The position of VP Welfare is an important one and that show in the number of candidates – five. That’s more then any of the other sabbatical elections this year. It’s also level with the number of candidates for Chair Media and the only other elections that have more are ‘Councillors of Scrutiny’ and ‘NUS Delegates’. There’s also one more candidate this year than there was in the previous VP Welfare elections.

Themes and issues

Words used in the nomination forms of the VP Welfare candidates

It’s interesting that this graphic shows a lot more issues compared to some of the others. It could be because the winner would cover a number of areas, but then this may also be affected by the number of candidates. It may be to do with campaigning style as well.

Anyway, two issues that are very prominent are sexual health and housing. Both have been big topics for a number of years, so this isn’t entirely surprising. SHAG (Sexual Health And Guidance) events would be highly publicised throughout the union. As for housing, this is something that’s been covered by officers and candidates across multiple zones. For example, all three candidates for President want some sort of housing reform.

There also seems to be a focus on racism and disabilities. The former is surprising as this hasn’t really been a headline issue in election campaigns over recent years. Having policies for disabled students is always a vote winner though and is something that should never be ignored by anyone running for this position.

Kora-Lee Holmes (Nomination form – Click here, Facebook – Click here, Twitter – @koralee_holmes)

Kora-Lee’s campaign covers three main areas – housing, the Advice Centre and Health (financial, sexual and nutritional).

On her nomination form, she states that one of her proudest moments this year was being “at the forefront of the fight to secure student housing in Hull”. However, after going to the HUU website and looking at the most recent minutes of UEC, Union Council, the Governance Zone and the Welfare Zone, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of her work in relation to housing. After looking back at the Hustings coverage done by @TheHullfire and @JamRadioHull, I can’t see many mentions of her housing work either. She also didn’t mention anything about housing on her nomination form for Chair Campaigns last year. Kora-Lee – if you read this, could you please leave a comment where you go into specifics about what you’ve done with housing.

If elected as VP Welfare, she will launch an awareness campaign so that students are more knowledgeable about the processes and available support. Kora-Lee also wants to make more people aware of the Advice Centre and provide drop-in sessions. As for sexual health, she calls for monthly SHAG days on her form, which was later changed to one week per month at the Hustings. She also calls for an extension of the Give It A Go scheme that would involve more local businesses (this is a very good idea – hopefully there will be plenty of businesses willing to participate).

Another thing worth mentioning is her experience. As previously mentioned, she has been Chair Campaigns and Democracy, but she is also Governance Zone Chair and the former Chair of the Sport Zone (not sure about her sport background though). She is also quite political, being a member of the Labour Club for multiple years and a former member of the Politics Society. This is in addition to a former position as a Councillor of Scrutiny. None of this relates to Welfare directly though, other than her membership of the Women’s Committee (but I am unsure about her level of involvement with this). Despite her lack of direct Welfare experience, she has plenty of high level Union experience, name recognition and has developed a prominent campaign. Support from the Labour Club will also be a benefit.

Komal Tariq (Nomination form – Click here, Facebook – Click here, Twitter – @Komal_Tariq)

On Komal’s Facebook group, she states that she is very “passionate” about Welfare issues. This is great, because it will allow her to make use of enthusiasm in her work. Despite her passion though, she has no direct experience in the Welfare Zone, according to her nomination form (and the one she used for Chair ISA last year). However, possessing multiple years of experience with ISA means that she is well-known amongst a large group of people. She also (presumably) popular, because she beat R.O.N. by 529 votes in last year’s ISA election, although she was the only candidate. Her member in RAG and Ladies Hockey will also help. It’s worth noting that her experience is more suited to the Community Zone though.

As for policies, Komal wants to increase awareness of services (like Kora-Lee). She also wants a “bigger and better” Black History Month, stop various forms of discrimination (e.g. unseen disabilities, mental health, etc) and create an online support system for those who are victims of bullying harassment and racism. These are all great ideas. The online support intrigues me. For something that’s (potentially) highly sensitive, the security would have to be good and there would also need to be quick response times to messages. Also, who would monitor this system – the Advice Centre? VP Welfare? Chairs of particular committees?

As for bigger events such as Black History Month – this is fine. Support for these events could be provided by certain Societies and Committees. However, I would like to know where the funding to make these events bigger will come from. The organisation and publicity would need to be good too.

Dominique Richards (Nomination form – Click here, Website – Click here, Twitter – @Snichards)

As Chair of the Women’s Committee, Dominique has experience directly related to the Welfare Zone (more than Kora-Lee, Komal and Grace), but prior to this year, she had no experience of the Welfare Zone at all. Apart from her membership of left-wing political groups, she has been a member of multiple societies which means that her experience is also geared to the Community Zone.

Her campaign focuses on the following areas:

• Cuts and Privatisation
• Housing
• Fighting Racism, Sexism and Homophobia
• Campus Safety
• Accessibility

In relation to the first point, she wants to support staff and fight every course closure. The thing is, Hull University Union is there to (primarily) represent the students, although staff are associate members. It’s also worth mentioning that some courses are closing because not enough students are on them, which makes them less financially viable. With fewer courses, there is less for lecturers to do, so some may have to leave.

Dominique is the only candidate for VP Welfare who mentions anything to do with Scarborough in her form. It’s worth remembering that there’s a Welfare Officer on the Scarborough Executive that the successful candidate will have to work with. She wants to improve the accessibility there, which is a good idea, as there are plenty of steps and less room for Union facilities compared to the Hull campus. However, I haven’t heard anything more specific. Dominique – if you read this, please leave a comment.

She also wants to support the no platform policy and prevent nearby EDL marches. This will undoubtedly gain support from some members of affected groups (e.g. LGBT). However, supporting a current HUU policy is her job anyway.

Grace Woods (Nomination form – Click here, Facebook – Click here, Twitter – @grace_w_o_o_d_s)

Looking at Grace’s nomination form would make you think that she has the least experience and none of it is relevant. However, when you go to her Facebook group (which she doesn’t provide a link to on the form), you find out that she’s worked at a recruitment centre and done voluntary work relating to mental health, finance and immigration. I surprises me that the most relevant experience wasn’t put on the form. Whilst this work isn’t within the union, you could say that she might have the most welfare-related background.

Policies include better health service provision, greater transparency of ‘The Scheme’ and more jobs available at the JobShop. Re: Health, she wants to create greater links with the NHS, which is definitely a good thing. I’m not sure how she will achieve her JobShop goal though. It entirely depends on what employers can afford to offer. Due to the state of the economy, the profits of many businesses go down and they have less work, which reduces the need for additional staff, whether it’s casual, part-time or full-time. This is a well known point, despite what Disabilities Minister Maria Miller says.

Grace is an Executive member of Conservative Future, which isn’t always a bad thing. It gives her a bit more name recognition and Conservatives have been elected as sabbatical officers in recent times (e.g. Jay Webster for 07/08 and Alex Hamilton in 08/09 – both became Union Secretary & Treasurer). However, the popularity of Conservatives isn’t at it’s peak at the moment.

Catherine Clothier (Nomination form – Click here, Facebook – Click here, Twitter – @CatClothier)

Catherine is a long standing member of LINKS. She has had three successive years on their committee. LINKS is also within the Welfare Zone, which provides her with relevant experience. The Committee experience should have also allowed her to interact with previous VP Welfares, which is an additional benefit. However, she isn’t a member of any large clubs or societies, which won’t give her much name recognition compared to the other candidates.

As for policies, she has followed the trend of not putting much on her form (three points related to improving awareness of services), but has put more on a Facebook group (a link isn’t provided on her form or a poster that I’ve seen). The additional points in that group also relate to increasing awareness of services, but it definitely helps that she provides some detail about how she will achieve the goals. She also wants to hold regular meetings with Welfare Zone chairs to get an idea of what they want to achieve. This can be done in already-existing ways, but it does show she wants to keep in touch with people’s views.

Summary and Conclusion

This is probably one of the longer posts that I will do in this series, but it’s simply due to the number of candidates and the areas that VP Welfare covers.

I’ve noticed that there’s a wide variety of experience, but not all of it is relevant. I also feel that there’s some questions that need to be answered. I do like the fact that there’s a strong focus on policy though.

The next post will be about the candidates for VP Sport.

So, what do you think?

At Hull University Union, there are various documents containing rules and regulations that particular people are expected to follow. It’s like any other organisation really. If someone breaks the regulations, then they should expect some form of penalty and will have to accept the consequences of their actions.

I have been made aware that one of the candidates in the race for VP Community (which I have covered here) will be dropping out  because of actions which triggered a motion of no confidence, which was discussed last night.

I am not willing to reveal my source for any reason, but I have no reason to believe that his information is anything less than accurate.

Charter items

The name of the candidate in question is Benjamin Croft – the Chair of the Societies Executive.

In the motion of no confidence document, there were 21 separate points that were examples of Ben braking the Executive’s behavioural charter. These points broke the following charter items:

• ‘2) Chair Societies shall delegate his work load properly and appropriately’
• ‘3) All meetings to be attended promptly and finish on time and 5) Other Meetings.’
• ‘4) SEC meetings:’
• ‘5) Other Meetings’
• ‘7) No member of the SEC or Union shall be made to feel demeaned, threatened, patronised or upset or that they aren’t free to/can’t carry out their duties to the best of their ability.’
• There was also points under the heading of ‘Further Evidence of alleged unprofessional behaviour

Specifics

The following is one of the two examples of his behaviour relating to charter item 2:

“A significant part of the Chair Societies’ work load is helping societies with Re-freshers Fair. SEC members can’t find any real evidence that Chair Societies has done anything for this in the new semester, except suggest a meeting be organised to discuss it on the 3rd January (which he failed to organise.)”

The second point expands on the issue of delegation and that organising Re-fresher’s fair was left up to the other members of Societies Executive, who weren’t left with a great deal of direction due to Ben’s absence. I know from experience that the Refreshers Fair is a big deal for societies and can help to boost their membership if publicised and organised properly.

There was one example relating to charter item 3:

“Chair Societies missed a meeting with John Chambers and Pippa Eveleigh and gave no apologies. It was then left to Pippa to email the SEC to arrange for them to attend our next SEC meeting as Chair Societies still failed to get in touch with them after the meeting had been missed. They attempted to call him numerous times as they turned up to the meeting which he did not attend.”

Pippa Eveleigh has been the Community Zone Chair this year and is one of the other candidates for VP Community. Jon Chambers is a Councillor of Scrutiny for the Community Zone. The specifics of the meetings mentioned above are irrelevant. The fact that Ben provided no apologies for not being able to carry out his duties are significant though.

There were four points relating to item 4. Here is one of them:

“Chair Societies continuously turns up to SEC meetings unaware of the action points that were given to him the week before so cannot tell us whether he has completed them or not. He was actioned to provide a box under the desk where the SEC could put mail for Communications Officer to organise which has still not happened.”

This demonstrates a significant lack of organisation. Whilst this isn’t the only time in history that a student has been disorganised, it seems that Ben has been like this on a regular basis and it relates to important matters. Another of the points relates to his repeated failure to order hoodies. A more detailed point was about the failure to send out a list of contacts when he said he would. Due to the tight deadline, another member of SEC sent the message via Facebook. Later on, Ben sent an email which appeared to be a verbatim copy of the Facebook message.

There were three points relating to charter item 5, including:

“President of Conservative Future Society had thought she had been ratified a while ago as she had sent the extra details of her executive to Chair Societies, these details were not passed on to secretary of societies. In the secretary report at societies council it was read out that conservative future was not yet ratified, the president came into complain the next morning as she had passed the necessary information on the Chair Societies.”

and…

“Chair Societies emailed unable to attend meetings due to illness but that evening went out socially and posted on Facebook about it.”

There were five items relating to charter item 7, including:

“It was on that Friday 9th, that Robert Campbell came into the office looking for Chair Societies to then explain he had yet again been on a night out on the Thursday night to Welly where he ended up in hospital for being so drunk. Not only does this look bad on the SEC as anyone who saw him knowing that he hadn’t been in the office for the past few days would think that we did not care about our roles and our social lives were more important. This act shows utter lack of respect for the SEC and the appearance that we strive for.”

Many of the other points in that section related to affecting the reputation of the Societies Executive and the Union, aswell as adding pressure to the work of others. Of course, this caused great concern.

There were six points under the ‘Further Evidence’ section which relate to previously mentioned matters, the breaking of confidentiality and charging a society money for the use of his services. The latter point was deemed “morally questionable”, even though there is nothing in the rules about it (I wonder if this will change in the future). The following point is also worrying:

“On the 12/12 Chair Societies approached me stating he still felt too ill to carry out his duties in the SAC, however, Chair Societies was to be found that night DJing for Computer Society at their VideoBash event.”

Finally..

Much of the above means that even though he campaigned for this position and was well aware of the responsibilities and regulations, he failed to carry out his duties for various reasons and did things that could be classed as morally questionable.

Union Council believed that he cannot carry out his duties and therefore had no confidence in his ability to continue. The motion was passed, but I am unaware exactly how many Councillors supported it. As I mentioned earlier, it is expected that he will drop out of the VP Community race. All candidates are bound by the UEC Code of Conduct during election time and after looking at sections 8 and 9, it appears that he is no longer eligible.

In my last post I mentioned the next post will be about the candidates for VP Welfare. Clearly, that has not happened, but I’ll be returning to my schedule as of now. My next post will be available soon.

So, what do you think?

My first two posts in this series were about the Presidential and the Education candidates. This post is about the three students running for the position of VP Community, which is a wide-ranging role that includes work with societies, media and multiple standing committees. The current VP Community is Tom Peel, who is in his second and final term.

The level of interest in this position remains the same as last year, when there were also three candidates (Tom Peel, Dave Helsby and Michaela Powell).

Themes and issues

Words used in the nomination forms of the VP Community candidates

Some of the more prominent words in the graphic above (generated from the text in the nomination forms) are to be expected. The candidates are also taking a positive approach, using words such as ‘increase’, ‘better’ and ‘diversity’. Mentions of the Street reps is frequent and the consensus is that have been a success and that needs to carry on. The candidates also talk about use of media outlets, such as HUU:TV, which I will look at later on in this post.

Compared to last year, there are some similarities in the campaign themes. There was also plenty of mentions of media, RAG and there was a focus on Street Rep implementation by Tom Peel.

Benjamin Croft (Twitter – @benjisan90)

Ben’s nomination form can be found here.

Before I get onto Ben’s reasons for standing, I should point out an important difference between his nomination form this year and the one he used as part of his (successful) campaign to be elected as Chair of the Societies Executive last year. If you read this year’s form, you’ll note that there’s no mention of a political affiliation. However, on last year’s Societies Exec form, you’ll note that he states he’s a member of the Labour Party. Obviously, there’s a chance that he could have become disenchanted with the party, but there’s also a chance that he’s either still a member or agrees with many of their views. Ben – if you’re reading this, I would appreciate a response.

If he does retain Labour links, he might expect some support from Labour members on the campus.

Naturally, he lists his Community and Welfare related experience, which could help him. He’s also part of a large department (Politics) which will make him well-known amongst a large group of people. However, he neglects to mention any policies. He’s taken a similar approach to Victoria Winterton (a VP Education candidate) by putting most of the information on a Facebook group (click here). I wonder how well-advertised this group is, because a picture of one of his posters doesn’t have a link and it’s not on his nomination form either. How will people be able to find this (potentially) important group?

In his group, he has some interesting ideas about media, such as improving HUU:TV, but not mentioning specifics and increasing the coverage of JamRadio. That issue with Jam is long standing (I remember it from my time as a sabbatical officer). I believe there were concerns about quality in the past. I believe Jam is good enough for widespread broadcasting though. Why not make use of your own resources?

It’s also nice to see a focus on the Scarborough campus. He’d like Hullfire to be more visible on the campus, alongside ‘Scarborough Tide’. It’s odd that this hasn’t been addressed before. The only concern I’d have is about printing costs. Also, the popularity of Hullfire at Scarborough would need to be consistently monitored.

Other policies include better visa information for international students, a standard membership fee for Scarborough societies and an extension to the Safety Bus route (this is a policy shared by Jon Chambers, one of the Presidential candidates).

Maureen Wanjiku (Twitter – @MaureenVP_Comm)

Maureen’s nomination form can be found here and she also has a Facebook group, which is here.

Like Ben, Maureen has put most of her manifesto on Facebook. She hasn’t put a link on her poster (at least not on the one I’ve seen) or her nomination form, which makes it more difficult to find the group and creates extra steps for those wanting to find out more after seeing her form.

Being a member of a large group such as ISA definitely makes her well-known and she has an additional advantage of being a member of the Athletic Union. However, I don’t see any evidence of substantial Community Zone experience. There is the ISA membership, but I don’t know how involved he has been with that. Hullstudent.com doesn’t mention her (or any of the ISA exec for that matter – apart from Komal Tariq) and she doesn’t say anything on her form or Facebook group.

As for policies, she calls for increased circulation of Hullfire and Scarborough Tide, as well as improvements to HUU:TV. Mauren also wants more awareness of all areas of the Community Zone. I would like to know how she would increase awareness though.

In addition to this, Maureen wants to create an Accommodation rep system, which would allow her to be more aware of any housing issues. Information would be gathered via surveys. I would be interested in knowing how the surveys would be implemented. I also have a concern about ‘survey fatigue’. Students already have to respond to a variety of them and regular accommodation surveys could be too much. This problem could be solved by reviewing other surveys and not making any of them too long.

Pippa Eveleigh (Twitter – @pippaeveleigh)

Pippa’s nomination form can be found here.

Pippa has plenty of experience in the Community Zone, including being Vice-Char and Chair of RAG (consecutive years) and being Chair of the Zone. This is in addition to her membership of an AU club and her being well-known in a large department (Drama). That and her political independence could make her one of the favourites.

Her nomination form is the only one out of the three to contain a comprehensive list of her policies and ideas. There are four main areas:

• Student Activities
• Street Reps
• Media
• Accommodation

Summary and Conclusion

An interesting thing worth noting is that while all of the candidates have plans for media, none of them list any experience with the likes of Jam, Hullfire or HUU:TV. Tom Peel held committee positions in both Jam and Hullfire when he was a student, which would gave him a greater understanding of their activities. It’ll be interesting to see if their lack of media experience is a factor in the future.

Even though their experience is varied, they have all clearly taken the time to formulate ideas for all parts of the Community Zone. This is good to see as not all candidates do this in their respective elections.

As usual, I welcome any comments – including those of candidates and supporters.

The next post will be about the candidates for VP Welfare.

So, what do you think?

In the first post of this series about this year’s Hull University Union elections, I looked at the candidates for President. Using a similar format, I’m now going to look at who is going for the VP Education position. For those old enough, you might remember it being called VP (Academic Representation). It was the job I used to have in the student union and the current VP Education is Matthew Barrow. He’s in his second and final year and the first of the two-term sabbatical officers at HUU.

Themes and issues

Words used in the nomination forms of the VP Education candidates.

Last year saw contrasting nomination forms and campaigns. Josh Hollands, the then-first year student based a lot of what he said on his campaigning experience (e.g. taking part in Hull Students Against Fees And Cuts). Talking about this at the time could have been beneficial. However, he neglected to mention any policy ideas on his form. It’s also well known that students who are further away from the centre ground of the political spectrum at HUU don’t always do well in the elections (Chris Marks being one of the exceptions – he is a former VP Education).

Matthew Barrow (the incumbent) had a more balanced form and his track record in the position helped him significantly. His policies focused on Widening Participation, further improving the Course Rep system and improving provisions for groups such as mature and part-time students.

This year, there are some similarities as well as differences when comparing the two candidates. In the wordle, we can see that the word ‘students’ features prominently. This is a good thing as it can show that their forms aren’t necessarily dominated by what they’ve done and the candidates have some focus on the people they’re representing.

Other prominent words include ‘standardisation’ and ‘procedures’. It’s a fact that the job of VP Education involves working with a lot of documentation and policies, so they obviously have an awareness of the role and a desire to make things more uniform. The frequent ‘use of the word ‘online’ shows a willingness to embrace technology in their work and ideas to improve the student experience. It’s also a general theme shared by the Presidential candidates.

Victoria Winterton (Twitter – @VictoriaPiaW)

Just by looking at her nomination form, you would think that she hasn’t got much to say or many detailed ideas. According to the form, her full manifesto is on Facebook (it can be seen here). When you look at the Facebook group, you notice that there’s a lot more. I don’t think this is the best strategy to pursue. Not everyone uses Facebook and that (potentially) means a large group of people a missing out on a lot of information. Even if someone reading the form does use Facebook, they aren’t necessarily going to want to go through the extra step of going to a web page to find out more.

On her form, there are four key areas:

• Communication
• Opportunity
• Representation
• Employability

“The Library is about to undergo a £15 million renovation, a long awaited improvement to the student learning experience. Whilst this is ongoing, I will ensure extra study spaces are provided across campus to make up for any lost when the library renovations take place. The Library is at the heart of many degrees I will ensure minimal disruption and be quick to tackle any issues you pick up on and find a suitable solution. “

Becky Day

Becky’s nomination form can be found here.

Becky has used the classic ‘big block of text’ approach to her form, which I have been critical of in the past because people walking by these forms won’t necessarily want to read it, compared to something with bullet points or something with creative formatting. She has emphasised certain words though, which can help to draw the attention to certain key areas of the text.

Whilst Becky doesn’t list any student representation experience, she has been involved with the AU, which (as I have said before) can be very important, especially if you are a member of a well-known club.

Part of her form focuses on her experience of joint honours programmes, which involve studying in multiple departments. Becky calls for more standardisation to avoid confusion for these students. Having better standards for submitting assignments is a clear policy. Jon Chambers also has ideas to reform the submission process and if they were both elected, this is something they could both pursue.

Becky also wants to help those who have mitigating circumstances, by utilising technology to e.g. provide recordings of lectures. Whilst this seems like a do-able idea, if this recordings were made widely available there’s a chance of an overall reduction in lecture attendance (an issue raised by academics in the past). There would have to be considerations about timing and access rights.

Another point worth picking up is that she calls for a better quality of education considering the fee increase. There is not a massive amount of detail for this point, but many students will agree with the sentiment.

Summary and Conclusion

Even though both candidates lack experience in the Education Zone/student representation, they have been involved with popular groups and will be well-known. They also have several ideas that are a mixture of old and new, but could be worth pursuing. Both also have ideas which work well with the ideas of some Presidential candidates.

The next post will be about the candidates for the position of VP Community.

So, what do you think?

Due to demand, I’m going to be covering this year’s elections at Hull University Union. It will be different this year as I am not on campus on a regular basis, which means I’m unable to do certain things. However, I will make every attempt to ensure that my coverage is high quality and comprehensive. As usual, I welcome any comments you have about any of my posts.

The first few posts will be about the candidates for each sabbatical position. After that, I will go on to cover the execs for the Athletic Union and Scarborough campus. Then I will be looking at other voluntary positions and providing further analysis. I will also be going into some detail about the voting process, as I don’t think this is explained enough. Then there will be the usual posts covering the results.

Anyway, this post is all about those who are candidates for the position of President.

Themes and issues

The words used in the nomination forms of the Presidential candidates

 The above graphic contains all the words used in the ‘Reasons for standing’ section of the Presidential nomination forms. This sort of thing can often be a useful way of picking up common themes or showing whether they address certain issues. The bigger the word, the more frequently it occurs in the forms.

What is noticeable is that several of the words are positive (e.g. ‘create’, ‘better’, ‘deliver’ and ‘free’). It is a sign that overall, the candidates do not take a critical or argumentative stance.

Accommodation seems to be a major issue once again, with words such as ‘landlords’ ‘Scheme’ and ‘Lawns’ being noticeable. Although it isn’t something that only concerns the President, it’s an issue that’s a guaranteed vote winner. For example, Ed Marsh (President for 2007/8) campaigned against accommodation closure. Last year’s election saw Aiden Mersh (current President) mention the continuation of wardens and house tutors as well as the creation of a housing assessment website (students would be able to upload photos and post comments).

Chris Marks (last year’s unsuccessful and controversial candidate) also mentioned accommodation, but it was to do with the ineffectiveness of ‘The Scheme’ (the housing accreditation system). Two of this year’s candidates also want it reformed – but all agree the performance of landlords needs to change. ‘The Scheme’ has a significant amount of landlord input and is not independent enough.

When I was a sabbatical officer we wanted to get out of ‘The Scheme’, but future teams felt there was nothing better, so it has remained in place.

Interestingly, one thing that seems to be absent from the above graphic is anything to do with technology. It’s interesting because two of this year’s candidates made points about it. This indicates that event though they have ideas, they aren’t necessarily willing to go into much detail about them. I’ll cover this particular point later on in the post.

Something else that is noticeable by it’s absence is anything to do with the library setup. Last year, Aiden Mersh gave up a substantial amount of his nomination form to mention this. There has also been prominent HUU campaigns in the past about extending opening hours and getting better facilities (you can still find evidence of the work Matthew Barrow (current VP Education) has done by going here). Although I’m aware there has been some progress with the Brynmor Jones and Keith Donaldson Libraries, I’d be surprised if there were no issues remaining at all.

Jon Chambers (Website – www.choosechambers.com, Twitter – @jonwillchambers)

In last year’s elections, the former Chair Campaigns and Democracy stood for the positions of Union Councillor and NUS delegate. He won in both elections convincingly, presumably based on his prominence in the union, experience and ability to create publicity that gets him noticed.

This year, he covers a variety of issues which include (full form here):

• Create HUU reps
• Landlord reform
• Increased WiFi coverage
• Extend the route of the Safety Bus
• Create an Alumni Association
• A new union magazine

As I previously mention, accommodation remains an important issue. Jon’s approach is to create an online ‘House Match Maker’. Unfortunately, I can’t find much about this service he promises despite the good coverage from Hullfire, HUU:TV and JamRadio. However, there is a tweet from @TheHullfire which says Jon believe it will give students the control, instead of landlords. I wonder how much detail has gone into this plan so far, because I can’t find much (Jon – if you’re reading this, please leave a comment). It’s not entirely unique either, as Aiden Mersh proposed a similar system last year. If it is put in place, it’ll be interesting to see if it works.

Another proposal on his nomination form is a new student union magazine. However, I wonder how useful this will be. There is no indication about possible content (not sure if this was covered at the hustings). Also, why not just work with Chair Media and VP Community to make Hullfire better? Having the one publication instead of two would minimise time taken up and reduce costs.

His Alumni Association idea is interesting as some clubs and societies have suffered from financial issues in the past. I’d like to know more about how he thinks this could be set up. Maybe he could work with the University’s Alumni Association.

There’s also not much about the HUU Reps. What will they do that is different from Course Reps and Street Reps?

Magid Mah (Twitter – @magicmagid)

Magid’s full nomination form can be found here.

Magid has a wide range of experience, including membership of the AU exec, President and Founder of a club, Chair of Union Council and a Course Rep (twice). Having this experience is valuable because it means that he is well known to several different groups of the student union membership. As we know from previous elections, being involved with the Athletic Union can also be important.

He seems to be fairly campaign oriented and wants to make use of new media and technology. Like Jon Chambers, he wants to increase the Wi-Fi coverage. However, (according to his form) Magid wants total coverage and Jon wants it at Halls of Residence and selected bus shelters. Whilst Magid’s idea is theoretically possible, there will be inevitable issues financing it and he will have to persuade the IT services at the University to do the work. Jon’s idea seems a little more realistic. I certainly know from my experiences at the University that the wireless networking can be flaky at best and non-existent at worst.

This difference of opinion was also on show at the Hustings. Interestingly, Hullfire (via Twitter) reported a slight change in approach from Magid:

A tweet from TheHullfire about Magid Mah

It’s unknown whether this is a permanent change of opinion, or whether this was just a mistake and he still wants total coverage.  I don’t know whether he realises he’d have to work with the university as well.

Dominic Brightmore (Twitter – @dombrightmore)

Dom’s nomination form can be found here.

Continuing with the IT theme, @JamRadioHull reported:

Dom's opinion about the Wi-Fi issue

This is reflected in his nomination form, as he focuses on reforming student accommodation, re-allocating university funding and making the ‘We Are Hull’ brand more all-encompassing. Interestingly, he is the only presidential candidate to mention the library – something that always concerns students. He doesn’t say much about this though.

His primary focus is accommodation. He wants a university financed version of The Scheme, no ClubEasy advertising in the student union and a clear ‘Good Landlord Guide’. Whilst I don’t disagree with reforming The Scheme and it is a popular idea, I would like to know how he thinks the university should fund it given recent funding changes. Removing ClubEasy advertising isn’t a new idea at all (Chris Marks mentioned this last year), but it is something worth considering. Having them as a major advertiser clearly shows a bias, but if their advertising money goes, how will it be replaced?

As for experience, Dominic has the least experience of the three candidates. He is a member of the AU though, which could be influential. He is also politically independent, which would appeal to the large community of students who aren’t politically affiliated. Sometimes, a concern is a candidate could push a party agenda instead of protecting the interests of the students.

Summary and Conclusion

Some of the candidates have a lot of experience (some is more wide ranging than others). All having policies about housing and there are different approaches to the use of technology. All have been active on social networks in order to spread the word and their campaign teams appear to be active.

However, as usual, some of the policies seem to lack in detail and some might be difficult to implement.

The next in my series of posts will be about the candidates for VP Education.

So, what do you think?

On the night of December 15th, 2011, it was announced that Seema Malhotra had been elected as the new MP for Feltham and Heston and the newest member of parliament for Labour. This was a by-election that was caused by the untimely death of Alan Keen, who had been the MP for that constituency since 1992. There have been many tributes to him recently and he was well liked by much of the population that he represented.

As this was another Labour victory (to add to the likes of Oldham East & Saddleworth and Inverclyde), they have been saying that this is a sign that the country is not happy with the coalition and that it’s time for a change. However, there is so much more to it than that, as I will explain in the remainder of this blog post.

Photo taken by Dominic Campbell (Flcikr, CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike)

The past and present

Many people felt that this would be an easy win for Labour, right from the start – regardless of who was selected. The constituency is in an emotional state based on the loss of a long standing MP and they wouldn’t necessarily want to change parties. It’s also worth noting that other parties rarely have success in the area:

There was only two elections that didn’t result in a Labour victory and that was during the middle of the Thatcher era. This is unusual given the left wing feeling about the former Prime Minister.

What’s more interesting is that Patrick Ground increased his vote share based on a larger turnout in ’87. As you can see from the other winners, the vote percentages go down, regardless of the turnout. He must have been popular. I can only think he lost in ’92 because of what happened with Thatcher.

After that Alan Keen remained the consistent winner, despite a declining vote share. Interestingly, that vote share matches the time when the turnout decreased. I think there is a stronger Conservative feeling in the area than what the results show, but they’ve become apathetic over time. If more effort had been put in by the Tory campaign team, things might be different.

The results

These are the by-election results:

There’s a number of things to take not of here. First of all, Labour (as expected) won.

Secondly, their vote share went up significantly, but this was helped by the under-performing campaigns from the other parties, e.g. the Conservatives (even though they have a history in the area). The biggest decrease was suffered by the Liberal Democrats, but this is to be expected given their performance in opinion polls since they formed a coalition with a party on the other side of the political spectrum.

Next, despite the successes of the centre-left/left in this constituency, the Greens performed poorly. However, ever since they started campaigning here (the first time was in 2005), they have always finished behind prominent rightwing/far right parties. It’s either due to their perceived credibility on a national level, or the number of core supporters in the area. With inconsistent vote shares of 2.2%, 1.1% and 1.8%, it’s hard to tell which is the major factor.

The second biggest gain was earned by UKIP. This is unlikely to be because of the candidate or the campaign in the area. It’s probably because of the widespread feeling towards European politics at the moment. The EU is UKIP’s main area of interest.

The acceptance speech

The full acceptance speech can be found here. The following are extracts:

“This result is a great victory for Labour which shows the progress we are making under Ed Miliband’s leadership, a vote of confidence in the way Labour is changing, listening hard, winning back the trust of the people we seek to serve.”

“But this is also a wake-up call for David Cameron. This result shows how this Tory led government is totally out of touch.”

This is where you start to notice that Labour are imagining things. Malhotra says this is a sign of progress. Yes, the voting percentage went up, but the turnout was only 28.8% – one of the lowest for an general election or by-election. If the voters were that desperate to show the strength of support for Labour, the turnout would have been much higher.

She also uses the ‘Tory led government’ line. I just wish members of the Labour party would accept the existence of the word ‘Coalition’, instead of trying to distort the facts. Yes, the Liberal Democrats have been weakened in some key policy areas, but they can still have an effect.

Roger Crouch (the Lib Dem candidate) had this to say:

“We have shown that we are still resilient and still relevant”

Despite the big decrease in vote share, they remained third, beat an increasingly prominent UKIP and remained more popular than the far right. Their decrease wasn’t a huge amount more than the one the Conservatives suffered either.

Alok Sharma, a Conservative MP, had this to say:

“The British people just don’t think [Labour] gets it. [Labour's] plan may be a Plan B but it is a plan for bankruptcy. This is a traditional Labour seat. Labour should be doing really well. We would expect them, in a standstill position, to be getting a swing of anywhere between 15% to 18%. Unless they do that they have gone backwards.”

Summary & Conclusion

It might be a Labour victory, but nothing has changed. Its not like they have gained a new seat. They haven’t done anything to increase voter turnout either. This result has done absolutely nothing to show that the people of Feltham and Heston feel that Ed Milinad is Prime Minister material. It’s certainly not a “wake-up call for David Cameron”.

So, what do you think?

Some of you will remember a post I did called ‘Caring for the Carers‘. I went through the history of the Carers Allowance, mentioned the present situation and also advertised my campaign. The goal is for Carers Allowance to be increased so that it equals the National Minimum Wage. In an era of austerity, I realise that it will be a challenge, but I wholeheartedly believe that the amount I am aiming for is something that Carers deserve. At the moment, they do a lot of work in an (often) emotional job and do not get adequately rewarded for their sacrifices.

One of the main aspects of my campaign can be found here. It is a petition on the government e-petitions website. I would really like for it to reach the target that will trigger a debate in Parliament. I would be grateful if anyone that’s reading this post could sign it.

I also have some other plans for my campaign which I am working on and will reveal in the future.

Another part of my campaign is getting as many case studies of actual Carers as possible. As I’ve never done the job, I feel that it will be valuable for me to get an idea of what they have experienced. This post features the first of the responses I have got so far. I’ll be posting others soon, as well as case studies of supporting groups and organisations.

Photo taken by Alex Raths (iStockPhoto, Copyright)

Q&A

This case study is about a lady called Sarah.

1) How long have you been a carer?

“I was a carer for 15 years ending in 2001″

2) On average, how much of your time is spent caring for a person each week?

“It was basically 24 hours a day, apart from one day a week, from 10am to 3pm, when Dad went to a Day Centre”

3) Is the person you care for a family member?

“It was my Dad”

4) What do you think of the quality of support given by organisations and groups such as Carers UK?

“Depends on the Group. Some groups are extremely understandable, caring and supportive, however, others are not. We had particularly good assistance from the LOCAL Branch of the MS Society (that’s was Dad’s condition). However, I have heard other MS organisations were not so good. I strongly believe, as in all areas of live, there are some organisations who are genuinely there for the people concernced, whilst others are there just for the money and the glory – they aggrevate me!!”

5) What are your opinions of the current state of the Adult Carers Allowance?

“Disgusting!!! Plain and simple. If it wasn’t for people like me in the past and all the current carers out there, the government would soon complain about the cost of caring for these people. We are saving them a fortune!”

6) Do you agree that the Carers Allowance should be increased so that it equals the National Minimum Wage? Why do you agree/disagree?

“Absolutely. It is a JOB afterall, so why should the carer receive a valid wage? Again, how much are we saving the government. People who have to claim Carers Allowance are doing the same job, if not more, than those who work in Care Homes and so on, so why should they not receive what is rightfully theirs??”

7) Is there anything else you would like to say about being a Carer and/or support for Carers?

“After my years of caring for my Dad, I now struggle with back pain, shoulder pain and arm pain. This all comes down to lifting my dad. I never had any training on how to lift, we are just left to get on with it. Nurses, carers and so on, are all sent on training courses for lifting and handling so they are no injured in any way. Where does that leave us??? Also it is a very isolated position to be in. Confidence is a low and Carers believe they are alone. It’s a very sad and lonely job but we do it because we truly love our loved ones and want the best for them.”

Analysis

Sarah’s story is one of the many examples of someone caring for a family member. This can make the situation incredibly emotional/stressful. Fortunately, it seems there was at least some occasions where she was supported and there was respite. However, that clearly wasn’t enough (as highlighted by her last answer).

Sarah also reminds us of an important point. Carers can (and do) save the state money. I will agree that increasing the allowance will affect that, but I am not campaigning for top-level executive-style wages. What I want is for them to be given the equivalent of the minimum wage as it will help each Carer’s financial situation and make others recognise that what they do is an actual job.

Summary & Conclusion

Lets not forget that Sarah was a Carer for 15 years. This is a long time of making sacrifices in order to make the life of someone else better. Many Carers will also have done the job for that long or more. There will be many who have done the job over a shorter period, but they still deserve to be recognised and rewarded with suitable remuneration and support.

As I mentioned earlier, I will be posting more of these case studies and I hope you find them both interesting and enlightening. To those of you who are deciding whether to sign the petition or not, I hope this helps to make your decision easier.

So, what do you think?

Ever since 2008, I’ve maintained an interest in the politics of Zimbabwe. The Presidential election that took place that year was controversial (to say the least) and there was plenty of violence and corruption. Robert Mugabe (ZANU-PF) was re-elected, despite the first round of voting being narrowly won by Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC-T). In the end Tsvangirai became Prime Minister and the Ministries were split between the two. However, Mugabe still controls much of the country using military force.

So, what’s been happening in the country since that election and the creation of the Global Political Agreement? I go into some detail in the remainder of this post because I think the people of Zimbabwe have been forgotten and plenty of work still needs to be done in the ailing country.

Photo taken by Pan African News Wire (found on Flickr)

Budget

The following is taken from this article in ‘The Zimbabwe Guardian’:

“LEGISLATORS in Zimbabwe’s Parliament have refused to rubberstamp Finance Minister Tendai Biti’s budget and asked for “considerable” time to analyze it.

Biti, who has presented skewed Budget statements before, thought this budget debate would be smooth-sailing like every other.

Most of his budgets have made grand promises on paper, but failed to deliver in real terms the amounts promised to government ministries.”

Obviously, for all nations, the Budget is very important. Looking at this article, you would think that Tendai Biti isn’t particularly good at his job. However, The Zimbabwe Guardian is government owned and is a long standing supporter of Zanu-PF. It is also a well-known critic of MDC-T. Biti is an MDC-T member, which explains the one-sided nature of the article.

Another thing to consider is the make up of the country’s Legislature. The Senate has a Zanu-PF majority and Zanu-PF Speaker. The House of Assembly (the lower house) has an combined MDC majority, but it isn’t substantial. This could explain why the Budget had stalled.

Later on in the article, there was this:

“The unity exhibited by MPs from MDC-T and Zanu-PF in refusing to debate the Budget was extraordinary.

According to experts, it is possible for MPs to force a rethink of the entire Budget.

“MPs have become increasingly discontented about Parliament being treated as a rubber-stamp institution by the executive.  What can they do if not happy with aspects of the Budget?” reads a post by parliamentary monitor, Veritas.”

This might make you think that the issues with the budget were legitimate. However, I could find no figures to justify this statement about “unity”. This article from the AllAfrica website also paints an entirely different picture. The reaction to the budget seems more positive and the negativity seems to be (mostly) from Zanu-PF. This article from ‘The Africa Report’ goes into more detail and states that most of the complaints are about the members of the legislature not being paid enough money and not being given enough luxuries. In short, it seems that the legislators aren’t in total unity and it’s mostly Zanu-PF (probably a few MDC members too) wanting more for themselves, instead of wanting to improve the nation.

Elections and reform

Elections are hugely important, but they never seem to go smoothly in Zimbabwe. Presidential elections take place every six years and elections to Parliament happen every five.

According to this article on Sokwanele, there has been no money allocated for elections in 2012 due to the current “political situation”. However, any elections next year would be out of sync with the normal schedule. The only reason I can think of for it being discussed is that it would show electoral reform is still considered a major issue by those who are in power.

Marriage scandal

Tsvangirai recently ended a short marriage and cited reasons such as media and state security intrusion. Of course this is perfectly possible, especially when you consider the Zimbabwe Guardian tried to brush off those claims. It’s interesting that Mugabe has actually supported Tsvangirai on this occasion, saying that under Zimbabwean law, men are allowed to have multiple wives and he hasn’t done anything wrong. This could be honesty, or it could just be a way of covering any manipulation of the media.

Mugabe

According to Times Live, Mugabe will be endorsed as the Zanu-PF Presidential candidate (once again) at this week’s party conference. However, it seems that there are some in the party who would like to see a change, but they feel intimidated by Mugabe loyalists. This is not surprising, but also worrying for the future of the country. Given the corruption that took place in the last Presidential election, he’s got a strong chance of staying as President well into his nineties.

“”The reality is most people want the president to retire but no one has the courage to break the ice on that issue,” a senior politburo member said.”

Summary & Conclusion

The Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) worked with Zimbabwe in 2008 to form the Global Political Agreement. The idea was that it would help to create peace and reform in a nation that badly needs both. It is now 2011 and very little has happened in both areas. There is still violence and corruption and no sign of it ending.

The world media seems to have completely forgotten about this country. I find it odd as there was so much media coverage a few years ago – not just about the election, but also about the weakening economy. Transition to an MDC government isn’t going to happen any time soon. There needs to be some form of action from other groups and/or nearby nations.

So, what do you think?

As many of you will know, trade unions are in uproar about the changes to public sector pensions that the Coalition want to make because of the economic slowdown. The PCS, which is a large public sector union, has produced a list of those groups who support the industrial action being taken on November 30th.

This week, there has been news that the GMB and Unite have also voted for strike action. These are two large and prominent trade unions that could add more weight to the argument that the proposed changes should not be implemented.

However, the trade unions want to mislead the public by claiming that the majority of their members have voted for this, when it is clearly not true. I blogged (here, here and here) and previous strike action involving the PCS and it was a similar story. Clearly, senior members want to strike, regardless of what the ‘rank and file’ think.

Copyright Xavier Arnau (a.k.a. xavierarnau, iStockPhoto)

GMB

The point couldn’t be clearer in this article:

“GMB MEMBERS VOTE BY 4 TO 1 MAJORITY IN FAVOUR OF STRIKE ACTION ON PENSIONS”

Sounds impressive, doesn’t it? Well, it does until you read further and find that there was a 33% turnout. This means the actual number of GMB members voting for a strike was relatively small and certainly not a majority.

Guido Fawkes has more details about the figures, noting that it was 83.7% of 33% who wanted strike action, which is 27.6% of the total membership. That isn’t exactly overwhelming.

The following is from this BBC article:

“Mr Strutton said the turnout was 33% owing in part to a large proportion of lower-paid members having not signed up to the pension scheme.

He added that the four-to-one vote in favour was “very clear” and he hoped that the government would take note of it.”

Even if a large proportion of members didn’t sign up to the pension scheme, they could still theoretically support their fellow members. Also, a union cannot possibly portray any vote as legitimate when 67% don’t take part. If they go on strike, this could quite possibly mean that people who aren’t part of the pension scheme and didn’t want industrial action are still compelled to stop working temporarily.

I should also point out that the GMB seem to be very slow in publishing the vote results on their own website, despite them being released to several news outlets very quickly. All it needs is one person to convert a document to PDF and make a small alteration to an (already published) press release.

Unite

There was also news yesterday that one of the largest trade unions in the country – Unite – had voted to join the other unions on November 30th. There membership base (according to their website) is 1.5 million. 75% voted for strike action. That’s convincing! Well, that’s what you’d think until you notice that the turnout was 31%. Assuming that the Unite membership figure is accurate, 31% of the membership is 465,000. 75% of that is 348,750. This means that 23.25% of the overall membership wanted industrial action.

That might be more than the entire membership of some other unions (e.g. the 290,000 strong PCS), but it is still not enough to make the vote legitimate in the eyes of many people. It also means that, like the GMB, many people who don’t want to strike will be compelled to do so.

Summary and Conclusion

It’s true that on November 30th, we are going to see a large number of people demonstrating against changes to public sector pensions. However, this isn’t going to be a long term demonstration and it’s unlikely that the government will change their stance. There needs to be reform in union voting. The small percentages mentioned earlier cannot be taken seriously. For a vote to be valid, there should be a turnout of at least 50% and if a union proposes industrial action, 50% or more of the membership must want it.

So, what do you think?

If you watch coverage the House of Commons, or even an edition of Prime Ministers questions, you will notice that debates can (occasionally) get quite heated. For some, it can be seen as a source of entertainment, but there needs to be limits. Politicians must maintain a certain level of professionalism and give the appearance that they’re taking the important issues seriously.

Unfortunately, you sometimes hear examples of what is known as ‘Unparliamentary Language’. A number of things can happen at this point. In the remainder of this post, I go into more detail about this type of language and why I think there has been a lack of decent punishment after it is used.

Photo taken by UK Parliament (Flickr, CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivativeWorks)

Definition

A full definition of ‘Unparliamentary Language’ can be found in the overly expensive Erskine May, which is an essential read for politicians and is also unaffordable for many members of the public. However, Parliament UK helpfully provides a detailed explanation, which can be found here.

“Part of the Speaker’s role is to ensure that MPs do not use insulting or rude language and do not accuse each other of lying, being drunk or misrepresenting each other’s words.”

Past Speakers have objected to words such as:

• Blackguard
• Git
• Guttersnipe
• Stoolpigeon

Punishment

If Unparliamentary Language is used, then there is a form of punishment. This is known as ‘naming a member‘. Normally, MPs would refer to each other as ‘the Honourable/Right Honourable Member for <constituency>’ and the Speaker using the member’s actual name is an indication that they have broken the rules. If they refuse to apologise, they suffer a suspension of five days. After that, it’s twenty days. If they refuse to apologise after that, the House as a whole will decide how long the suspension could last for. It could be as much as the remainder of the session.

A good Speaker of the House of Commons would ensure that discipline is maintained at all times. I consider John Bercow (the current Speaker) to be very good at his job, but I have noticed occasions where Unparliamentary Language goes unpunished.

An example of this occurred during the debate on an amendment about abortion advice, which was led by Nadine Dorries earlier this year. In this section, she said the following:

“I received a message informing me that the former Member for Oxford West and Abingdon had approached the Deputy Prime Minister’s office and exerted pressure. In fact, he tweeted exactly that, saying that he had applied pressure on the Deputy Prime Minister, who had now forced the Prime Minister to make a climbdown. Basically, a Liberal Democrat—in fact, a former MP who lost his seat in this place—is blackmailing our Prime Minister and our Government”

The key word in the above quote is “blackmail” – a well-known criminal offence. Going by the definition mentioned earlier, you would think that it would call for the Speaker to ask for an immediate apology. The accused (Evan Harris) might be a former MP, but he is someone who is in no position to defend his actions and Dorries did not provide any proof to back up her accusations during the debate.

Unfortunately, the Speaker did nothing. However, Martin Horwood quickly raised a Point of Order about that matter, which forced the Speaker to respond. This is what he had to say:

“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My understanding at present is that there has been no breach of order. However, I would say to Nadine Dorries and to the House that temperate language, moderation and good humour are the essential features referred to in “Erskine May”, and it is best if they inform our debates.”

He believes there has been no breach of order, but according to this definition, Points of Order cover breaking the rules and this would include the use of Unparliamentary Language.

He won’t be the only Speaker to make a questionable judgement like this and he won’t be the last either. The definition allows a certain amount of interpretation.

Contacting the Speaker

I sent message to the Speaker’s Office about the above example a few weeks ago and I got a response, but it wasn’t comprehensive. It was just a simple message that said the Speaker has ruled on the matter and he has nothing more to say. It’s true that the decision of the Speaker is final, but I would have prefered to (at least) be given some detailed reasoning for his judgement.

Summary & Conclusion

I definitely believe that there needs to be reform in this area. Disciplined discussion is important in a formal environment and if the public see and hear examples of Unparliamentary Language, it doesn’t exactly give them a great opinion of the quality of people that they elected to represent them.

So, what do you think?