Sabbatical Elections

Stepherunie

Excuse me??

Since when did you become my bloody mind. You don't know my opinions on these things because I have never discussed them with you so for you to make such blatant statements is downright rude.

This is not sour grapes, this is my own opinion of this event, it has nothing to do with my beliefs on what student activism is or isn't. I firmly believe that in this instance that the mandate of the President by the Union and the Council meeting with Martin Butler was fundamental to this.

Kindly refrain from making assumptions about my opinions in the future. I have never done it to you.

Riamfada

AngelofFire wrote: »

Steph you can stop eating sour grapes.

Dosnt seem like sour grapes to me and while I like Dan personally there were a few inconsistencies in that manifesto. I wouldnt describe them here as a public forum is not the place but come on....Angel of Fire, we are friends, dont insult my intelligence, just out of interest are you saying LY policies and campaigns wont emerge in UCD SU policy next year?


Id just like to say that these are my third batch of elections in UCD and never before in any race have I seen friends backstab eachother and turn nasty to the extent I have over the past two weeks. Alot of friendships have been seriously damaged by the looks of things and while plesantries may be upheld it saddens me that people, even non candidates put SU sabat elections before their friends. Boo Urns ... Boo Urns Indeed

AngelofFire

Grimes i would be inclined to disagree this is my fourth year getting involved in elections in UCD and this one i found the most pleasant, candidates and most campaign teams members showed a lot of courtesy towards members of opposing sides, only once or twice did i have an argument with another canvassor. I even bought my opposition campaign manager a drink. Nothing will ever be as bitter as the election of 2006. The fact of the matter is that people do fall out and friendships are strained at election times, but 2 weeks later 90% of people go back to being friends again.

Dan is an activist at heart he has been passionate about issues like education funding and disability rights since i met him (that was before he joined labour), so its little to do with his membership of the party. He will campaign on the issues he is mandated to by the student body. Student union policy on grants somewhat overlaps with Labour policy, but it did not orginate from the Labour party policy manuel. its related to the the fact that the union has to stand up for the material interests its members who are being messed around by the joke of a grant system. And members of all different political parties and students who aren't members of political parties have played a role in forumulating that policy, and in campaigning for a better grants system.

dajaffa

AngelofFire wrote: »

Steph you can stop eating sour grapes. Your view of the union is one where activity begins and ends in council meetings and committee meetings

Right I've avoided this thread for a while now, mostly cause I'm trying to move on but that is bang out of order. Steph is one of the best, if not the best class rep I've seen in my time with the Union. She has been an exemplerary class rep in a time when her class were experiencing massive difficulties due to semesterisation + modularisation and set up RadSoc (which does a lot for Radiography students) from scrtatch, all whilst being on erasmus. I think it's important to distinguish between a good class rep + a good activist. Being good at one doesn't make you good at both, and if Steph committed the amount of time to general Union activism as she does to her class rep duties she wouldn't do herself justice in her degree.

As for all the election shenanigans I think students who saw lecture addresses know all the claims made by candidates + I for one just want to move on as it's all done and dusted. Also whilst the elections were pretty clean in the individual races, there are candidates who were shafted by friends. I wasn't myself but others were so I reckon people are well within their rights to disagree with the general concensus that these elections were the most pleasent ever.

Anyway I encourage all to forget about the elections, wish the best of luck to those elected, and get involved next year to ensure UCDSU remains the best Union in the country.

Riamfada

Well said tbh.

remus808

Agreed.. A lock here really wouldn't go astray at this stage.

Riamfada

well if I were a mod ..............;):p

The_Minister

People are still discussing the results of the elections, so no lock yet.

(although some people need to calm down)

The_Minister

Ok, my reactions to the results:

President: I RONed Aodhán, but only because he was an uncontested president. I think he'll be ok.

Deputy: I was far sadder than I expected when Isobelle lost (read what you will into that ), but I think Dan will be great at the job, and I was happy to see him get it. (In a weird way I won and lost whatever the outcome, because I like both candidates).
I don't think that Dan will be politically partisan like some have predicted, but I think that he didn't help himself by having supporters waving Labour and Palistinian flags, when he won.

Education: Lynam, won, Boo-Ya. I campaigned for Lynam this year and last, and I think that he will be great.

Welfare: I was dissapointed with the result, the candidate that I supported didn't win, and to be blunt, I think the least promising candidate won.

Entertainments: Don't care either way.

Chakar

That was the Irish tricolour The_Minister.

Stabshauptmann

The_Minister wrote: »

Welfare: I was dissapointed with the result, the candidate that I supported didn't win, and to be blunt, I think the least promising candidate won.

Proves its nothing more than a popularity contest...

Stepherunie

Chakar wrote: »

That was the Irish tricolour The_Minister.

Reread his post, he was talking of his supporters, not Dan himself.


Though I agree I don't believe the best Welfare Candidate won the election either. Disappointing but I hope Conor can do a good job, I still dispute the need for ntl on campus though - seems to be a very ill thought out idea.

Awayindahils

When do the election posters have to come down? I am not a UCD student but I live in the Woodbine/Glenomena area and quite frankly I can see no reason why the posters should go up off campus as some of the deputy president one have, but seeing as they have it is more than time they came down. The bridge into UCD is used by commuters who are not UCD students same as the bus stop. Secondly 5 days after polling closed to still have posters up is fairly excessive/down right lazy.

On a separate note, as someone who participated unsuccessfully in Trinity's sabbatical elections I think it is very poor form of any candidate to leave their posters up more than 24 hours after elections, and 5 days is positively vulgar by someone who was successful is a very close race.

Congratulations/commiserations to all as appropiate.

panda100

gubbie wrote: »

Conor won because he worked his but off. Everyone said he was campaigning constantly, and just seemed to be everywhere.

You see this is what I mean by being a completly uneven playing field. It shouldnt be a case of who is able to afford the most time away from studying, wins. I have no doubt conor worked very hard,but all the candidates did!Everyone running worked their butt off.

Myself when I was running last year had to attend a tutorial in the mater (it was with Prof O'Herrlihy!) which made me miss two hours canvassing.On top of this the majority of my friends were in medicine and just could give up three days let alone two weeks to canavass. I presume the same fate befelt Isobel this year. She has huge respect in health sciences and I myself and others would have helped her out in a flash but I was bogged down with college all this week with lectures I just couldnt miss.
I apologise for my earlier barrage against Dan but I really feel that Isobel was robbed unfairly of a position that she deserved and would have done a fantastic job in.

We need to completly restrict the crazy canvassing that goes on at the moment. Firstly, because its obvious that from this way of electioneering we're not seeing the best candidtes elected and secondly, its obviously doing the image of the union a lot of damage. If I have to hear one more person tell me how sick of the union they are after these two weeks!

I feel that faith in the union is at an all time low and apathy at an all time high. Its deeply troubling and saddening to see once again an all male sabbatical team in a university with more women than men. The union has never been so isolating to women which cant be helped by their sponsership of such events like Miss UCD. I hope that people stop turning a blind eye to these obvious problems in the union and next year Dan,Aodhan etc go about rectifying the huge discrepancies in both the elections and union life.

But best of luck to next years team anywho.

ebbinghaus

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Proves its nothing more than a popularity contest...

Popularity contest perhaps.

But Conor F is popular because he is approachable, friendly, easy to talk to, intelligent, GENUINE.
He is widely liked and will do a great job.

He prevailed among the students.
To those of you who think he does not deserve the position, clearly you don't know him at all.

terry mac

panda100 wrote: »

You see this is what I mean by being a completly uneven playing field. It shouldnt be a case of who is able to afford the most time away from studying, wins. I have no doubt conor worked very hard,but all the candidates did!Everyone running worked their butt off.

We need to completly restrict the crazy canvassing that goes on at the moment. Firstly, because its obvious that from this way of electioneering we're not seeing the best candidtes elected and secondly, its obviously doing the image of the union a lot of damage. If I have to hear one more person tell me how sick of the union they are after these two weeks!

How's it obvious that we're not seeing the best candidates elected. Or should that read "my preferred candidates didn't get elected". You seem to be suggesting we should be restricting how much candidates can get out there and canvas students. Maybe there could be a restriction on how many canvasser's can be in the vicinity of the polling stations (one per candidate perhaps).

Conor F seemed to get out and meet as many students as possible personally as opposed to relying too much on the typical campaign/harassment team which just annoys students. Surely being able to connect personally with students should be a reasonable pre-requisite for Welfare Officer (and other Sabbat positions aswell), and certainly in that aspect of the campain Conor excelled.

AngelofFire

Dan but I really feel that Isobel was robbed unfairly of a position that she deserved and would have done a fantastic job in.

Forgive my Pedantry but Dan was Chosen as deputy President by the Student body , if you think that students are too stupid to choose their own public representatives than thats your problem. Ive been on the loosing sides of sabbatical elections in the past but you done hear me giving out about Democracy. Also Dan got more votes in this election than most candidates of your party the Socialist Party get in a General election.

Also when you ran for election Aisling O'Connor beat you fair and square, i was on Mary O'Flynn's team and you didnt hear me making excuses or trying to diminish Aisling's win.

panda100

AngelofFire wrote: »

Forgive my Pedantry but Dan was Chosen as deputy President by the Student body , if you think that students are too stupid to choose their own public representatives than thats your problem. Ive been on the loosing sides of sabbatical elections in the past but you done hear me giving out about Democracy.

Chris all Im saying is that I dont think that the student body had all the facts when it came to Dan.
Okay so he ran on a non party ticket blah blah,fair enough. But to me If your involved heavily in an organisation like Dan is with Labour youth then you should be proud of that fact and declare it openly. You shouldnt dispose your principles and pride in you political party just cos you think it will win you a few more votes. This 'I support Amnesty International' in his manifesto was baffeling and just seemed like he was very much trying to hide something to appear more electable. Thats fair enough If he ditched his left stance in order to win more votes,but at least be honest and admit that. It opens an intresting debate of why so many people in the union feel the need to shy away from their politcal involvment in order to appear more appealing to students. The role of the union should be about politcising students in the sense that our lack of a decent health service,accomodation,increase in the cost of living all stem from our goverments complete disregard for young people. Its not just Dan I would have a go at about this Ive consistenly been exasperated when Fianna Faill aka KBC members do the same thing in elections.
Also Im not going to harp on about the health service levy but you on here,on Dans manifesto and now over on indymedia are giving youselves full credit for something you had a minor role in;Like we all did,we all played roles but its not fair to take credit. We're probably just going to agree to disagree on your supposedly huge role against the student health service levy. The main thing is that the levy was resisted strongly by all students and hopefully will not be on the table again.

Anywho,Dont get me wrong I do think Dan will do a good job,he is a nice person and I dont want to diminish his win. I just think me and others were more concerned than anything that an activist like Dan would play down his leftism so much .It made many people think If hes willing to do that in an election will he do the same in office.

Chris Im sure your pleased to hear this is my last year of election analysis Hopefully someone might take on board something I say.Best of luck to the sabbats.

pretty*monster

panda100 wrote: »

Thats fair enough If he ditched his left stance in order to win more votes,but at least be honest and admit that. .

In what world can saying in your manifesto that you'll campaign to abolish all fees (reg, part-time, and post-grad if I remember right) be construed as ditching your left stance.
Get a grip.

It wouldn't have been very hard for any student to duduce that Dan's politics were to the left, nor would it have been hard to find out the party membership of Dan or any other candidate. It's up to the electorate to inform themselves. We are not children who need to be spoon fed everything.

At the end of the day the student body get the union that they deserve.

alrighty

princess-sprkle

alrighty wrote: »

minus the many sad faces, i agree with this. I personally feel the weakest welfare candidate was elected & i for one am disappointed. Nothing against the guy personally, but i just feel the other candidates would have been better in the position.

pretty*monster

alrighty wrote: »

What good is a counsellor to someone who wants to heat up a bowl of soup?

Although, and perhaps someone can back me up on this, I seem to recall that Dave Curran looked into getting microwaves put in in the SU shops and ran up against those pesky health and safety regulations.

gubbie

panda100 wrote: »

You see this is what I mean by being a completly uneven playing field. It shouldnt be a case of who is able to afford the most time away from studying, wins. I have no doubt conor worked very hard,but all the candidates did!Everyone running worked their butt off.

Panda you of all people shold know what a stupid statement that is. "a case of who is able to afford the most time away from studying, wins" you honestly think that applies to a guy who has a 30 hour week? He couldn't afford any of that seeing as in many of his classes you have to take the notes down during class. Same with many of his friends and he only had a few of his really good friends helping him out any day besides the poster race.

I never meant that any of the other candidates didn't work all the time, I just meant he seemed to be around all the time. And he really focused on the smaller faculties. Thats what won it for him. Some of the candidates when they weren't giving speechs they were doing things like flyering, but Conor spent it talking to anyone and everyone

ebbinghaus wrote: »

Popularity contest perhaps.

But Conor F is popular because he is approachable, friendly, easy to talk to, intelligent, GENUINE.
He is widely liked and will do a great job.

He prevailed among the students.
To those of you who think he does not deserve the position, clearly you don't know him at all.

Yea I'm not alone

(And I adore Pendergrast like)

pretty*monster wrote: »

In what world can saying in your manifesto that you'll campaign to abolish all fees (reg, part-time, and post-grad if I remember right) be construed as ditching your left stance.

And I really look forward to his attempts

pretty*monster

gubbie wrote: »

And I really look forward to his attempts

If there's one thing UCD needs it's a dramatic fall in income.

its smelly and brown...

Also Starring LeVar Burton

The criticism of Dan and Fingers is getting to be a bit much here. They're both extremely nice guys and deserve the positions they've been given.
I didn't canvass for Fingers and I even questioned his manifesto and his ability to act as Welfare officer on this thread prior to the elections. Fact of the matter is, he won and I'm confident he'll do a fantastic job.
How about you wait until they actually get a chance to prove themselves until you start having a go.
This thread is a discussion of Sabbatical elections on a whole, but the last 50 or so posts have been all attacking or defending Dan's political affiliations, and Fingers' ability to be a good Welfare officer. How about we swiftly move away from those topics?
What do people think of Aodhán, Gary and Lynham being elected?

pretty*monster

CaptainNegative wrote: »

The criticism of Dan and Fingers is getting to be a bit much here. They're both extremely nice guys and deserve the positions they've been given.

Being nice is hardly a real qualification.

Also Starring LeVar Burton

pretty*monster wrote: »

Being nice is hardly a real qualification.

That's not actually what I meant, there should have been a comma before the and, which makes it two separate statements. Both have skills that they can bring to the job.

princess-sprkle

CaptainNegative wrote: »

The criticism of Dan and Fingers is getting to be a bit much here. They're both extremely nice guys and deserve the positions they've been given.
I didn't canvass for Fingers and I even questioned his manifesto and his ability to act as Welfare officer on this thread prior to the elections. Fact of the matter is, he won and I'm confident he'll do a fantastic job.
How about you wait until they actually get a chance to prove themselves until you start having a go.
This thread is a discussion of Sabbatical elections on a whole, but the last 50 or so posts have been all attacking or defending Dan's political affiliations, and Fingers' ability to be a good Welfare officer. How about we swiftly move away from those topics?
What do people think of Aodhán, Gary and Lynham being elected?

It's a discussion on the elections so people are discussing the major issues they have with the elections. If people want to discuss dan and fingers for a million pages they can. Just because they're 'both extremely nice guys' doesn't mean much. those two appointments seem to have been the most controversial (if thats the right word?) so of course people are gonna talk about them!

Aodhán - don't really care either way
Gary - looks good, should be kinda the same as quinlivan so good.
and Lynham - deadly, best man for the job! glad he got it.

happy?

panda100

CaptainNegative wrote: »

The criticism of Dan and Fingers is getting to be a bit much here

No your right, I feel that my criticism of Dan earlier was a bit harsh.The critique was to do more with the campaign he ran more than the man himself.
He will do a good job im sure
I guess personally ive zoned on him the most as I feel he is one of the most if not the most ,capable of next years sabbatical team and so I felt it important to just question what I felt were discrepancys during his campaign. Chris has answered the questions so its all done and dusted.