We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Again, (again, again) it begins... (SU Elections)

2456711

Comments

  • #2


    I'll add Neil McGough to my list for Education anois.
    Pet wrote:
    Influential, I dunno, but for impact, it's gotta be Education. Unless you're Robert Kearns, in which case you're not very much use at all. Sorry Rob, you had a lot to live up to, I'll give you that, but you need to try a little harder

    V unexpected lol :eek:


  • #2


    Ah, the SU. The greatest cure for insomnia ever devised by man. I'll now have a good read of this thread then head off to bed....


  • #2


    Pet can you in anyway substantiate your comments. I think it's a little harsh dismissing the entire efforts of someone as unsatisfactory, especially on a public forum without having some kind of "evidence".
    I would consider Daithaí and Donál more active then Robert because they were more active on this forum during their tenure. In terms of actual work more directly related to their educational role, I couldn't really comment, I never really paid attention.
    Having said that, you may have loads of reasons for why you think Robert's performance is < then xeducat/Myth other then personality please share them. Or keep them to yourself.


  • #2


    Myth wrote:
    Oh, and in case the name intrigues people, here's "Again it begins" and "Again it begins 2006".

    Just wasted ten minutes of my life reading over those old threads. Wow. They were a lot more boring than I ever remembered them being.

    Originally Posted by stargal
    President: Andy Byrne (ex-Chair of Greens)
    Ugh. He makes me want to vomit.

    Really? He's a good guy; always struck me as being exceptionally likable and hard-working. Good solid name too ;)

    Ibid wrote:
    I struggle to think of less attractive things than spending a year with Dick Treacy

    Oh yeah, I forgot him (assuming it is John Treacy you're referring to there?).


  • #2


    stargal wrote:
    Just wasted ten minutes of my life reading over those old threads. Wow. They were a lot more boring than I ever remembered them being.

    Yeah, though I did smile remembering the amount of discussion over Lorna Jennings's e-mail.
    I would consider Daithaí and Donál more active then Robert because they were more active on this forum during their tenure.

    Yep, I thought the same when I read your post Pet.


  • #2


    stargal wrote:
    Oh yeah, I forgot him (assuming it is John Treacy you're referring to there?).
    Yeah, but calling him a Dick is a good habit to get into.


  • #2


    I wouldn't waeste my breath he'd probably take it as a compliment that people were talking about him.

    I think Andy would make a good president although I'd be envious of his office.


  • #2


    stargal wrote:
    Really? He's a good guy; always struck me as being exceptionally likable and hard-working. Good solid name too ;)
    Voted against the PDs being recognised. I realise your fella (Dave Morris) did too, but I sitting beside him at the time and we were having a bit of a laugh so it didn't seem so harsh. Andy just seemed really petty. I mean, its not like he was losing anything by us being recognised. Whether you like the PDs or not, Colm Fahey had worked his ass off to set up the Trinity PDs and he got two of the most influential and well known Irish politicians to come to Trinity, both of which were huge crowd-pullers. One of those events ended up being frontpage news in the Sindo. We were only recognised by a handful of votes. From then on I could never be bothered with him.



    As for Rob, I do recall he had a bit in the Record calling for extended library opening hours. If he manages to pull that off, I'd say fair play to him.


    And judging by people's responses to my question, education or welfare is where its at.


  • #2


    TN is out... for anyone abroard, the news article is here with 'The Agent' spiel here.

    And the glory holes made it onto the front page of TN.


  • #2


    I'm really happy they put the article about the BAS course on the front page. Especially since it is right next to the article about the Provost wanting a pay rise.


  • #2


    I see TN has included you on the list of possible candidates for Welfare Comhra. Are they just using the same unreliable source as I was or is there something you want to tell us? :p
    Voted against the PDs being recognised. I realise your fella (Dave Morris) did too, but I sitting beside him at the time and we were having a bit of a laugh so it didn't seem so harsh. Andy just seemed really petty. I mean, its not like he was losing anything by us being recognised.... From then on I could never be bothered with him.

    Lol! David is a hottie... just don't tell Drew!

    I see where you're coming from but it's a bit difficult to single Andrew (Byrne) out for that when so many people didn't vote for the PDs at that meeting. It could have been ideological (he was representing the Greens after all) or he may have had actual difficulties with the society (a lot of the CSC did - this was about the 4th time in the past ten years that someone's tried to set it up a society and every single time it petered out after a couple of years).

    Meh. We don't even know if he's running yet.


  • #2


    Figure he is, just from a couple of things. *taps nose*.

    also, andy should've stuck with being called Andrew - thats how I used differentiate between Andrew Byrne, green chair and friend, and Andy Byrne, life sucking gel covered monster.


  • #2


    stargal wrote:
    I see where you're coming from but it's a bit difficult to single Andrew (Byrne) out for that when so many people didn't vote for the PDs at that meeting. It could have been ideological (he was representing the Greens after all) or he may have had actual difficulties with the society (a lot of the CSC did - this was about the 4th time in the past ten years that someone's tried to set it up a society and every single time it petered out after a couple of years).
    Nah. I was there that day, Byrne was a bit out of order. It's one thing not voting for the PDs, grand. It's another to vote against them, i.e. objecting to them, simply on political grounds. I'm no fan of the PDs or their policies, but I don't object to them existing and having their own little party (no pun intended) and share of the funds.

    TBH it's pretty undemocratic to be any other way. They're a legitimate political party (said with a Northern accent) and thus deserve their little spot for Trinity students interested in them. In fact I'm quite disgruntled at the thought of Andrew Byrne objecting, that just wasn't on. Kinda suggests something about his ability to be SU president, doesn't it?


  • #2


    Pet can you in anyway substantiate your comments. I think it's a little harsh dismissing the entire efforts of someone as unsatisfactory, especially on a public forum without having some kind of "evidence".

    Ohh..yeah on rereading I guess it seems a little jerky, when it was actually just a joke. I have no beef with Robert, for the record. I know very little of his failings or achievements, whatever they may be.


  • #2


    Stargal I have absolutley no idea where these vicious rumours about my running for Welfare are coming from. I wasn't even contacted by the paper in question. But no I am not running for Welfare.


  • #2


    stargal wrote:
    Lol! David is a hottie... just don't tell Drew!
    Who is Drew?
    I see where you're coming from but it's a bit difficult to single Andrew (Byrne) out for that when so many people didn't vote for the PDs at that meeting.
    Its really not hard at all to single him out. Himself and Dave voted against us (perhaps I should vomit over Dave as well, but at least we were having a bit of a laugh at the time and we co-operated in order to help someone get on the CSC exec), as did some other chap who was voting against everything. Our real problem was that not a lot of people actually voted for us. Most of the treasurers there couldn't have given a damn. But actually voting against us was cruel and petty.

    And the argument that the society had petered out in the past could very easily be argued against based on the two large events we pulled off. We held many more events besides, but I mention these two in particular as they were mentioned in the press and because of the large turnouts.


  • #2


    *cries*

    AH I already have a headache. I wish he elctions were over dmanit. If one more person tries to get 'insider' information out of me I swear I'll box someone. I mean it was taking my very best behaviour not to spill veerything I knew, and then TN had more than I even knew.

    Also in a slightly election related thing. Wayne's letter vs the Exec's letter in TN. A potnetial President would wan tot show more solidartity for the people he works with every day in order to make the union effcient and effective. The bloody letter was written for him in the first place.
    Comhra wrote:
    I'd envy his position though.

    subtle.:p


  • #2


    I mean it was taking my very best behaviour not to spill veerything I knew, and then TN had more than I even knew.

    Wow, the life of a hack certainly is fraught with heartache and disappointment.

    My sincerest sympathies, to you and your comrades.


  • #2


    is anyone here running a candidates campaign?


  • #2


    Pet wrote:
    Ohh..yeah on rereading I guess it seems a little jerky, when it was actually just a joke. I have no beef with Robert, for the record. I know very little of his failings or achievements, whatever they may be.

    Are you backtracking or was it really a joke? Cos I was genuinely interested to know what you meant. And it didn't sound like a joke.
    Pet wrote:
    Wow, the life of a hack certainly is fraught with heartache and disappointment.

    My sincerest sympathies, to you and your comrades.

    Roffle :D
    Who is Drew?

    Sorry, that's andrew_83


  • #2


    Cos I was genuinely interested to know what you meant. And it didn't sound like a joke.

    Well I asked some questions in an email about 4 months ago, and despite bugging him, he never got back to me. He posts on here (occasionally), so it was a barely-serious dig that he was meant to read. I really don't have beef with him, though.


  • #2


    Now Hilary I said I would have office envy not that I would be envious of his position. It's a nice office, good view from the window.


  • #2


    Its really not hard at all to single him out. Himself and Dave voted against us... Most of the treasurers there couldn't have given a damn. But actually voting against us was cruel and petty.
    And the argument that the society had petered out in the past could very easily be argued against based on the two large events we pulled off. We held many more events besides, but I mention these two in particular as they were mentioned in the press and because of the large turnouts.
    Ibid wrote:
    Nah. I was there that day, Byrne was a bit out of order... In fact I'm quite disgruntled at the thought of Andrew Byrne objecting, that just wasn't on. Kinda suggests something about his ability to be SU president, doesn't it?

    I was thinking about this again this evening and I still think it's unfair to form your opinion of Andrew based on this vote since we don't know the reasoning behind it. It could have been ideological. It could have been a token vote (he would have seen the number of votes in favour and realised that they were going to be recognised but just wanted some kind of opposition recorded).

    I'd guess however that it's most likely because of the previous failures of 4 (possibly 5?) previous PD committees in the past decade. That's the highest failure rate of any single society in living memory by the way (not just my memory!). It's the reason the entire CSC executive was so unwilling to even allow them provisional recognition and it took months for them to even get that.

    The argument about how the PD's had held two high-profile events that year and so deserved to be recognised doesn't really ring true; it's pretty standard for any provisional society to be active during the year that it's seeking recognition. Two high-profile events is ok (getting on the front page of a national paper is excellent) but to be honest it's not that great; most provisional societies would do a lot more. Plus, if anything, since they had two high-profile speakers, I would have thought that that would have diminished the possibility of holding more events since they'd already used up a quarter of all their TD's!


  • #2


    stargal wrote:
    It could have been ideological.
    Indeed. He could be indeologically opposed to his political adversaries getting an equal platform in Trinity. That still makes him petty.
    It could have been a token vote (he would have seen the number of votes in favour and realised that they were going to be recognised but just wanted some kind of opposition recorded).
    As I said, the vote was quite tight. Also, why would it be necissary to voice 'some kind of opposition'? Surely opposing something for the sake of opposing it isn't a desrable quality in a SU pres. I've also already referred to the guy who voted against everything that day, so some opposition would have been recorded anyway.
    The argument about how the PD's had held two high-profile events that year and so deserved to be recognised doesn't really ring true; it's pretty standard for any provisional society to be active during the year that it's seeking recognition. Two high-profile events is ok (getting on the front page of a national paper is excellent) but to be honest it's not that great; most provisional societies would do a lot more.
    Um, we did do an awful lot more. Those two events weren't sum total of activity in the Trinity PDs over the two years we were provisionally recognised. I used them merely as an example of our success. I could list of every event organised over the two years, but that would be boring for everyone involved.
    Plus, if anything, since they had two high-profile speakers, I would have thought that that would have diminished the possibility of holding more events since they'd already used up a quarter of all their TD's!
    Thats just a cheap shot, to be honest. Political parties in college do more than just listen to TDs. We brought in speakers from outside the party as well. Seeing as how one of the aims of the Trinity PDs is to foster and promote liberalism in college, there is a lot more speakers we could get in.


    Regarding the failure of past committees, I take your point. But I do think the activity over the previous two years and the constant influx of new members pretty much voided the possibility of a similar melt-down.


  • #2


    B.ie, you glossed over what I suggested was the most likely reason for his vote - the failure of previous committees - and focussed on everything else. There were loads of new members and activities each of the other 4/5 times the society was recognised before, and it still collapsed.

    Now clearly the society is doing well now which is good to see, but if a decision was going to be made about its future based on precedent (as so many CSC decision are and indeed, as was done initially when it was refused provisional recognition a couple of years ago) then it simply wouldn't have made good sense to recognise it, irregardless of the fact that it had a solid year.

    About 'voicing opposition': It would be naive of you not to acknowledge that a lot of students in Trinity aren't big fans of the PD's; the spectacularly high number of abstentions in the vote was evidence of this. Voting against them, instead of just abstaining - which is somewhat cowardly - showed that there was indeed opposition to their having a society.

    I've offered a reasonable explanation of why someone could have voted against the PD's; I do understand where you're coming from though. Since neither of us know the reasons why he voted against them can I suggest that we leave it at that and get back OT and if there's any more to say we just take it to PMs? It's interesting but it's also just conjecture.

    Oh and that was clearly just a joke about using up a quarter of all of the party TD's ;)


  • #2


    stargal wrote:
    Now clearly the society is doing well now which is good to see,


    Did the PD committee not fall apart just before Christmas? The treasurer and chair resigned, that’s pretty fatal...I know they replaced them but if this kind of thing keeps happening what does it say about either its active members or the running of the society?


  • #2


    Could we keep this vaguely on topic people? it seems to have steered off from an elections thread into a PD's thread...


  • #2


    Jager Man wrote:
    Did the PD committee not fall apart just before Christmas? The treasurer and chair resigned, that’s pretty fatal
    I hated that Chair fella. I used to always make fun of him for being a PD. Total wimp. Good hair, though.
    El Nominee wrote:
    Could we keep this vaguely on topic people? it seems to have steered off from an elections thread into a PD's thread...
    Good idea.

    When the nominations officially announced?


  • #2


    Nominations open on the 1st of February - can't quite remember when they close


  • #2


    Wednesday 7th February, apparently. No idea what time.


Society & Culture