SU Elections

hokeypokey

Despite what seemed to be a very odd thread... I think the elections have a bit of signifigance...
Though i have to question the timing of the debate tonight, 8pm when there is Arsenal V Barcelona on at the same time, I was cosiering on going to the debate, but would prefer to watch the match...

hokeypokey

hokeypokey wrote: »

Despite what seemed to be a very odd thread... I think the elections have a bit of signifigance...
Though i have to question the timing of the debate tonight, 8pm when there is Arsenal V Barcelona on at the same time, I was cosiering on going to the debate, but would prefer to watch the match...

Looks like it is totally irrelevant for everyone except the person who get the well-paid full-time jobs next year!

TheCosmicFrog

...what just happened?

PomBear

Emmet Connolly (Prez), Conor Healy(VP/Education) and Brian Grant(VP/Welfare) were elected

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Emmet Connolly is like a productive Van Wilder at this stage.

aperture_nuig

any truth to the rumour that joe loughnane trashed the hub and abused the officials when he was knocked out?

WesternNight

aperture_nuig wrote: »

any truth to the rumour that joe loughnane trashed the hub and abused the officials when he was knocked out?

Haven't heard anything about that. How on earth would it have come as a shock that he didn't win though?

f1dan

aperture_nuig wrote: »

any truth to the rumour that joe loughnane trashed the hub and abused the officials when he was knocked out?

I overheard Paddy Conboy say that to his friends in the library. Apparently he got less votes than he did last year and wasn't happy at all.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

f1dan wrote: »

I overheard Paddy Conboy say that to his friends in the library. Apparently he got less votes than he did last year and wasn't happy at all.

Surprised at that tbh, he seemed to have a better campaign going than last time.

PomBear

aperture_nuig wrote: »

any truth to the rumour that joe loughnane trashed the hub and abused the officials when he was knocked out?

He allegedly flipped over a table and was shouting stuff outside the SU offices.


two of the results analysis below


http://www.su.nuigalway.ie/site/view/2517/

Croppy Bhoy

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Surprised at that tbh, he seemed to have a better campaign going than last time.

I guess he just didn't have enough free creme eggs or colourful crayons to sway the votes of students :rolleyes:

TheCosmicFrog

Croppy Bhoy wrote: »

I guess he just didn't have enough free creme eggs or colourful crayons to sway the votes of students :rolleyes:

I'm skeptical as to how much these little "goodies" actually sway the vote. Forgive me for not jumping to the conclusion that all students who vote are thick.

Croppy Bhoy

TheCosmicFrog wrote: »

I'm skeptical as to how much these little "goodies" actually sway the vote. Forgive me for not jumping to the conclusion that all students who vote are thick.

Of the minority of people I know who actually voted, I do not know a single one who could have named any policies of any of the candidates, except for the 'headline' policy of the one they were voting for. Most people's votes are based on whether they know the candidate or who their mates are voting for. Some students literally saw the votes as 'something to do' while standing around in An Bhialann, these people will more than likely have been swayed by the pretty pink t-shirts of that Curley gobsh*te or the freebies being dished out by some other.

I'm not criticising the campaign methods. At the end of the day all democratic politics comes down to pandering to fools. Socrates had a point...

LAVADUDE

Croppy Bhoy wrote: »

Of the minority of people I know who actually voted, I do not know a single one who could have named any policies of any of the candidates, except for the 'headline' policy of the one they were voting for. Most people's votes are based on whether they know the candidate or who their mates are voting for. Some students literally saw the votes as 'something to do' while standing around in An Bhialann, these people will more than likely have been swayed by the pretty pink t-shirts of that Curley gobsh*te or the freebies being dished out by some other.

I'm not criticising the campaign methods. At the end of the day all democratic politics comes down to pandering to fools. Socrates had a point...

Why do you not accept that the majority of students are not idiots and voted for the candidate they saw as best, it may come as a shock but not everyone thinks the same as you.
and to consider your fellow students as fools just shows that you are the bigger one.

Ficheall

LAVADUDE wrote: »

Why do you not accept that the majority of students are not idiots and voted for the candidate they saw as best, it may come as a shock but not everyone thinks the same as you.
and to consider your fellow students as fools just shows that you are the bigger one.

And how long have you been following student politics for?

the keen edge

Croppy Bhoy wrote: »

Of the minority of people I know who actually voted, I do not know a single one who could have named any policies of any of the candidates, except for the 'headline' policy of the one they were voting for. Most people's votes are based on whether they know the candidate or who their mates are voting for. Some students literally saw the votes as 'something to do' while standing around in An Bhialann, these people will more than likely have been swayed by the pretty pink t-shirts of that Curley gobsh*te or the freebies being dished out by some other.

I'm not criticising the campaign methods. At the end of the day all democratic politics comes down to pandering to fools. Socrates had a point...

Thank fcuk this guy didn't win. Was he taking the piss running in the elections?.
The major theme of his campaign was getting better pop acts in for college week.

It was galling hearing him try to over voters by trying to appeal to us on such an adolescent level.

WesternNight

the keen edge wrote: »

The major theme of his campaign was getting better pop acts in for college week.

Also in his campaign speech.. "why is there no jacuzzi in the swimming pool in Kingfisher?!"

And when he could barely string two words together.. "I was canvassing in CPs last night".

Before those two blunders I'd been relatively impressed that he showed up to canvass an 8am lecture!

brianthebard

the keen edge wrote: »

Thank fcuk this guy didn't win. Was he taking the piss running in the elections?.
The major theme of his campaign was getting better pop acts in for college week.

Tbh the SU is generally capable of so little that its slightly refreshing to have someone run on an (overly)simplistic platform.

the keen edge

brianthebard wrote: »

Tbh the SU is generally capable of so little that its slightly refreshing to have someone run on an (overly)simplistic platform.

A simplistic platform has it merits, no doubt.

But the speeches he made at the start of lectures, name dropping of all the potential headline pop acts for college week that he would try to get as SU pres, was sickening.


He came out with such bollix as:
"How come Trinity get Tinie Tempah, and we only get The Rubberbandit for the college week gigs"

This rubbish made up 50% of the message he attempted to get across.
What can you say about a man who runs a election campaign largely based on the supposed improvement of a annual 60 minute? pop music performance, attended by (x amount) of the student body?

It is laughable, ridiculous, galling and mind boggling that such a character found himself in the running at all.

No doubt we will see him running under the Fianna Fail banner in years to come.

Brother Psychosis

great to see someone with emmets ability and motivation in charge, even if it is a relatively powerless position, but if anyone can put a bit of confidence into students about it, its him

Lockstep

brianthebard wrote: »

Tbh the SU is generally capable of so little that its slightly refreshing to have someone run on an (overly)simplistic platform.

I'd disagree. Two of my friends had very serious problems to deal with during the course of the year; one had to deal with sexual assault, the other attempted suicide. Both times, the SU welfare officer did some sterling work as she was someone who they immediately knew was a safe port of call as well as someone who could give them advice on what to do next. Likewise, a personal problem of my own was very effectively dealt with by the Education officer. Their powers might be limited but if the right person is in the job, they offer an extremely valuable service to the students.

The new Welfare officer seemed very out of his depth and lost the rag at the hustings very easily, granted he was being heckled but the Welfare officer will have to deal with some very stressful situations. He seems a nice guy and is doubtless a hard worker but he kept going on about his sporting achievements. He didn't respond well to questions so I'm still dubious of whether he can deal with the crap that a Welfare officer has to.


Emmet would be a good president though. He's done a good job as education so hopefully he can swing the presidency around as well.

PomBear

TheCosmicFrog wrote: »

I'm skeptical as to how much these little "goodies" actually sway the vote. Forgive me for not jumping to the conclusion that all students who vote are thick.

Well I was a candidate and gave out "goodies", many came up to me saying "i'll vote for ya if you give me sweets" on Thursday. I'd love to have told any of them my policies but could hardly say no to them.

WesternNight

PomBear wrote: »

Well I was a candidate and gave out "goodies", many came up to me saying "i'll vote for ya if you give me sweets" on Thursday. I'd love to have told any of them my policies but could hardly say no to them.

That just proves they wanted sweets. Doesn't mean they actually voted for you because of it, though.

brianthebard

Lockstep wrote: »

I'd disagree. Two of my friends had very serious problems to deal with during the course of the year; one had to deal with sexual assault, the other attempted suicide. Both times, the SU welfare officer did some sterling work as she was someone who they immediately knew was a safe port of call as well as someone who could give them advice on what to do next. Likewise, a personal problem of my own was very effectively dealt with by the Education officer. Their powers might be limited but if the right person is in the job, they offer an extremely valuable service to the students.

The new Welfare officer seemed very out of his depth and lost the rag at the hustings very easily, granted he was being heckled but the Welfare officer will have to deal with some very stressful situations. He seems a nice guy and is doubtless a hard worker but he kept going on about his sporting achievements. He didn't respond well to questions so I'm still dubious of whether he can deal with the crap that a Welfare officer has to.


Emmet would be a good president though. He's done a good job as education so hopefully he can swing the presidency around as well.

Ok I'll phrase it a different way; they can be good at doing a certain amount of things where they are not expected to defend a student against the university. After that they are pretty poor.

Croppy Bhoy

WesternNight wrote: »

And when he could barely string two words together.. "I was canvassing in CPs last night".

Man I love when my bitter stereotypes constantly get proved correct

PomBear

WesternNight wrote: »

That just proves they wanted sweets. Doesn't mean they actually voted for you because of it, though.

true, but it still highlights how our students think regarding the SU, unsure if that's the previous SU's fault or the students...

WesternNight

PomBear wrote: »

true, but it still highlights how our students think regarding the SU, unsure if that's the previous SU's fault or the students...

Well, I know from my own experience that once the election is over we hear very little from the SU. Or at least that was the most I ever saw of any of them, maybe that's just me. But I guess that's to be expected.

Also, I think I saw a sum total of five candidates canvassing during the week. We had Curley in almost every lecture, and had Emmet a couple of times, and Conor Stitt a couple of times. Had one or two more once, but the rest I never saw anything of. Some of them I didn't even know were running until I saw their names on the ballot paper. I would have gone to the "meet the candidates" thing if it wasn't at such a stupid time of night.

I know ye only had a few days, and there are lots of classes to canvass, but I think that might have contributed to the lack of seriousness from students. When you just see a gang of people with different coloured t-shirts swarming the top of the stairs and different kinds of sweets being thrown at you, it's hard to be discerning enough to ask about policies. It ends up looking like a regular popularity contest.

PomBear

WesternNight wrote: »

Well, I know from my own experience that once the election is over we hear very little from the SU. Or at least that was the most I ever saw of any of them, maybe that's just me. But I guess that's to be expected.

Also, I think I saw a sum total of five candidates canvassing during the week. We had Curley in almost every lecture, and had Emmet a couple of times, and Conor Stitt a couple of times. Had one or two more once, but the rest I never saw anything of. Some of them I didn't even know were running until I saw their names on the ballot paper. I would have gone to the "meet the candidates" thing if it wasn't at such a stupid time of night.

I know ye only had a few days, and there are lots of classes to canvass, but I think that might have contributed to the lack of seriousness from students. When you just see a gang of people with different coloured t-shirts swarming the top of the stairs and different kinds of sweets being thrown at you, it's hard to be discerning enough to ask about policies. It ends up looking like a regular popularity contest.

That's true but on my posters had some of my policies, loadsa leaflets which had more policies, a website which had even more, during the week, I was chatting to people all around usually taking 3-4 minutes to explain my main policies and did the same for lecture shout outs, canvassed Gort/Cuirt Na Coirbe, Corrib Village and Menlo Park Apartments. Personally I tried all I possibly could do to spread my policies.

WesternNight

PomBear wrote: »

That's true but on my posters had some of my policies, loadsa leaflets which had more policies, a website which had even more, during the week, I was chatting to people all around usually taking 3-4 minutes to explain my main policies and did the same for lecture shout outs, canvassed Gort/Cuirt Na Coirbe, Corrib Village and Menlo Park Apartments. Personally I tried all I possibly could do to spread my policies.

Now I'm just curious as to who you are

PomBear

WesternNight wrote: »

Now I'm just curious as to who you are

Not telling ya! :P

WesternNight

PomBear wrote: »

Not telling ya! :P

Heh, didn't think so

Lockstep

brianthebard wrote: »

Ok I'll phrase it a different way; they can be good at doing a certain amount of things where they are not expected to defend a student against the university. After that they are pretty poor.

Have you personal experience with this or are you just assuming they did a **** job?

Friend of mine was defended by the Education officer against the universityand he did the job very well. Then again, he was the only person I know who had a genuine grievance aside from "I didn't study and the university will fail me, can the SU help me?"

The fact you're relying on such vague statements like 'a certain amount of things' doesn't say much.

brianthebard

Lockstep wrote: »

Have you personal experience with this or are you just assuming they did a **** job?

Friend of mine was defended by the Education officer against the universityand he did the job very well. Then again, he was the only person I know who had a genuine grievance aside from "I didn't study and the university will fail me, can the SU help me?"

The fact you're relying on such vague statements like 'a certain amount of things' doesn't say much.

Yes I have personal experience. They aren't vague statements I'm just not going to make a list of what the su is capable of and not capable of. Generally what the su does is act as a liase between students and admin and they do that job adequately. If they are requested to stand up for a student or students who are being treated unfairly then they aren't capable of it.

Lockstep

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes I have personal experience. They aren't vague statements I'm just not going to make a list of what the su is capable of and not capable of.

Then forgive me if I take your claims with a pinch of salt.

What was your issue if I might ask?

brianthebard wrote: »

Generally what the su does is act as a liase between students and admin and they do that job adequately. If they are requested to stand up for a student or students who are being treated unfairly then they aren't capable of it.

For the Education officer, yes, and it's an extremely important role.
For the Welfare Officer, that's an extremely myopic view. It involves everything from emergency intervention to helping out students who've been assaulted.
The SU remits are extremely broad but as long as there's someone half decent in the job, they can do an extremely good job, as the two current VPs have done.

brianthebard

No you may not ask since it is an ongoing issue.

Also you haven't said anything that disproves what I've said, only reinforced the idea that they are capable of doing what the administration wants the su to do but not capable of actually forcing the admin to change their position on an issue.

Lockstep

brianthebard wrote: »

No you may not ask since it is an ongoing issue.

You're criticising them before the issue is even resolved?

At any rate; "The SU changed the entire university policy showing how effective they are but you can't ask anything about it as it's ongoing"
Not the most convincing argument.

brianthebard wrote: »

Also you haven't said anything that disproves what I've said, only reinforced the idea that they are capable of doing what the administration wants the su to do but not capable of actually forcing the admin to change their position on an issue.

Off the top of my head, the history department completely revamped the way history subjects were grouped after lobbying by the SU (I was very grateful for this)

The SU remit is extremely broad; everything from helping out suicidal students to organising anti-fees campaigns. Your claim that the SU is only good for 'a certain amount of things' really needs to be either substantiated or clarified.

TheCosmicFrog

From my own experience, it seems to be the people who haven't asked the SU for help on an issue that always complain that the SU "don't do anything". I was cynical the first time I asked for help, but every time since I've had a really positive experience.

brianthebard

Lockstep wrote: »

You're criticising them before the issue is even resolved?

At any rate; "The SU changed the entire university policy showing how effective they are but you can't ask anything about it as it's ongoing"
Not the most convincing argument.

Criticising the su for not trying to defend students when they should. The issue is beyond the su at this point. Don't presume that you know everything as you try to here. The su never changed uni policy on this issue though I can guarantee that.

Lockstep

brianthebard wrote: »

Criticising the su for not trying to defend students when they should. The issue is beyond the su at this point. Don't presume that you know everything as you try to here. The su never changed uni policy on this issue though I can guarantee that.

If you're going to make sweeping statements against the SU then you really need to start giving actual evidence. Do you really expect to be taken seriously with nothing but vague insinuations and unsubstantiated claims ?

Have you any sources for your 'guarantee' or is it another case of "I know this for a fact and you'll have to believe me although I won't provide any proof"

I don't presume to know everything but if you're not going to even bother substantiating your claims then I don't know how you can be expect your claims to be taken credulously by others.

Let's use your logic for a second:
"The SU took on the university and forced them to undergo a dramatic change in their entire policy, showing how incredibly wonderful and powerful the SU is. What was this policy? I can't tell you. It's a secret and still ongoing. Even though I'm the one who brought it up, I'm not going to mention anything about it, you're not allowed ask anything about it and I still expect you to take these claims seriously."

If I posted the above, you'd laugh and rightly so.

brianthebard

You don't seem to understand that not everything should be plastered all over the internet for all to see, especially when its an ongoing issue.

Lockstep

brianthebard wrote: »

You don't seem to understand that not everything should be plastered all over the internet for all to see, especially when its an ongoing issue.

Then don't bring up an issue if you don't want to discuss it.

Seriously, it's very unreasonable to expect others to take a claim/accusation against an organisation seriously if you can't/won't eleborate on it.

Once again,

"The SU took on the university and forced them to undergo a dramatic change in their entire policy, showing how incredibly wonderful and powerful the SU is. What was this policy? I can't tell you. It's a secret and still ongoing. Even though I'm the one who brought it up, I'm not going to mention anything about it, you're not allowed ask anything about it and I still expect you to take these claims seriously."

leeroybrown

In all fairness, I'm very much with Lockstep on this one. Saying the SU didn't help then not elaborating in any way is pretty much like slinging mud and hoping some will stick. Hardly a convincing argument. I reserve my right to ignore completely unsubstantiated arguments.

MissMiami

No offence to the guy, but why does Joe Loughnane still run in the elections? I was reading his leaflet the other day and it said that he has been a student for the past 7 years and campaigning for the last 6. I have never heard of him winning anything and he's never the favourite either.

God loves a trier, I suppose.

LAVADUDE

Anyone know who's running for the part-time elections?

WesternNight

LAVADUDE wrote: »

Anyone know who's running for the part-time elections?

Nominations close tomorrow as far as I know so I'm sure we'll know soon enough.

leeroybrown

MissMiami wrote: »

No offence to the guy, but why does Joe Loughnane still run in the elections? I was reading his leaflet the other day and it said that he has been a student for the past 7 years and campaigning for the last 6. I have never heard of him winning anything and he's never the favourite either.

I know Joe in passing and can say that fees, grants and universal access to education is something that he feels incredibly strongly about. He's done absolutely loads of work with FEE and other campaigns in this area. I for one salute him for putting his money where his mouth is and running for very genuine reasons.

WesternNight

leeroybrown wrote: »

I know Joe in passing and can say that fees, grants and universal access to education is something that he feels incredibly strongly about.

Was there a candidate who didn't feel strongly about those issues though?

leeroybrown

WesternNight wrote: »

Was there a candidate who didn't feel strongly about those issues though?

I'd say that there was definitely a varied strength of feeling about it across the candidates. Put it this way - of the three losing candidates Joe's the only one who's made a notably strong commitment to these issues both locally and nationally before the SU elections and he'll likely be the only one of the three candidates who'll continue to show that kind of strong commitment afterwards regardless of his election losses. He's genuinely politically active in the area and his primary motivation to run derives from that. The others made an electoral commitment to it as one of their campaign items (how could you leave it out) but it isn't even a close comparison in my book.

I've left Emmet out above as even thought he definitely does have a strong commitment in this area, his experience since the onset of a serious fees threat is focussed primarily through his professional Students' Union activities and will continue to be that way for the next year. It's not quite comparable.

The Jester

PomBear wrote: »

Not telling ya! :P

The one with the black BMW with his face on the side by any chance?

PomBear

The Jester wrote: »

The one with the black BMW with his face on the side by any chance?

Haha, not a chance.

Lockstep

leeroybrown wrote: »

I'd say that there was definitely a varied strength of feeling about it across the candidates. Put it this way - of the three losing candidates Joe's the only one who's made a notably strong commitment to these issues both locally and nationally before the SU elections and he'll likely be the only one of the three candidates who'll continue to show that kind of strong commitment afterwards regardless of his election losses. He's genuinely politically active in the area and his primary motivation to run derives from that. The others made an electoral commitment to it as one of their campaign items (how could you leave it out) but it isn't even a close comparison in my book.

I've left Emmet out above as even thought he definitely does have a strong commitment in this area, his experience since the onset of a serious fees threat is focussed primarily through his professional Students' Union activities and will continue to be that way for the next year. It's not quite comparable.

+1
I respect Loughnane for this as he's still getting involved and getting out there on things like fees and grant cuts. The others were all saying they were (it'd be hard to run a campaign without doing so) but to my knowledge, aside from Connolly, none of them have ever put their money where their mouth is.
I have a lot of time for people who will fight issues regardless of whether they'll be elected or not.

Out of the SU candidates, Keane, Kelly, Stitt, Loughnane and Connolly were the only ones who genuinely struck me as ones who had a real idea of what they wanted to do with the job and what the job actually entailed.