doesn't leave people so upset they vomit, which I've seen happen.
Whatevs. I think people interested in spending time trying to achieve change should do just get on with the job rather than vying for control over structures that are perceived to exert influence.
ReplyDeleteHey Rory and others who have read this!
ReplyDeleteI thought that by not responding to what you wrote in this post on your blog, it would just wash over. But unfortunately this hasn't been the case.
You have made quite ridiculous and incredibly misinformed statements about me apparently trying to garner support for president next year "both on and off campus" recently. Its just a lie to be honest. I'm not saying you knew it was, it could have been some equally uninformed person telling you, but the fact you published it without even speaking to me about it (and then tried to have it published in tharunka) is quite dissapointing.
If you talked to anyone in the SRC or involved in SRC politics you would know what you were writing isn't true. And if people said i was, then thats just a lie and you should have given me the opportunity to respond to it.
You started your blog with the Democrats-style idea idea that student reps to be held accountable, which is a great idea. You wrote "I want to see our student reps do well. A big, massive part of that is checking up on them." and that "Before things go any further, I'd like to clarify something. I'm not trying to just mindlessly attack people".
Do you really think that publishing poorly researched gossip such as what i mentioned above is living up to any of those goals? Its just leading to mistrust of people in the SRC, and the SRC of 2009 and viewers of Gossip Girl (comic relief anyone? :P) can tell you what happens when that takes over.
I just want to finish by saying that none of this affects what I think of you as a person! I will always try and separate politics and friendships. After all, if you don't, you won't have many friends left!
James
I should point out - this post here is *not* what I sent to Tharunka. The previous series are, looking at the affiliation process and each of the factions.
ReplyDeleteJames, I responded to the other things you've said there on Facebook.
"Had Unity not undergone a state-to-state war at the January SGM, they would probably hold a great deal more positions than they currently do."
ReplyDeleteYou clearly don't know what happened in Jan -- David Wilkins from Student Unity and the East Coast Indies were planning to form a coalition to elect SU as Gensec & Queer Officer, ECI as Welfare and Enviro officer.
The deal fell through because Wilkins did not gain the support of the rest of his faction.
As a result of rolling Wilkins from convenorship, Unity won Gensec, Enviro, Small&Regional, Welfare, 2 quotas on Affiliations committee and a swag of Executive spots.
If anything, the period of 2009-2010 exhibited Student Unity's state-by-state rivalries at their weakest. For the NUS elections, all candidates were preselected unopposed.
ReplyDeleteThe only source of disunity was a decision made by the National Convenor to support a member of the East Coast Independents to fill the position of Welfare Officer, a deal signed at the eleventh hour at the SGM.
It was signed without the requisite support or knowledge of Unity's other negotiators. It was also not as if Unity needed the support of the ECI's: 12 hours earlier, Unity had signed a deal with NLS - a 'five-for-five', constituting a vote swap giving each faction the numbers for five OB positions each (with Welfare included among Unity's pile)
The last-minute move by the National Convenor was seen as fulfilling an illegitimate 'gentleman's arrangement' with the ECIs, and a last ditch attempt to gain control of NUS National Executive with the ECI's numbers (a dead end attempt, as the arithmetic did not constitute 50%+1 in the ballot), by using a missing nomination form from Unity's Welfare candidate as the trigger.
Perhaps pre-empting the dynamic of Kevin Rudd's removal five months later, the National Convenor was promptly dismissed, in an alley behind Bar Broadway, in a number of hours, by a near-unanimous decision of the faction.
The new National Convenor declared the ECI deal invalid, and upheld the five-for-five arrangement with the Left in the ballot the next day, from which Student Unity emerged with the most NOB positions it has ever held.