SRC Elections 2005 (2 Viewers)

[Phanatical]

I question it because your entire campaign was based upon the premise of using unfortunate Asian pop stereotypes. Making us all look bad.

 

[pigs_can_fly]

It was a preference deal, and nothing more. I don't defend their policies (except for those that we share). Besides, GO!!! is such a Stupid name.

so u can make a preference deal with choice and stop it there. but go!!! can't give its preferences to nick wood without being labelled racist?

 

[Frigid]

I question it because your entire campaign was based upon the premise of using unfortunate Asian pop stereotypes. Making us all look bad.

non sequitur. i dun see how one necessarily follows the other.

besides, YOUR views make us look bad.

 

[pigs_can_fly]

I question it because your entire campaign was based upon the premise of using unfortunate Asian pop stereotypes. Making us all look bad.

ditto to u...minus the 'using unfortunate asian pop stereotypes' bit

besides, i fail to see how we used any pop stereotypes at all

 

[Plebeian]

I think we all knew that Choice would be weak in this election, despite fervant hopes to the contrary. While for the Left, there was only a choice between Keep Left and Action, for everybody else there was a choice between Choice/Resolve and not voting at all. To not vote sends the message that they don't want to be part of the SRC or its processes, and would be as effective in sending the message that they don't like the work of the SRC as voting for Choice/Resolve.

Again you presuppose that everyone who didn't vote MUST be right-wing (because they are not part of the Left), which is clearly not true. You are reading in false credit for the actions of these people where none exists - the vast majority of non-voters have not thought about wanting to take a stand, they simply couldn't be bothered voting because they are not interested in politics.

Wherever there is voluntary voting, people don't vote because it's too much trouble. Voter turnout in the USA is also quite low; granted, it is higher than at USyd but there is a hell of a lot more riding on the US presidential race than our one. Would you say that the USA has a massive proportion of anarchists who are against the system of government currently in place, and make this statement by not voting? Of course not.

If these people were really discontented with what this SRC has done, they would have voted for someone else, not thrown away their vote as some sort of protest. Action made a fairly big point of emphasising that they were the ones who had been in SRC executive this year, playing a major role in fighting VSU and other SRC policy, with particular focus on Nick being Treasurer. If people were so disenchanted with what had happened, I doubt he would have been supported so strongly for President. As pigs_can_fly said, you're just making excuses.

 

[Phanatical]

I don't think they "threw their vote away" as much as they just "couldn't be assed". They don't want to be members of the SRC at all, because the SRC is, to them, a pointless exercise in futility. So they just don't bother with it. The only students who vote are the ones with a vested interest in its survival, or who have friends who fit into this category.

 

[jellybeenz]

What do you mean by 'vested interest'?

 

[Phanatical]

I mean students who actually believe the SRC can provide a useful service to students, students who make use of the services provided by the SRC, and those students who want the SRC to stop doing what it does. Any or every of these, or any other number of reasons why a student would want to be involved with the SRC are legitimate reasons to vote. Unfortunately, for most of those that didn't vote, they don't fall into Any of these categories. For the others, they may have been unable to vote for a number of reasons. Or maybe they just didn't know about the elections. But that still leaves a Lot of students who don't want to be participants in the SRC - and our elected representatives must now work out how best to address this issue.

 

[withoutaface]

What do you mean by 'vested interest'?

Those who are in the 1-2% of students who actually use the "spaces" and those who are paid substantial amounts for being involved in the administration of these organisations.

 

[transcendent]

Equality for everyone, scrap the union and let every man, woman and queer defend for themselves.

 

[jellybeenz]

Ah okay... just wanted that made clear.

 

[Plebeian]

I mean students who actually believe the SRC can provide a useful service to students, students who make use of the services provided by the SRC, and those students who want the SRC to stop doing what it does. Any or every of these, or any other number of reasons why a student would want to be involved with the SRC are legitimate reasons to vote. Unfortunately, for most of those that didn't vote, they don't fall into Any of these categories. For the others, they may have been unable to vote for a number of reasons. Or maybe they just didn't know about the elections. But that still leaves a Lot of students who don't want to be participants in the SRC - and our elected representatives must now work out how best to address this issue.

A lack of interest in elections does not necessarily follow to a lack of interest in the services provided. Most people have little interest in Federal and State politics, but make frequent use of the services that these governments provide. However, I agree that increasing awareness of the facilities and benefits provided by both the SRC and Union is an important task for this year's leadership.

 

[greeninsanity]

Rose Jackson actually approached us a week or so before nominations to try and strike a deal, giving us 2 honi spots and 2 NUS delegates or something. We then declined because NOLS is the devil and they actually have something in their constitution saying they can't have dealings with the SULC.

Sometimes I don't even know if it's worth correcting you. You're completely wrong.

For a start, Rose can't make a decision like that by herself. It would have to be passed by a NOLS caucus and it wasn't. Next, NOLS only normally gets 3 delegate spots and there's no way they'd be dealt away to anyone (including Unity) and especially not the Liberals. NOLS also wasn't in charge of the Word Honi ticket - it was put together by a couple of the guys who were on it, Nik & Stuart. NOLS only got two spots on the ticket, even though they wanted more. Why would they have offered ALL their places to the Libs? And, as you pointed out, NOLS doesn't deal with the Liberals. End of story.

AFAIK, you weren't a negotiator for SULC in this election, so how would you know?

 

[Phanatical]

A lack of interest in elections does not necessarily follow to a lack of interest in the services provided. Most people have little interest in Federal and State politics, but make frequent use of the services that these governments provide. However, I agree that increasing awareness of the facilities and benefits provided by both the SRC and Union is an important task for this year's leadership.

To an extent I agree, in that I believe students make more use of the services than they realise. However, this does not change the fact that most students do not Want to be members of the SRC, and would like to save that membership fee. As I have suggested on several occasions over the last two years to the SRC and its leaders, it is now time to run a tangible "This is how Your SRC has saved you money" and "This is how Your SRC benefits You" campaign.

 

[Xayma]

Those who are in the 1-2% of students who actually use the "spaces" and those who are paid substantial amounts for being involved in the administration of these organisations.

Justin again, the 'safe places' are union run. The SRC collapsing would have minimal impact on those places still existing although the collectives might not run.

Surely if you asked someone without surrounding them and telling them to go back to mardi gras you might have learnt this. It is also funny for you to be part of that group when 1/3 of the people you have kissed have been male.

 

[withoutaface]

I don't recall "surrounding" anyone and telling them to go back to Mardi Gras, and the issue of the queer collective is less a homophobic one and more a pragmatic measure, as I've seen very little evidence of it increasing community awareness of alternative sexualities (in fact you'd have very little idea it existed were it not for the two people I've seen wearing its shirts on campus) which imo would make it a useful and viable collective, and secondly the SRC is not going to survive only on the contributions of queer/aboriginal/disabled students, so it is not practical to continue to finance these collectives post-VSU (and if anyone's gonna pull out the SRC financial report I've already seen plenty of evidence that other parts of it are fudged, so it holds no weight).

 

[Xayma]

I don't recall "surrounding" anyone and telling them to go back to Mardi Gras, and the issue of the queer collective is less a homophobic one and more a pragmatic measure, as I've seen very little evidence of it increasing community awareness of alternative sexualities (in fact you'd have very little idea it existed were it not for the two people I've seen wearing its shirts on campus) which imo would make it a useful and viable collective, and secondly the SRC is not going to survive only on the contributions of queer/aboriginal/disabled students, so it is not practical to continue to finance these collectives post-VSU (and if anyone's gonna pull out the SRC financial report I've already seen plenty of evidence that other parts of it are fudged, so it holds no weight).

I heard it was you from the person involved although you didn't directly say it.

The collectives might not survive, but then again the spaces which you mention aren't funded by the SRC.

 

[withoutaface]

I heard it was you from the person involved although you didn't directly say it.

The collectives might not survive, but then again the spaces which you mention aren't funded by the SRC.

Was this H.S.? Because what happened in that situation was he tore down our posters (an act which can result in having your student association priveleges revoked if they are authorised) while muttering to himself "homophobic trash" (let's forget the fact that the only words on the posters were "Cut SRC Fees, CHOICE") and a member of our group asked him what the hell he was doing, and attempted to grab the posters back off him. The extent of my words to him would have been "If you have a problem with it why not come and discuss it with us, or better yet try running yourself?" and several others probably told him to fuck off because he had no right to tear them down.

 

[Phanatical]

That particular scenario played itself out several times during the election. I was fortunate enough to be present at two said occasions, and even though I sympathise with the Keep Left position, they were obviously at fault.

 

[Newbie]

so umm who here is actually a member of a faction? do we have to sign stuff?