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

Pet

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.

Comhra....

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.

Stargal

b.ie curious wrote:

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!

Tricity Bendix

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.

Stargal

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

Jager Man

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?

Crash

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

Time Magazine

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?

Crash

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

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

xebec

Was 5pm last year with the announcement of candidates shortly after, assume same this year?

Crash

Yeah iirc its usually around that time outside house 6 - was the same the year prior to that too I think.

xebec

Correction: the closing time is actually 2pm on Wednesday the 7th!

gom

xebec wrote:

Correction: the closing time is actually 2pm on Wednesday the 7th!

The usual time for announcing nominations is 5 or 6pm at House 6 as far as I can recall.

gom

gom wrote:

The usual time for announcing nominations is 5 or 6pm at House 6 as far as I can recall.

'Twas, but the e-mail which came from SU-land mentioned what xebec said so it's fair to assume that it has changed.

Anyone know of anyone who has confirmed their candidancy yet?

gom

I can confirm that I'm not a candidate as I have to focus my energies on preventing the SU supporting Trade Union assinations in Colombia.
--
Graham Ó Maonaigh

Latest SU e-mail mentions a closing time for nominations on Wednesday at 5pm, not 2pm as mentioned previously.

Jager Man

I just came back from exec and apparently Dave "I'll have a huge affect" Quinn was sadly mistaken and mistook information.

Closing time for nominations is still 2 pm!!!!!!!!!

Crash

For the record, I don't take kindly to double accounts, and if jager man happens to be one I will make it a point to find out, and will make it a point to name said person.

if jager man is not a double account, then I apologise.

also, if anyone doubts my ability to track down people, ask mcguirkJ :P

Jager Man

Jager Man wrote:

I just came back from exec and apparently Dave "I'll have a huge affect" Quinn was sadly mistaken and mistook information.

Closing time for nominations is still 2 pm!!!!!!!!!

Hello uproar my old friend... though the Electoral Commission will probably allow forms until 5pm 'just in case'.

mcguirkj

also, if anyone doubts my ability to track down people, ask mcguirkJ :P

:eek: :eek: :eek:

PHB

also, if anyone doubts my ability to track down people,

IP checks are tough these days eh Neil :P

Nietzschean

ip checks don't work well for this forum as most people appear from the tcd proxies

Awayindahils

Weren't a load of labour at the exec last night?

And yes I do have to ask, I am library-nating at the moment.

Crash

Paul Mulville, Graham O'Maonigh would be my best guess - both of whom have accounts here already...hrmmm...

xebec

Could someone post the full list of nominations shortly after it's announced at 5? (I'm away today)

Still no sign of the official names on the SU website. I didn't take down names but the ones I can remember (which are missing people I don't know)...

President:

Andy Byrne
Dave Lorrigan
Barry Murphy
John Treacy

Deputy President:

Conal Campbell
Sean Conway
Dave Lorrigan
Neasa McGarrigle
Claire Tighe

Education Officer:

Dave Lorrigan
Neil McGough
Bartley Rock
Ross Wynne

Welfare Officer:

Jessica Campbell
Úna Faulkner
Ray Healy
Dave Lorrigan

Ents Officer:

Dave Lorrigan
Barry Keane
Stephen Mallon
Ed O'Riordan

Plus there's one guy trying to do a shane and go for every position.

<<note - not a 100% accurate list, think I might be missing a couple of people for ents and welfare>>

Crash

Mind if I just edit your post for accuracy Donal? can update some of the ones I remember.

xeduCat

I don't think you should be trusted with a candidate list, Mr. Candidate, we'll end up with a certain name in a pretty font and ten times the size of everyone else

Time Magazine

Myth wrote:

Barry Murphy

ENTS?

Stargal

Myth wrote:

President:
Barry Murphy

Is this a serious bid? What do people think of his chances?

stargal

stargal wrote:

Is this a serious bid? What do people think of his chances?

I'm not completely sure. He said afterwards that it was meant as a joke but that now that his name was in there that he was thinking about it. I think he's also doing it as an experiment to see how many people will vote for him if he doesn't produce a manifesto or do anything else.

And yes, that's the present Ents Officer there Ibid.

Tricity Bendix

Myth wrote:

I'm not completely sure. He said afterwards that it was meant as a joke but that now that his name was in there that he was thinking about it. I think he's also doing it as an experiment to see how many people will vote for him if he doesn't produce a manifesto or do anything else.

And yes, that's the present Ents Officer there Ibid.

Good to see a member of the SU team treating this election with all the respect it deserves.

Kind of sums up my opinion of the SU.

Danger Bob

Sabbatical Election Candidates

Hey there,

Following on from Myth's post, below are the candiates who have been nominated by ten fellow members of the Union to stand for Sabbatical Elections this year. I know this is a bit repetitive but there's a couple of extra candidates not mentioned above and you gotta keep everyone happy.

President

Andrew Byrne
David Lorigan
Barry Murphy
John Tracey

Deputy President

Conal Campbell
Sean Conway
David Lorigan
Neasa McGarrigle
Claire Tighe

Education Officer

David Lorigan
Neil McGough
Bartley Rock
Ross Wynne

Welfare Officer

Jessica Campbell
Una Faulkner
Raymond Healy
David Lorigan
Daire McNab

Ents Officer

Robert Donohue
Barry Keane
David Lorigan
Stephen Mallon
Ed O'Riordan

Campaigning officially begins on Monday 19th February. Polling will take place on campus between 27th February and 1st March. Polling in the affiliate colleges, in D'Olier Street, in Trinity Hall and in the teaching hospitals are still to be confirmed.

Crash

xeduCat wrote:

I don't think you should be trusted with a candidate list, Mr. Candidate, we'll end up with a certain name in a pretty font and ten times the size of everyone else

You know, it didn't even cross my mind. goddamnit, sometimes i'm just too honest for my own good :P

Time Magazine

Sabbatical Election Candidates

President

Andrew Byrne
David Lorigan
Barry Murphy
John Tracey

Deputy President

Conal Campbell
Sean Conway
David Lorigan
Neasa McGarrigle
Claire Tighe

Education Officer

David Lorigan
Neil McGough
Bartley Rock
Ross Wynne

Welfare Officer

Jessica Campbell
Una Faulkner
Raymond Healy
David Lorigan
Daire McNab

Ents Officer

Robert Donohoe
Barry Keane
David Lorigan
Stephen Mallon
Ed O'Riordan


I really should be a journalist.

xebec

Nice work Ibid, who needs manifestoes when we've got BEBO!

Stargal

xebec wrote:

Nice work Ibid, who needs manifestoes when we've got BEBO!

Uh, let's hope that they've got manifestos, since judging by their Bebo pages at least 60% of the candidates are morons.

Ibid wrote:

Sabbatical Election Candidates

Deputy President
Conal Campbell

That's Conal Campbell? He was at my table at the CSC awards one year and was possibly the rudest and most obnoxious person I've ever met in Trinity. Good luck to him trying to sell himself to the student body. /Roffles to self

Deputy President
Sean Conway

Ibid is this guy a friend of yours? I know I've spoken to him a few times but can't remember where/when

Crash

stargal wrote:

Uh, let's hope that they've got manifestos, since judging by their Bebo pages at least 60% of the candidates are morons.

....HEY! :P

Stargal

Ahem. Present company excepted:p

shay_562

Welfare Officer

Daire McNab

Really? The guy who drew that godawful "Adolf and Mel" cartoon for the Record, included veiled and not-so-veiled personal attacks in his "Hot/Not" column and basically threw a written hissy fit when his "humour" was criticised is running for Welfare?! Surely that, of all positions, is one that requires you to not be a sorry waste of a human being?

Well, at least this year the voting part will be easy; I've already got my candidate picked in 4 of the 5 races. SU elections are a lot simpler when you know 75% of the hacks personally and the rest by reputation.

Tricity Bendix

Ibid wrote:

I really should be a journalist.

Scary Mary.

stargal wrote:

That's Conal Campbell? He was at my table at the CSC awards one year and was possibly the rudest and most obnoxious person I've ever met in Trinity. Good luck to him trying to sell himself to the student body. /Roffles to self

I'll admit I only listened in to the end of your exchanges (I was there too!), but you didn't exactly come across as all sweetness and light, either. Although I do not blame you. I think I might get banned if I truly express how I feel about the guy.

Ibid is this guy a friend of yours? I know I've spoken to him a few times but can't remember where/when

He used to be heavily invlolved in YFG and the Hist. You've most likely missed his transformation into a hunk (as in a real hunk, not the ibid or original psycho wannabe-hunk). His most noticeable features are his 'guns'.

Time Magazine

xebec wrote:

Nice work Ibid, who needs manifestoes when we've got BEBO!

It's not looks that count, it's what on the bebo that really matters.

stargal wrote:

Ibid is this guy a friend of yours? I know I've spoken to him a few times but can't remember where/when

Aye, I'm friends with Seán. He is truly a man of epic proportions.

shay_562

Nice work Ibid, who needs manifestoes when we've got BEBO!

Actually, I'm much happier basing decisions on how people behave when they don't think the electorate are looking than on the face they put on in public. And in fairness, most of those manifestos say very little in the way of substantive policy or coherent thoughts, and are mostly just an excuse for a few pretty pictures and some vague politicing (wow, it's almost like a real election!). So I say go Ibid!

He used to be heavily invlolved in YFG and the Hist.

Given that there's a GMB candidate in almost every election this year (whereas last year there was really only mcguirkj, who is eminently unelectable all on his own without any help from the Hist), is it likely to be detrimental to the success of any of them? I'm genuinely curious about this; my view of the GMB is hardly the least biased, but equally the view of it within the SU is probably skewed too far the other way. To the average student, does the fact that someone is/was a Phil/Histhead make them less electable?

You've most likely missed his transformation into a hunk (as in a real hunk, not the ibid or original psycho wannabe-hunk). His most noticeable features are his 'guns'.

Aye, 'tis truly impressive. I've never seen someone put on 6 stone in weight over the course of one summer purely in their upper body muscles before. Fair play to him, though.

I think I might get banned if I truly express how I feel about the guy.

Ah, go on. Say it anyway. (not that I'm trying to get you banned here, more than this is the time, of all times, when the "no personal abuse" rule should be allowed to go a tad lax so we can express our true views of the candidates. Not that I'm trying to backseat mod either. I'm just going to stop typing now)

Stargal

b.ie curious wrote:

I'll admit I only listened in to the end of your exchanges (I was there too!), but you didn't exactly come across as all sweetness and light, either. Although I do not blame you. I think I might get banned if I truly express how I feel about the guy.

I'm not claiming that I was Miss Congeniality or anything - those weirdos picked fights with my friends and I'm damned if I'm going to sit there and watch that happen - but I was civil, didn't resort to personal attacks and tried to make a couple of jokes to lighten the mood, and that's a hell of a lot more than I can say for Conal.

B.ie, despite your loveliness on boards, if you only caught the end of the 'exchanges' then I don't think you're really in a position to call this one. You missed out on a pretty horrible tirade from Conal and his mini-me, booing people who won awards, yelling across the (tiny) table and generally being horrible to or about the people at the tables around them. It was funny in the beginning cos I thought they were just joking, but they weren't. His behaviour was entirely unacceptable.

I can't stress how obnoxious this boy was. Ugh. Horrible, horrible guy.

But anyway. Let's move on.

mcguirkj

Given that there's a GMB candidate in almost every election this year (whereas last year there was really only mcguirkj, who is eminently unelectable all on his own without any help from the Hist),

Pffffft. (Semi-outraged blowing noise)

mcguirkj

mcguirkj wrote:

Pffffft. (Semi-outraged blowing noise)

I hear eating more brocolli can clear that right up.

Crash

Donal, can my alter ego one PLEASE not be put up?

PHB

(whereas last year there was really only mcguirkj, who is eminently unelectable all on his own without any help from the Hist),

He wasn't actually electable in the Hist either, got creamed when he ran in the Hist. Pretty much nobody in the GMB likes him.

The last real GMB person who was actually liked there to run for election was our ex-president Francis.

Andrew 83

I was at that CSC awards table too and I have to say the behaviour of some of the PDs, him included and particularly, ruined the night to a decent extent.