Society Monopoly

mloc

It has occurred to me recently that many candidates running for auditor positions in societies this year have one thing in common; a large degree of involvement with the B+L society.

There seems to be a lot of familiar faces on campaign teams etc, and it could almost appear like a B+L attempt to take control over most of the main societies in UCD (L+H, Q Soc etc). Coupled with the current auditors election success as Ents officer, does this mean we will be faced with an almost monopoly like society structure next year?

More importantly, is this a bad thing? As C+E have declined seriously over the last few years, would it be fair to say that having a lot of societies in cohoots might mean better events?

valor

who is running for each auditorship?

pretty*monster

I think too much is being made of it to be honest. I'm somewhat sceptical of the rumours of various candidates B&L involvemnt (I'm still though my many in SU circles to be in Labour Youth despite having never been remoatly tempted to join). In what capacity exactly are these people entangled with B&L?

That aside, the fact is is that there are always going to a small amount of students who are heavily active in societies and the SU and these students tend to get to know each other for various reasons (hangong out in the freshers tent, running events together, getting people elected to finance committee, etc) and if they want to support each other's endevours there's not much anyone can do to stop it. But the thing is that it's pretty easy to become one of these people if one has the slightest desire to do so,

gubbie

mloc wrote:

It has occurred to me recently that many candidates running for auditor positions in societies this year have one thing in common; a large degree of involvement with the B+L society.

There seems to be a lot of familiar faces on campaign teams etc, and it could almost appear like a B+L attempt to take control over most of the main societies in UCD (L+H, Q Soc etc). Coupled with the current auditors election success as Ents officer, does this mean we will be faced with an almost monopoly like society structure next year?

More importantly, is this a bad thing? As C+E have declined seriously over the last few years, would it be fair to say that having a lot of societies in cohoots might mean better events?

Yea Michael winning the L&H one So what if he was part of the click. I'd much prefer to see it in the hands of someone who was helped out by L&Her's then B&Ler's. And hearing Union heads complaining about the click that will go on in the L&H made me laugh. The union one is much worse!

elmyra

Michael's lovely and very genuine, I think he will do a lot to try to make the L&H more open. There was no problem with his opposition being a B&L candidate, the society isn't linked to any particular faculty, it's more to do with that candidate having mainly B&L support campaigning for them and not much L&H. You need people who've been around a bit to keep things on track and keep the society doing the things that are it's lifeblood, so it's sad to see people who know nothing about who you are, or what you do, campaigning. Having said that it was a very well run race with no animosity on either side and I think both candidates cared enough about the society that it would have been in safe hands.

Sangre

gubbie wrote:

And hearing Union heads complaining about the click that will go on in the L&H made me laugh.

complaining about the what?

elmyra

Sangre wrote:

complaining about the what?

Clique, I imagine. Don't be mean!

singingstranger

Guys, it's just how it is. The B&L degree itself has something special that many other degrees in UCD don't have: both the ability to keep a large group of people closely knit together and give them a common identity, and the flexibility to be able to realistically pass a degree while still skipping two weeks' college. B&L students pull together anyway, and then have their commendably active society to keep them that way; and then the people on the society committee are remarkably good at getting people out to vote. That's how it is; and if any other group/society wants to challenge it either people will have to be more willing to jeopardise their study by missing a fortnights' tuition, or elect an extremely competent bunch of people to run their local society and organise an electoral machine as organised, thorough and simply smart as the B&L electoral 'machine' is.

TheVan

I wouldn't say B&L Society...I'd say the Business and Legal course members.

True Deirdre O'Donohoe (ran for L&H) and Ciarán Ahern (new LawSoc auditor) are technically members of the B&L committee but like me they were an "advisory position" this year and weren't expected to (and as far as I know) didn't do anything for the society this year. They're both fully committed to the L&H and LawSoc respectively and have been for years.

Barry Colfer was on the committee but resigned within the first week. I don't think Ronan Shanahan was on the committee.

Also note that as far as I know, only 2 B&L people will be running a society next year (LawSoc and, I can only presume, B&L Soc).

I think friends will help friends out in an election race but I don't think that if (hypothetically) myself and Quinlivan didn't get on and then I ran for a position, that he'd help me out to propogate the B&L machine?

hullaballoo

As it happens, Ronan Shanahan is on the B&L committe, but not heavily involved.

I agree with SS on this one. I think that B&L (course members) might monopolise the high-flying positions (excuse me while I puke) in UCD, but that's a reflection on the fact that our course is geared towards that sort of thing. Many of the people who do B&L have high aspirations, and those lend themselves to taking up these sorts of positions.

Whether they do a good job is a personal issue, and nothing to do with society membership. However, being involved in societies can give you a foothold on contacts and whatever else you might need to do a good job. Being part of a successful society (this year: B&L, LawSoc) is only going to further the grip of that foothold.