So I've nailed my colours to the mast, and launched an Independent campaign for NUS Delegacy.
First things first: this will be difficult. In order to be elected, I'll need 1/8th of the total votes in the NUS election. This might not seem like such a long shot, given I've previously managed to snag a bit less than 1/4 of the votes in Arc Board elections.
But this time, I'm all alone, against at least two organised campaigns.
Voice is running, of course. I was speaking to Os (who is running for President again), and was hopeful of getting a position with Voice for undergrad rep (electorate A), and potentially for NUS as well. However, it looks like the two Labor factions have stitched up a deal, locking out independents for the most part. I've yet to hear from any of the other Indies hoping to run for Undergrad Rep or NUS spots, but I'm not expecting all that much.
Socialist Alternative will almost certainly be campaigning as well. As the undergrad rep positions have been expanded to 12 (up from 6, after the Post-Grads split off), I wouldn't be surprised if they get a few positions on SRC next year.
Potentially, the Libs will also be running, though I'm not at all certain. Last year they worked with Unity, but Unity's back in Voice now.
I really do hope Voice wins the SRC election, and does so resoundingly. It's a good coalition. I can't be happy that Unity's involved, and still don't understand why there was any discussion with them. What were they offering? What threat could they truly pose to Voice?
But for NUS, well, the last few days have just re-confirmed my hatred for backroom deals. I'm not usually one to talk up my own record, but I have worked my arse off to try and make things better for UNSW students. My degree is all kinds of wonky due to putting more work into SRC than essays. I've been pushing reforms for an Equity Committee for a year now, and every single person I've spoken to about this has thought it a good idea, and something that should happen.
My 'reward', so to speak, is to be sidelined and not spoken to. Perhaps I thought my achievements didn't need to be said. Or perhaps it was simply that I was coming up against the forces of the NUS factions, and a confirmed Independent isn't something they want spoiling their deal-making.
Enough of it. I want to go to NUS, to try and make it better. Or if it can't be made better, to at least have tried. That's why I'm standing for election, as an Independent. My 'campaign page', such as it is, is located here.
As I said to start off, this'll be very difficult. But it's much easier to stand as independent on the NUS ballot, as it's separate to the rest of the ballots, and all candidates are listed.
Once I find out who the other candidates are, I may indicate my preferences. But it's very wait-and-see thus far.
31 August, 2010
12 August, 2010
Microparties Guide!
So, it's nearly federal election time, and high time I did another Microparties Guide. People seemed to like the last one I did, looking at the many and varied independent and minuscule parties in the NSW Senate race.
So: here we go.
Group A: Socialist Alliance.
Far-lefty, pacifist, generally nice. Headed up by Rachel Evans, who's been a lefty activist for a range of issues for years now.
Group B:
Headed up by a Robert Hodges. I haven't been able to find a thing about him, there's no website attached to this campaign.
Group C:
Headed up by a Tony Robinson (and no, not Baldrick). The only 'campaign' material I've found is a single post on The Tally Room, identifying him as being a 'Penrith boy'. As to what that means for a senate ticket, I haven't a clue.
Group D:
Darrin Hodges heads up this. According to slackbastard, he's the 'Grand Poobah' of the 'Australian Protectionist Party' (unregistered with the AEC), a far-right party modeled on the BNP.
Group E: Building Australia
Represents the building industry. That's about it really, all their policies are building industry centred.
Group F: Senator On-Line
An exercise in direct democracy - any SO-L senators would vote the way they're told by an online vote of the Australian people. A few of my friends find this fascinating, and are strongly in support. I find myself yet to be convinced that it could work in theory, let alone in practice.
Group G: Communist Alliance
They're back! Or, well, sort of. The CPA dissolved itself in the early 90s, with much of it reforming into the SEARCH Foundation (which is no longer specifically Marxist). As to who's started this one up, who knows?
Group H:
Headed by Nadia Bloom. The only person I could find in a quick Google search with that name, who might be the same person, is the Convenor of the Parents' Gifted Support Group, St Catherine's Anglican School for Girls. But I can't say for certain that this is the same Nadia Bloom. Her preferences are scattered across the entire political spectrum.
Group I: Citizens Electoral Council
Radical right-wingers, part of the LaRouche Movement. Have a bizarre theory that the British Empire still exists, and that Rupert Murdoch is trying to bring it back. Or something.
Group J: Democrats
... are, unfortunately, reduced to microparty status. In NSW, they're running an all-lesbian ticket.
Group K:
Headed by Meg Sampson. Apparently she opposed the mining tax (according to a post on Counterpoint), enough to run for the senate. That's the only thing I've found on her, and she's running three preference tickets, favouring Liberals, Labor and Greens equally.
Group L:
Headed by Leon Belgrave, who at the last election ran for the (then) Liberty and Democracy Party. Apparently liked running for the Senate so much, he's come back for more as an independent.
Group M: The Climate Sceptics
Pretty much what they sound like.
Group N: Secular Party of Australia
What they sound like. In 2007, they didn't have enough members to be registered as a party (and as such ran just under the Group), but have got their act together this time.
Group O: Shooters and Fishers
They like hunting, and shooting, and fishing, and all those red-blooded activities. Generally favour right-wing stances on most issues.
Group P: Democratic Labor Party
Again trying to siphon ALP votes towards the Right. A few DLP people on the Tally Room have tried to claim that there's a DLP movement coming, but if so, it's a long way off. Haven't managed to beat the Informal vote since the 70s.
Group Q: Australian Sex Party
I like them. Sex-positive policies, recognition of various relationship forms, decriminalising sex work. They've even removed their problematic policy of enforcing 50% women in the senate.
Group R:
Yech, David Barker. The former Liberal candidate for Chifley, who declared that if elected he would give his votes to god, "who is on the side of the Liberal Right". Blatant queerphobe, racist, and all round bigot.
Group S: Socialist Equality Party
I simply don't understand these people. They outright declare that reform is useless, and that parliamentary actions are just lulling us all into a false sense of security. Collaboration is corruption. And yet, they stand candidates? Surely that's collaboration? Even Socialist Alternative think this lot are off the deep end.
Group T:
Another party that didn't register with the AEC in time, this lot are actually the 'Stable Population Party'. Accusations of racism have been leveled at them, which they reject. Unlikely to have any major impact on this election, as not having a party name on the ballot means to the vast majority of people, you're invisible.
Group U: Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)
Primarily concerned with 'fathers rights'. Not so concerned with institutional sexism that results in fathers not having access to children. Now I'll get off my hobby horse.
Aside from that particular issue, they're preferencing right-wing parties mainly.
Group V: Family First
Do I really need to say much about them? Not going to have any results in NSW (thankfully), but might possibly scrape through in South Australia. At least Fielding will be gone though.
Group W: Labor
Finally! A major party! None of them did very well in the draw this time.
Group X:
Unregistered party, 'Reconcile Australia'. Lefties, focus on indigenous issues. Sound alright to me.
Group Y: Carers Alliance
Who doesn't like the carers? Last time they did very well out of preference deals, but that doesn't look to have happened this time round.
Group Z: Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)
Yep, that's the actual name. Anyways, relgious right, known for praying for rain during Mardi Gras (not that that's stop the parade, people would just dance in the rain). An outside chance of taking a seat in WA, but nowhere near enough support in NSW.
Group AA: Liberal/National
major party!
Group AB:
Michael Eckford heads up this group. He's an indigenous man, standing for reconciliation, proper treatment of the country, and generally leftist stance on other issues.
Group AC: One Nation
are still around, worryingly enough. But the less said the better
Group AD: The Greens
minor party! So not a microparty.
Group AE:
Cheryl Kernot returns for another crack at federal politics. While she might capture a fair few primary votes, she hasn't managed to get many preferences going her way. She's issued two tickets, one going to the Greens then Democrats, the other Democrats then Greens. So her votes are almost definitely going to end up with Lee Rhiannon.
Group AF: Liberal Democrats (LDP)
Libertarians. The head name is Glenn Druery, who is an absolute master at getting microparty preferences. In the past, he's come rather close to getting elected with various microparties, most famously with 'liberals for forests' [sic]. Expect him to stay in the count a long time, but most of the lefty microparties are heading straight to the Greens, so he wont challenge the major parties this time.
So: here we go.
Group A: Socialist Alliance.
Far-lefty, pacifist, generally nice. Headed up by Rachel Evans, who's been a lefty activist for a range of issues for years now.
Group B:
Headed up by a Robert Hodges. I haven't been able to find a thing about him, there's no website attached to this campaign.
Group C:
Headed up by a Tony Robinson (and no, not Baldrick). The only 'campaign' material I've found is a single post on The Tally Room, identifying him as being a 'Penrith boy'. As to what that means for a senate ticket, I haven't a clue.
Group D:
Darrin Hodges heads up this. According to slackbastard, he's the 'Grand Poobah' of the 'Australian Protectionist Party' (unregistered with the AEC), a far-right party modeled on the BNP.
Group E: Building Australia
Represents the building industry. That's about it really, all their policies are building industry centred.
Group F: Senator On-Line
An exercise in direct democracy - any SO-L senators would vote the way they're told by an online vote of the Australian people. A few of my friends find this fascinating, and are strongly in support. I find myself yet to be convinced that it could work in theory, let alone in practice.
Group G: Communist Alliance
They're back! Or, well, sort of. The CPA dissolved itself in the early 90s, with much of it reforming into the SEARCH Foundation (which is no longer specifically Marxist). As to who's started this one up, who knows?
Group H:
Headed by Nadia Bloom. The only person I could find in a quick Google search with that name, who might be the same person, is the Convenor of the Parents' Gifted Support Group, St Catherine's Anglican School for Girls. But I can't say for certain that this is the same Nadia Bloom. Her preferences are scattered across the entire political spectrum.
Group I: Citizens Electoral Council
Radical right-wingers, part of the LaRouche Movement. Have a bizarre theory that the British Empire still exists, and that Rupert Murdoch is trying to bring it back. Or something.
Group J: Democrats
... are, unfortunately, reduced to microparty status. In NSW, they're running an all-lesbian ticket.
Group K:
Headed by Meg Sampson. Apparently she opposed the mining tax (according to a post on Counterpoint), enough to run for the senate. That's the only thing I've found on her, and she's running three preference tickets, favouring Liberals, Labor and Greens equally.
Group L:
Headed by Leon Belgrave, who at the last election ran for the (then) Liberty and Democracy Party. Apparently liked running for the Senate so much, he's come back for more as an independent.
Group M: The Climate Sceptics
Pretty much what they sound like.
Group N: Secular Party of Australia
What they sound like. In 2007, they didn't have enough members to be registered as a party (and as such ran just under the Group), but have got their act together this time.
Group O: Shooters and Fishers
They like hunting, and shooting, and fishing, and all those red-blooded activities. Generally favour right-wing stances on most issues.
Group P: Democratic Labor Party
Again trying to siphon ALP votes towards the Right. A few DLP people on the Tally Room have tried to claim that there's a DLP movement coming, but if so, it's a long way off. Haven't managed to beat the Informal vote since the 70s.
Group Q: Australian Sex Party
I like them. Sex-positive policies, recognition of various relationship forms, decriminalising sex work. They've even removed their problematic policy of enforcing 50% women in the senate.
Group R:
Yech, David Barker. The former Liberal candidate for Chifley, who declared that if elected he would give his votes to god, "who is on the side of the Liberal Right". Blatant queerphobe, racist, and all round bigot.
Group S: Socialist Equality Party
I simply don't understand these people. They outright declare that reform is useless, and that parliamentary actions are just lulling us all into a false sense of security. Collaboration is corruption. And yet, they stand candidates? Surely that's collaboration? Even Socialist Alternative think this lot are off the deep end.
Group T:
Another party that didn't register with the AEC in time, this lot are actually the 'Stable Population Party'. Accusations of racism have been leveled at them, which they reject. Unlikely to have any major impact on this election, as not having a party name on the ballot means to the vast majority of people, you're invisible.
Group U: Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)
Primarily concerned with 'fathers rights'. Not so concerned with institutional sexism that results in fathers not having access to children. Now I'll get off my hobby horse.
Aside from that particular issue, they're preferencing right-wing parties mainly.
Group V: Family First
Do I really need to say much about them? Not going to have any results in NSW (thankfully), but might possibly scrape through in South Australia. At least Fielding will be gone though.
Group W: Labor
Finally! A major party! None of them did very well in the draw this time.
Group X:
Unregistered party, 'Reconcile Australia'. Lefties, focus on indigenous issues. Sound alright to me.
Group Y: Carers Alliance
Who doesn't like the carers? Last time they did very well out of preference deals, but that doesn't look to have happened this time round.
Group Z: Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)
Yep, that's the actual name. Anyways, relgious right, known for praying for rain during Mardi Gras (not that that's stop the parade, people would just dance in the rain). An outside chance of taking a seat in WA, but nowhere near enough support in NSW.
Group AA: Liberal/National
major party!
Group AB:
Michael Eckford heads up this group. He's an indigenous man, standing for reconciliation, proper treatment of the country, and generally leftist stance on other issues.
Group AC: One Nation
are still around, worryingly enough. But the less said the better
Group AD: The Greens
minor party! So not a microparty.
Group AE:
Cheryl Kernot returns for another crack at federal politics. While she might capture a fair few primary votes, she hasn't managed to get many preferences going her way. She's issued two tickets, one going to the Greens then Democrats, the other Democrats then Greens. So her votes are almost definitely going to end up with Lee Rhiannon.
Group AF: Liberal Democrats (LDP)
Libertarians. The head name is Glenn Druery, who is an absolute master at getting microparty preferences. In the past, he's come rather close to getting elected with various microparties, most famously with 'liberals for forests' [sic]. Expect him to stay in the count a long time, but most of the lefty microparties are heading straight to the Greens, so he wont challenge the major parties this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
