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.
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
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.
09 May, 2010
Electioneering
So every position's being contested, in the quest for Arc Board. The nominations were re-called for Cofa director, and two people applied.
James Fehon and Xavier Atkinson are both Fine Art/Arts students, one nearly finished, the other in second year. I know both of them, and really wouldn't mind which ended up as Board Director.
It's an online election, so all Arc members should receive an email-link early next week. Anyone around either campus can vote in person, either at the Library Lawn or D Block. There's some strict limits being put on campaigning - no direct campaigning on the Library Walk is the major change between this and other UNSW elections I've been involved with. So there's not going to be anything of the 'walk the person right up to the booth' business. As such, I really don't think how-to-vote cards will be of any use or value.
Meanwhile: On Arc Board, there's some campaigning going on as well. The Chair of Arc is elected by the Board, and must be a Student Director. It would be highly unlikely for a newbie Director to have the experience necessary to act as Chair, so it'll almost definitely go to one of the ongoing ones.
The three continuing Directors are Simon Bruck, Matt Ward and Jess Mobbs. Simon has apparently been telling people he isn't going for Chair, as he's nearly finished his degree. So that leaves Matt and Jess. They're both doing their best to shore up numbers from the non-student directors, but a lot will depend on exactly which new people come in.
For me, I have to say I would find it a tough choice. I admire both, and am good friends with both. It would most likely involve talking to others on Board to see where they stand on the matter.
MEANWHILE
Sydney Uni's also having its Union Board elections. I haven't been over there to check it out, but from what I've heard it's much more happening than ours. Lots of people going around in t-shirts, handing out how-to-votes, factional power-plays and all the rest.
I'm rather glad our board elections aren't anywhere near as intense.
James Fehon and Xavier Atkinson are both Fine Art/Arts students, one nearly finished, the other in second year. I know both of them, and really wouldn't mind which ended up as Board Director.
It's an online election, so all Arc members should receive an email-link early next week. Anyone around either campus can vote in person, either at the Library Lawn or D Block. There's some strict limits being put on campaigning - no direct campaigning on the Library Walk is the major change between this and other UNSW elections I've been involved with. So there's not going to be anything of the 'walk the person right up to the booth' business. As such, I really don't think how-to-vote cards will be of any use or value.
Meanwhile: On Arc Board, there's some campaigning going on as well. The Chair of Arc is elected by the Board, and must be a Student Director. It would be highly unlikely for a newbie Director to have the experience necessary to act as Chair, so it'll almost definitely go to one of the ongoing ones.
The three continuing Directors are Simon Bruck, Matt Ward and Jess Mobbs. Simon has apparently been telling people he isn't going for Chair, as he's nearly finished his degree. So that leaves Matt and Jess. They're both doing their best to shore up numbers from the non-student directors, but a lot will depend on exactly which new people come in.
For me, I have to say I would find it a tough choice. I admire both, and am good friends with both. It would most likely involve talking to others on Board to see where they stand on the matter.
MEANWHILE
Sydney Uni's also having its Union Board elections. I haven't been over there to check it out, but from what I've heard it's much more happening than ours. Lots of people going around in t-shirts, handing out how-to-votes, factional power-plays and all the rest.
I'm rather glad our board elections aren't anywhere near as intense.
28 April, 2010
7 into 2
The following is based on candidate statements and known relevent positions, both of candidates themselves and their nominees (and also a wee bit of facebook stalking. Come on, it's not like I'm the only one to ever do that). I imagine the candidate statements will be put onto the Arc website in the next few days, plus they'll appear in Blitz for the next fortnight.
I'll put in a link here to that list once it's online.
7 candidates for 2 positions. Or to be more precise: 2 candidates for one position, then 6 candidates for a second position.
There are two candidates for the Post-Grad Director position. I don't personally know either of them. Of them, the best placed will become a Board Director. The runner-up then goes into the draw for Ordinary Director.
I'll put in a link here to that list once it's online.
7 candidates for 2 positions. Or to be more precise: 2 candidates for one position, then 6 candidates for a second position.
There are two candidates for the Post-Grad Director position. I don't personally know either of them. Of them, the best placed will become a Board Director. The runner-up then goes into the draw for Ordinary Director.
- Jonathan The's statement reads very bureaucratic. Very focused on ticking all the boxes. Bear in mind, this is based purely on what's been written, I've never met him. I don't recognise the names of either of his nominees.
- Luke Parkitny I also haven't met. Based purely on what he wrote (which is, after all, all most voters will have), he sounds much more like a human. His nominees include one of the SRC Post-Grad Councillors, Pip Hunter, whom I admire. There's also the current Welfare Officer and the outgoing Yellow Shirt Coordinator.
- David Godwin. I recognise the photo, though not the name. I think he's involved with CircuSoc. He seems quite friendly.
- David Lim. His candidate statement reads as a big reach-out to Sport and Recreation. That's where he's based, he wants Arc to move in that direction (I think). A little birdie told me that he's being backed by Unity. I've yet to find out anything for myself about that, so I wouldn't take it as gospel.
- Natalie Karam. She's the current LawSoc President, and the only female candidate. I've known her for a few years. While she used to be a member of the Liberals, she's walked away from all that and is running independent. I have to say, as a budding grammarian, I really didn't like her candidate statement. Full of bureaucratise, lots of 'weeping willow' structures, and very convoluted sentences. Mind you, from my time as Tharunka editor, many if not most law students will write that way given half a chance.
- Ross Willing. He's running as a representative of the Colleges; from my quick StalkBooking, I think he's from New College. I don't know a lot about him, will talk to a few others from there to see what I can find out. But from his candidate statement, he seems quite level-headed.
- Then there's me. I'm running from a background in student politics, from the SRC in particular.
24 April, 2010
Confirmation email for Arc Board
Dear Rory
Thank you for submitting your nomination form for the 2010 Arc Board Elections. Your nomination has been accepted.
We have more nominees then positions available for the Ordinary Director position, therefore an election will proceed and online voting will commence in Week 11:
Online Voting:
Online voting will be held during Week 11. Voting will open on Tuesday 18th May and close at 4.00pm on Thursday 20th May 2010.
An emailing containing the voting link will be sent to all Ordinary Members of Arc.
Polling Stations:
The schedule for the polling station is as follows:
Tuesday 18th May to Thursday 20th May 2010
Kensington – Library Lawn:
10.30am to 4.00pm
Candidate information will be in Blitz W9 and on the Arc Website.
The CoFA Director position has been re-opened. If you know anyone at CoFA, who is currently a student and Arc Member, please encourage them to nominate.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards
Nitasha
~~~
Here we go! And Cofa still needs someone to nominate.
22 April, 2010
Arc Board
So I've quite clearly gone completely insane. I'm standing, again, for Arc Board.
Why? Well, I think I can help make Arc the student organisation UNSW deserves. It needs to be strong, and not terrified of the university. I don't think it is right now, but extra fortitude is never a bad thing.
So far I know there's at least one other Kenso undergrad candidate, Nat Karam. While she was at one point a member of the Liberals, she has split her ways with them, preferring to stand as an Indie.
There's also at least one Post-Grad candidate. If there's one and only one, then they'll be declared elected without contest due to the Board equity arrangements.
Similarly if there's one-and-only-one candidate from Cofa, they'll be elected without contest.
The mess is in Kenso undergards, and also potentially if there's more than one from PG/Cofa.
Further details will be posted as they emerge.
5pm: Apparently there are at least 4 UG Kenso candidates, 3 PG candidates, and no word on Cofa. Things are looking rather interesting, no?
Of the Kenso UG candidates, there's, well, me, plus Nat Karam as indicated above. The other two are apparently being backed by Amber Setchell of Unity - she miscounted the number of UG spots available, so put forward two instead of one.
This is a rumour at present, not confirmed. I haven't received any notice from the Returning Officer as to anyone's identity just yet.
2:30pm, Friday 23rd. Still no official word from the Returning Officer, but from what I've heard there's now 5 candidates in full. 3 UG Kenso, 2 PG. No-one from Cofa, so I imagine that nominations will be reopened for that soon.
Why? Well, I think I can help make Arc the student organisation UNSW deserves. It needs to be strong, and not terrified of the university. I don't think it is right now, but extra fortitude is never a bad thing.
So far I know there's at least one other Kenso undergrad candidate, Nat Karam. While she was at one point a member of the Liberals, she has split her ways with them, preferring to stand as an Indie.
There's also at least one Post-Grad candidate. If there's one and only one, then they'll be declared elected without contest due to the Board equity arrangements.
Similarly if there's one-and-only-one candidate from Cofa, they'll be elected without contest.
The mess is in Kenso undergards, and also potentially if there's more than one from PG/Cofa.
Further details will be posted as they emerge.
5pm: Apparently there are at least 4 UG Kenso candidates, 3 PG candidates, and no word on Cofa. Things are looking rather interesting, no?
Of the Kenso UG candidates, there's, well, me, plus Nat Karam as indicated above. The other two are apparently being backed by Amber Setchell of Unity - she miscounted the number of UG spots available, so put forward two instead of one.
This is a rumour at present, not confirmed. I haven't received any notice from the Returning Officer as to anyone's identity just yet.
2:30pm, Friday 23rd. Still no official word from the Returning Officer, but from what I've heard there's now 5 candidates in full. 3 UG Kenso, 2 PG. No-one from Cofa, so I imagine that nominations will be reopened for that soon.
06 March, 2010
Old Shirts
So I've just moved house, which involves packing everything up at one end, then (eventually) unpacking it at the other. Interestingly, during the wardrobe stages a found a few old campaign shirts.
If you're ever involved with elections, you'll end up with at least a few shirts. I usually keep them around to sleep in, since they're usually basic comfortable cotton t-shirts.
What do I find?
Last year's 'Voice' shirt
'Say Yes to Jess' Arc Board election (I never got hold of a 'All Aboard with Matt Ward' sadly)
two 'Demand a Better Future' shirts, one with the arms taken off and a home-made deeper neckline
and finally, one I'm somewhat less pleased with nowadays, an 'Action Andrew' shirt from the 08 Arc Board elections.
I used to have Voice shirts for both Phuong and Chari (elections in 07 and 08), but sadly they have migrated off to the Smith Family.
Why do I keep them? Partly I'm a hoarder. Also, as mentioned above, they're comfortable shirts for sleeping in (wouldn't be seen dead wearing one around outside).
Also, they remind me of what it was like to do that campaign. What the people promised, what I promised in the cases of my own elections. What people promised and failed to deliver.
'Action Andrew' Looi seems to have vanished without a trace. What has he accomplished, in his year as an Undergrad Councillor, his year as Education Officer, and his nearly completed two years on Arc Board?
I hope that his position will be filled by a strong, capable Director when elections roll around. If last year's campaigns are any guide, it'll be strongly contested.
I ran for Board Director last year, and lost out by less than one vote. I have no complaints about the person who beat me at the final count - Jess Mobbs has been fantastic, and I'm sure will continue to be as such. Matt Ward I'm good friends with, but he has a definite tendency to take on more than he can chew. Simon Bruck, the only Director from last year who pulled a quota in his own right, I'm least impressed with. The reasons for that will be looked at in a future post.
If you're an Arc member, definitely think about what you want Arc to be doing. Don't go for Directorship merely to add credentials to your CV. Don't go for it to prove a point. The role takes work - you would need to sacrifice your time, for no pay.
I'm not categorically ruling out another tilt at Directorship myself at this stage, but I will say it's unlikely. I'm nearing the end of my time at uni, plus I'm quite liking the rate of pay I receive as an Arc Retail Employee. So it's not likely to happen.
If you're ever involved with elections, you'll end up with at least a few shirts. I usually keep them around to sleep in, since they're usually basic comfortable cotton t-shirts.
What do I find?
Last year's 'Voice' shirt
'Say Yes to Jess' Arc Board election (I never got hold of a 'All Aboard with Matt Ward' sadly)
two 'Demand a Better Future' shirts, one with the arms taken off and a home-made deeper neckline
and finally, one I'm somewhat less pleased with nowadays, an 'Action Andrew' shirt from the 08 Arc Board elections.
I used to have Voice shirts for both Phuong and Chari (elections in 07 and 08), but sadly they have migrated off to the Smith Family.
Why do I keep them? Partly I'm a hoarder. Also, as mentioned above, they're comfortable shirts for sleeping in (wouldn't be seen dead wearing one around outside).
Also, they remind me of what it was like to do that campaign. What the people promised, what I promised in the cases of my own elections. What people promised and failed to deliver.
'Action Andrew' Looi seems to have vanished without a trace. What has he accomplished, in his year as an Undergrad Councillor, his year as Education Officer, and his nearly completed two years on Arc Board?
I hope that his position will be filled by a strong, capable Director when elections roll around. If last year's campaigns are any guide, it'll be strongly contested.
I ran for Board Director last year, and lost out by less than one vote. I have no complaints about the person who beat me at the final count - Jess Mobbs has been fantastic, and I'm sure will continue to be as such. Matt Ward I'm good friends with, but he has a definite tendency to take on more than he can chew. Simon Bruck, the only Director from last year who pulled a quota in his own right, I'm least impressed with. The reasons for that will be looked at in a future post.
If you're an Arc member, definitely think about what you want Arc to be doing. Don't go for Directorship merely to add credentials to your CV. Don't go for it to prove a point. The role takes work - you would need to sacrifice your time, for no pay.
I'm not categorically ruling out another tilt at Directorship myself at this stage, but I will say it's unlikely. I'm nearing the end of my time at uni, plus I'm quite liking the rate of pay I receive as an Arc Retail Employee. So it's not likely to happen.
08 February, 2010
ideas
I've got a few different ideas for what to write about in the next little while. So I thought I might as well see what people want to see (and, by-the-by, work out who's actually reading this).
1. 'What is a councillor?'
2. Explanation of the factions - where they come from, where they're going. Probably a series of posts.
3. 'what is a small-i'
4. looking at how the SRC fits into the overall Arc structure
5. looking back over the fiasco that was last year's NUS conference, then the various deals and collapses involved in the SGM. This one I'd like to leave a bit, see what else comes to light. Plus I would be very surprised if one of the Tharunka editors doesn't write about it themself.
6. explanation of the SRC election methodology - forming tickets, the process of voting, 'what is a valid vote' etc. Almost definitely a series of posts, way too big to fit into one.
7. The proposed Post-grad council - who's in favour, who's against, how the whole shebang is meant to work, and why it's all taken so long.
8. Anything else you'd like me to take a look at?
Let me know.
1. 'What is a councillor?'
2. Explanation of the factions - where they come from, where they're going. Probably a series of posts.
3. 'what is a small-i'
4. looking at how the SRC fits into the overall Arc structure
5. looking back over the fiasco that was last year's NUS conference, then the various deals and collapses involved in the SGM. This one I'd like to leave a bit, see what else comes to light. Plus I would be very surprised if one of the Tharunka editors doesn't write about it themself.
6. explanation of the SRC election methodology - forming tickets, the process of voting, 'what is a valid vote' etc. Almost definitely a series of posts, way too big to fit into one.
7. The proposed Post-grad council - who's in favour, who's against, how the whole shebang is meant to work, and why it's all taken so long.
8. Anything else you'd like me to take a look at?
Let me know.
Attack?
Before things go any further, I'd like to clarify something. I'm not trying to just mindlessly attack people. There is a method to my madness (or perhaps there's madness in my method, we'll see).
I want to see our student reps do well. A big, massive part of that is checking up on them. Not just at elections each year - it's incredibly rare for anyone to actually stand for re-election, so the ballot isn't a good way of holding anyone to account. Rather, we need to look in on them throughout their term.
I want to know what the people I voted for are doing. I also want to know what the people I didn't vote for are doing (and there's a few of them, the wonders of below-the-line voting). If someone's being competent, then that person deserves congratulations. If someone's being incompetent, on the other hand, that person should be getting in trouble.
There are a whole lot of things wrong at uni. The point of the SRC is to try to better the student experience. If someone on the SRC isn't pulling their weight, this needs to be realised. If the whole SRC isn't pulling their weight (which I sincerely hope will never happen) then that definitely needs to be publicised.
That doesn't mean our reps should be held with their noses to the grindstone. They are, after all, students, and every now and then things like parties, work, general life and (last, and sometimes least) actual study intrude. This helps keep you sane in such a position.
But an SRC member can't just fall back on excuses all the time. They need to do something, or at least keep trying to, or else move away.
And I don't want to hear that tired old refrain that 'UNSW students are never activists, the activists all go to USyd'. To be frank, that's bullshit. It's offensive to the very character of our student body. It's also readily disprovable - the Queer Collective, twice, got quite large turnouts to the Marriage rallies (one well outside of semester). Turnouts that were well above what the USyd collective managed to muster.
To fall back on the old stereotype that UNSW students don't participate in activism is sheer laziness. It's proof that you either haven't tried, or you don't have a clue as to how to mobilise people.
I want to see our student reps do well. A big, massive part of that is checking up on them. Not just at elections each year - it's incredibly rare for anyone to actually stand for re-election, so the ballot isn't a good way of holding anyone to account. Rather, we need to look in on them throughout their term.
I want to know what the people I voted for are doing. I also want to know what the people I didn't vote for are doing (and there's a few of them, the wonders of below-the-line voting). If someone's being competent, then that person deserves congratulations. If someone's being incompetent, on the other hand, that person should be getting in trouble.
There are a whole lot of things wrong at uni. The point of the SRC is to try to better the student experience. If someone on the SRC isn't pulling their weight, this needs to be realised. If the whole SRC isn't pulling their weight (which I sincerely hope will never happen) then that definitely needs to be publicised.
That doesn't mean our reps should be held with their noses to the grindstone. They are, after all, students, and every now and then things like parties, work, general life and (last, and sometimes least) actual study intrude. This helps keep you sane in such a position.
But an SRC member can't just fall back on excuses all the time. They need to do something, or at least keep trying to, or else move away.
And I don't want to hear that tired old refrain that 'UNSW students are never activists, the activists all go to USyd'. To be frank, that's bullshit. It's offensive to the very character of our student body. It's also readily disprovable - the Queer Collective, twice, got quite large turnouts to the Marriage rallies (one well outside of semester). Turnouts that were well above what the USyd collective managed to muster.
To fall back on the old stereotype that UNSW students don't participate in activism is sheer laziness. It's proof that you either haven't tried, or you don't have a clue as to how to mobilise people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
