U.S. Elections 2008 - up to Iowa

This is probably going to be the first of a few posts covering the presidential race in the United States. I've been following it very closely because I have an interest in US politics and something like this is internationally important.

First of all, below is a list of the candidates form the Democrat and Republican parties at the start of the whole process:

Democrats
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)
Senator Barack Obama(Illinois)
John Edwards (former Senator)
Governor Bill Richardson (New Mexico)
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)
Senator Joe Biden (Delaware)
Senator Chris Dodd (Connecticut)
Mike Gravel (former Senator)

GOP (the Republicans)
Mike Huckabee (former governor)
Mitt Romney (former governor)
Senator John McCain (Arizona)
Fred Thompson (former Senator)
Congressman Ron Paul (Texas)
Rudy Giuliani(former Mayor of New York)
Congressman Duncan Hunter (San Diego)
Congressman Tom Tancredo (Colorado)
Tommy Thompson (former governor)
Senator Sam Brownback (Kansas)

N.B. - There are other candidates, such as independents. However, under the current US system, they hardly get a chance to compete with the GOP and the Democrats. Typically, they have to have significant funds to get any sort of presence (notable non-GOP/Democrat candidates in previous elections include Ross Perot and Ralph Nader).

There can be numerous reasons for a candidate dropping out of the race to become the nominee for their respective party. For example, the candidate might have failed to raise enough funds to campaign effectively. Another reason is that they have had poor ratings in opinion polls and they feel that there would be no point going any further. Early dropouts from this campaign are Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo.

One reason for all of the early dropouts being Republicans could be that GOP approve most applications to be a presidential candidate. With the Democrats, they have a stricter system and don't approve an application unless they consider the person to have a realistic chance.

The campaigning has been relentless and I've noticed there seems to be a significant focus on funding (this link shows you the current funding levels for each candidate). I can understand this - more funding means you can afford more campaigning resources. However, the chosen GOP and Democrat candidates should not be decided on the money that they raise. It should be about policies.

That's why I was pleased to see Mike Huckabee finish top of the GOP caucus poll in Iowa as he isn't the biggest Republican fundraiser by quite a large margin. People have said this some of his success could be because of his religious beliefs and the fact that there is a highly influencial evangelical section of the US population (that point is mentioned in this article and also notes that Huckabee is a Southern Baptist minister).

One of the other GOP candidates, Mitt Romney, has a much larger amount of funding and finished second in the poll - 9% behind Huckabee which is quite a substantial difference. The former governor of Massachusetts (left the position on January 4th, 2007) was considered by many to be the front runner.

Another candidate who was supposed to be one of the favourites is Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York. He only got 3% of the vote and finished second bottom (ahead of Duncan Hunter). One problem I have with Giuliani's campaign is that he focuses on 9/11 too much. One person described it as '9/11 Tourettes'! It might have been an incredibly significant moment in modern US history, but it happened 6 1/2 years ago. He needs to comment more on other important issues, such as healthcare and the national debt. Yes, there should be talk about getting the US troops out of Iraq (how Bush linked Iraq to 9/11 is still beyond me), but it shouldn't be his only issue.

As for the Democrats, a few different prospects were offered. You could have the first woman President or the first black President. While it is good to see women and people from the black community entering the race, I don't think their gender or colour shouldn't be commented on so much or be the deciding factor. It should be about policies. However, in politics this is not always the case.

The Democrats seemed to be more focused on getting the troops out of Iraq, which will definitely please a lot of people - especially those families who have relatives that are in that particular country.

In the Iowa caucuses, it became clear that it's a three horse race to become the democrat candidate:

1. Barack Obama: 929 (38%)
2. John Edwards: 738 (30%)
3. Hillary Clinton: 728 (29%)
4. Bill Richardson: 52 (2%)
5. Joe Biden: 23 (1%)
6. Uncommited: 3 (0%)
7. Chris Dodd: 1 (0%)
8. Mike Gravel : 0 (0%)
9. Dennis Kucinich: 0 (0%)

The only shock with the top three is that Hillary Clinton finished third - previous polls suggested she'd be one of the top two. The doesn't seem to be much coverage of Bill Richardson's campaign at the moment. If the results from this caucus are repeated in the New Hampshire primary, I doubt he'll continue campaigning for much longer.

I thought Biden and Dodd would have got larger percentages of the vote, but as they haven't I can understand why they've ceased campaigning (see this and this). I don't think that Gravel and Kucinich will stay around for much longer either.

When events such as this take place, I am thankful for the internet's existence. The BBC TV news and other news organisations in Britain only mention the big/recognisable names, so you don't get a complete picture of what's going on. They never seem to cover things such as the remarkable funding successes of Ron Paul, or his unique policies.

Without the internet, I wouldn't have heard about Paul, Brownback, both Thompsons, Hunter, Tancredo, Kucinich, Richardson, Biden, Dodd or Gravel. Even after the Iowa caucus result, they barely mentioned John Edwards despite him finishing ahead of Hillary Clinton. I think they might have even mentioned Clinton more than the winner of the caucus - Barack Obama!

There also seems to be much more coverage of the Democrats. Maybe the people making the TV news think they have a greater chance of getting a candidate into the Whitehouse. That is not for them to decide though - they should give balanced coverage of both parties and allow the viewers to make up their own opinions. The internet might also have it's fair share of opinions and bias, but you can always look at multiple resources to get a more balanced view.

So, what do you think?

Technorati tags: USA, Politics, Election, Republicans, Democrats

The factionalised nature of the student movement

Student unions have been around for a long time and provide students with a number of different services. The University of St. Andrews Student Association, started in 1864, is the oldest in Britain. Since that time the student movement has seen a number of changes, one of the most notable being in 1994, when the Education Act was implemented. This defined the basic purposes of a union, the composition of membership and what it required to have in place.

According to the Act, this is the meaning of a student union:

"(a) an association of the generality of students at an establishment to which this Part applies whose principal purposes include promoting the general interests of its members as students; or

(b) a representative body (whether an association or not) whose principal purposes include representing the generality of students at an establishment to which this Part applies in academic, disciplinary or other matters relating to the government of the establishment."

So, student unions must represent their members in the areas of (at least) academic issues and welfare. This isn't just on campus - they also represent their members at conferences such as the NUS Annual Conference (which will become the Annual Congress because of the recent governance review). Therefore part of or all of the executive of a union must not represent the agenda of anyone else, such as a national political faction.

Why then, do I see things such as the presence of factions like Student RESPECT, Labour Students and Education Not for Sale at e.g. conferences? It's an interesting question.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having socities at student unions that relate to political parties and discuss e.g. national and regional issues from their perspective. However, if a student union executive is dominated by members of a faction and attempt to implement policies which always echo the views of said faction, it's possible that they are no longer representing the views of that university's student populus. This means they are contradicting the definition stated in the Education Act.

How can you stop factions from having this sort of influence though? It is certainly difficult. If it's obvious that the manifesto of a potential union president is faction-centric and not student-focused, it's up to the voter to decided whether that candidate is unsuitable. Due to the nature of student apathy though, it is more likely that factions get a foothold as their members will be the active few who are certainties to vote.

The only way is to get the apathetic majority interested in student politics, but without being biased. That balanced viewpoint will then lead to all unions being run by people who comply with the Education Act definition. It will also lead to a National Union of Students who is always student-focused.

Don't assume that I think the whole student movement is factionalised though. From my time in the student movement I have known many examples of executives and individual executive members who are active, but present balanced viewpoints. These are the 'independents'.

These people must not be confused with the 'Organised Independents (more commonly known as the OIs)' who ironically have the word independent in their name, but act as a group. Stephen Brown, the current National Secretary of the National Union of Students once made this comment about OIs on an entry in my now-discontinued education blog (it was difficult to generate enough education content worthy of a separate blog):

"We work together on common issues but do not take a line from an outside organiser."

Hmmm. They may not be influenced by a third-party, but they do come together on various issue and agree a way to approach them. That means they are a faction. Mr. Brown has managed to contradict himself.

I applaud any union who actively tries to eradicate student apathy. It might be a long and difficult task, but if nothing if done it's certain that the apathetic masses will grow.

The 'Vote 2008' campaign that Hull University Union is currently implementing is a great idea. Having something there from the beginning to the end of the academic year means that minor elections get more prominence and there will potentially be interest growing throughout the year which results in an increased voter turnout for the major union executive elections.

Maybe I seem old-fashioned, but I believe that student union executives should comply with legislation and represent the views of it's members and work on issues that are relevant to them, instead of executives being proxies for national political factions.

So, what do you think?

Technorati tags: Students, Politics, Student Unions

The Men's Officer Referendum

First of all I think I need to explain why a referendum is happening. In the recently revised Constitution for Hull University Union, it states that Referenda decide union policy and the Open Policy Forums (that any student can attend) decide what goes to a referendum. A number of these happen throughout the academic year. Any policy decided by referenda lapses after three years (this means that it stops being a piece of union policy).

Now for the subject of one of the votes - the abolition of the Men's Officer. The minutes of the Open Policy Forum where this was originally proposed can be found here(November 19th) and the relevant section is below:

"For:

1. There is no need for a Men’s Officer as this diminished the effectiveness of all the other liberation campaigns.
2. Men are unfairly over-represented in both society and the structure of the Student’s Union.
3. Issues in the Men’s Officer remit can be easily dealt with by the Health Officer and HUSAC.

Against:

1. Men are discriminated against in society, for example, job quota filling and higher unemployment rates.
2. If there is no Men’s Officer position then there is no support for men who are victims."

It's also important to note that the National Union of Students doesn't have a Men's Officer and a lot of people within the NUS don't believe one should ever exist (I know this from my time as a sabbatical officer at HUU and the fact that the NUS Women's Officer - Kat Stark - is signed up to the Facebook group approving the abolition of the position).

Now I'll address the points raised in the Open Policy Forum.

"...diminished the effectiveness of all the other liberation campaigns."

I'm not entirely sure how this could happen. The other liberation groups are Women, LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender), Disabled Students and Black Students (those four are the NUS Liberation campaigns too). All committees/officers have clearly defined job descriptions in the student union standing orders. The Men's Offer does not represent women. That person does not represent men on issues covered by other campaigns either.

"Men are unfairly over-represented in both society and the structure of the Student’s Union."

Was the second part of that point made because the current Union Executive Committee has eight men and two women? That didn't happen because women were oppressed. In some of the previous executive committees there have been equal numbers or more women than men. For instance, in 2004/2005, there were four men and four women. In 2005/2006 there were five women and three men. The executive teams were elected because the voters felt that they had the necessary skills and experience to do the job well.

The student union also has a long-standing equal opportunities policy which states everyone can join any clubs and societies. This means that there are no instances of women being prevented from joining. Both men and women can go for executive positions in clubs and societies too . For example, the current President of the Drama Society is a Woman. The current President of the Labour club is a woman.

So, what about society? Well, first of all, the positions that are being talked about in this post do not have a responsibility for the whole of society in England (or any other country). Those positions have a responsibility to represent the relevant group(s) of students at the University of Hull. Secondly, there are plenty of examples of women in high ranking positions all over the world. For example, there is a female member of the University's Senior Management Team and there are several university departments that have senior members of staff who are female.

Outside the university, there are even more examples. Angela Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany, the Queen is our sovereign, Hillary Clinton is a potential future President of the United States. Condoleezza Rice is the US Secretary of State and Nancy Pelosi is the current speaker in the United States Congress. You might also remember Margaret Thatcher - one of our former Prime Ministers.

Remember the 'Blair Babes' from 1997 when Tony Blair was elected as the Prime Minister? There were celebrations about how many women were in positions of power. That doesn't seem like an example of women being oppressed to me.

"Issues in the Men’s Officer remit can be easily dealt with by the Health Officer and HUSAC."

Interesting point. I agree that it's logical for men's health issues to be managed by the Health Officer. However, they've defeated themselves by mentioning the Student Advice Centre (HUSAC). This is because they could also deal with some women's issues and some matters that are covered by other liberation groups. Surely this means that there is no need for a Women's Officer too!

"Men are discriminated against in society, for example, job quota filling and higher unemployment rates."

This is definitely true. In a Guardian article from 2005, it was reported that the Hansard Society felt that all-women shortlists are the only way to increase the number of women in the House of Commons. However, using all-women shortlists means that men are prevented from going for a particular position, which is a form of positive discrimination.

There are plenty of examples of women being strategically positioned around the PM during Prime Minister's Question Time to highlight the fact that Labour includes a number of women. However, preventing some men from sitting where they want because they are a man is a form of positive discrimination.

A Men's Officer is required within Hull University Union to ensure that there are no examples of positive discrimination.

"If there is no Men’s Officer position then there is no support for men who are victims."

True. What about men who are abused by women? The Women's Officer doesn't deal with that. There needs to be representation for men.

As you can tell, I believe that there should be a Men's Officer. You couldn't have one officer represented both genders so it's sensible to have one for each and then both genders feel that they have representation.

So, what do you think?

Technorati tags: Equality, Liberation, Representation, Democracy