I’m Chris Jenkinson, the Academic Affairs Officer (elect) at the University of Manchester Students’ Union.
May 7th, 2008 by Chris
I’ve written a guest article for the University of Manchester Politics Society titled “Winning a free education” - here’s a snippet:
We need a policy which enables campaigners and activists to reach out to less politicised students and allows them to take ownership of the campaign, engaging them and ensuring that even small actions taken are steps towards victory.
May 4th, 2008 by Chris
Apparently, to quote Dave Sewell on his blog Complex System of Pipes:
I think the message to take home is this: in Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield, where we could effectively canvass and reach out to people, Left List did very well. In London, no-one had heard of the new name, and still looked for Respect; where they saw the Respect name, that candidate did very well.
Interesting analysis. I couldn’t even find any candidates standing under the name “Left List” in Birmingham, let alone any candidates doing well. In Sheffield, the Left List stood one candidate (elections in 28 wards), who came second with 25% of the vote (the Liberal Democrats didn’t stand in the ward because of Labour dirty tricks, and probably would have taken many of the votes going towards the Left List and other parties).
In Manchester, the Left List stood two candidates, in Rusholme and Gorton South (elections in 32 wards). In Rusholme, they finished a poor third with 13% of the vote, just 30 votes ahead of the Tories. In Gorton South they also came a distant third, with 10% of the vote. If “very well” is a decrease of 5% that might explain Student Respect’s hilarious analysis of their routing in the students’ union elections.
The Left List are going nowhere in Manchester. Defeated in elections in both Man Met and Man Uni students’ unions, defeated in their attempt to ban military groups from campus, defeated in the local elections, and fortunately defeated in their attempt to force a restrictive free education policy which would only lead to defeat for all of us when the government’s review comes around. It’s hard to see how it could get any worse for the Left List.
Apr 30th, 2008 by Chris
I thought I’d put up a photo of the house of the election agent in Withington (south Manchester) for the Labour candidate (I live in the same house). Liberal Democrats winning here!
Apr 26th, 2008 by Chris
I doubt many of my friends at university or other people of a similar age across the country have permanently excluded a child from school. On Monday I took the rather heavy decision to expel a child from the school of which I am a governor. While obviously the details of the case must remain confidential, the child (who was only 13) had attacked a teacher and several pupils in the particular instance, but had a history of violence at the school. Myself and the two other school governors took the view that what took place was very serious and the child posed a threat to other pupils and staff and had to be removed.
While making the decision was relatively easy - there is a great deal of guidance from the government on how to judge the case - it has been bothering me for a while about the impact this will have on the child and how it will be possible for his life to get back on track.
There are two things in particular which I want to address - how the child got to this situation and what happens to the child now.
The child’s mother was present at the hearing. It was relatively clear that she was reasonably overwhelmed by bringing up the child, not helped by being a single parent. But she had also been let down by the health system. Often children with behavioural problems have underlying mental issues and it had taken several years for the NHS children’s services to investigate this fully with infrequent meetings and observations of the child, with treatment for ADHD only starting several days after the child committed the violence leading to his exclusion. While there had been nothing else as serious, there had been many minor incidents which may have been avoidable if the health service had diagnosed the problem more promptly, started treatment if necessary and informed the school of what actions they could take to help the pupil.
I strongly doubt that the staff working in the children’s services section did not do the best they could. I imagine it is a resources problem. But there is also a lack of joined up thinking with the school having to jump through hoops to get details on what action to take towards a pupil with behavioural problems from the health service (in the hearing a new letter from the health service was sprung upon us - if letters were copied to the school it would be far more helpful). How these services work together for the benefit of the children needs to be re-examined.
Keeping the child out of the mainstream school system is certainly not in his interests. Being outside the mainstream education system can easily lead to continuation of antisocial behaviour and for excluded children to become involved in crime is hardly unknown. Manchester City Council will be responsible for the education of the child yet I am told there are only around 300 places in the city for pupils with behavioural problems. Are there really only 300 excluded pupils in Manchester? Does Manchester City Council provide enough money to the schools where excluded pupils are looked after (called pupil referral units) so that they can properly help the children attending them so they do not fall through the safety net? I would be very interested to see crime statistics for excluded pupils in comparison to the general population (and have submitted a freedom of information request to find out).
In conclusion it was a challenging experience to be involved with. While the consequences for the child are severe and I wonder if at 13 he can properly appreciate that, I know that we took the only appropriate decision. Excluding a pupil is a last resort and the school had tried all other alternatives. There are several issues to be addressed on how to have more joined-up thinking on tackling behavioural problems. I certainly hope he can turn his life around.
Apr 12th, 2008 by Chris
I’ve just finished reading the book “The Undercover Economist”, by Tim Harford. Definitely an informative book and well worth reading carefully and critically. It rightly makes the point that those of us who are “capitalists” do not defend “big business” (which want limits on competition) but instead defend open and free markets (which ensure competition). It also serves as a reminder that many of the problems countries in sub-Saharan Africa and other lesser economically developed regions face is not “free trade” but instead protectionism inside developed countries (such as the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy) and corruption which stifles entrepreneurial spirit.
The book also contains an interesting section towards the end about how sweat shops (factories run by large multinational corporations in Southeast Asia, with worse working conditions and wages than in Western countries) are actually an improvement in working conditions for people who are employed there, and that Western calls to boycott companies making products in sweat shops are severely misplaced and cause actual harm to workers. I’m not entirely convinced by this argument so some recommended reading on sweat shops would be appreciated!
It’s not a stereotypical “dry” economics textbook, it contains real-world examples of applications of economic theory, and isn’t at all hard to understand for someone without any formal instruction in the field. Harford also has a new book, “The Logic of Life”, which is available now.
Mar 24th, 2008 by Chris
Backing a plan to bring in supplementary vote (having a first and second preference in an election) is hardly radical, as Jack Straw and the government seem to think. Supplementary vote suffers from many of the problems moving away from first-past-the-post should intend to avoid - many ballots will not be counted (in FPTP, any votes not for the top two parties are largely irrelevant; in SV, votes not for the three most popular are largely irrelevant). A huge number of votes are effectively wasted.
What would be radical is a move towards a fully proportional electoral system - one which elects candidates based on their popularity compared to other candidates (the Condorcet winner). A winner under a Condorcet election would clearly have a mandate being the most popular amongst voters - and there would be more of an incentive to vote honestly as all votes count.
I just thought I’d mention that I’ve been elected as the new Academic Affairs Officer for the University of Manchester Students’ Union for the 2008/9 academic year. The post is to represent students, individually and collectively, within the University, to advise students on education/academic issues, and to inform students about education issues.
It’s a full-time position, starting in June, and I’m looking forward to it (I have to graduate first though). Both my manifesto (PDF) and a video recording (QuickTime) of me saying what I want to do are available on the Union website.
I aim to have a more active blog starting from June explaining what I have been up to throughout the year in the position!
The results for my position were (the election was conducted under STV):
| Candidates | Votes |
| Chris Jenkinson | 1225 (1135 + 8 + 82) |
| Ketan Alder | 832 (661 + 7 + 164) |
| Abdul Hannan Ali | 479 (469 + 10) |
| Re-Open Nominations | 79 |
Mar 11th, 2008 by Chris
Not able to gracefully admit defeat, learn the lessons and move on, several members of the Socialist Workers’ Party at the University of Manchester have started attacking students for democratically booting them out. Dave Sewell, one of the few SWP members who will be on Union council next year has written a rather bitter message attacking students for “not being intelligent enough” to vote for SWP candidates.
As I’ve come to expect from members of the SWP, the blog allows no open debate - only “approved” messages will be displayed, so I’m reproducing what I wrote here (for the record, anyone can reply here and the messages will appear straight away):
This really is a load of bitter rubbish. Also, I’m surprised to note a substantial lack of criticism of myself - perhaps trying to get away with calling the Lib Dems pro-tuition fees is a lie too far even for the SWP?
“I say lost; politically, the victory was very much ours. When we got out talking to people, in interminable nights trawling the halls of residence and in countless lecture announcements, we would almost always come out with a hugely positive response.”
I got a positive response as well when giving lecture shout-outs, and when talking to students both in halls and on campus. By your logic I won the argument politically as well!
People I spoke to were annoyed with several of this year’s executive and the majority of last year’s sole focus on international issues, leaving them stranded when the University started cutting contact hours, began ‘teaching’ online rather than face-to-face, and closing departmental libraries. That happened when the SWP controlled the Union and look where that got Manchester’s students.
“Some positions were contested by non-Labour candidates, and many of these shamelessly mimicked our rhetoric, promising a fighting union and a free education, all the while conterfactually deriding the potential for radical mass action in favour of engaging with politicians individually.”
I think you’ll find there was just one sabbatical position contested by Labour Students.
In case this is referring to me, I’m afraid that just because one group of people believe something does not mean that other people cannot believe it either. I believe in a free education, so saying that I was “shamelessly mimicking [your] rhetoric” is entirely inaccurate.
Do you not think that we should talk to elected MPs then? Perhaps this is why last year’s executive didn’t achieve anything other than annoying students. I think that talking, debating and arguing with people who actually get to decide whether there will be a free education is a more effective tactic than attempting to overthrow them in a revolution.
“Needless to say, this was a crushing defeat. Although votes haven’t been counted for all the minor positions yet, it looks like the Left will have gone from a position of hegemony to holding just two insignificant posts on the Council (one of them by none other than myself, touch wood) and none on the Executive. The ruling party now control the students’ union that was most expected to challenge their policies next year, and the zionists now control the union with one of the most advanced campaigns for solidarity with Palestine. The implications could hardly be more stark. It hurts on a personal level too. To expend so much energy on what turned out to be a defeat felt like running an uphill marathon to the edge of some massive cliff with Sonic-the-Hedgehog metal spikes at the bottom and not stopping in time.”
The Labour party and the “zionists” control the Students’ Union!? I’m not sure that one out of eight sabbatical officers counts as “controlling”. There are twice as many Green sabbatical officers than Labour Students, but obviously people related to Jews must be Zionist (oh look, I’m Zionist too, and so’s Chomsky!).
“one thing I can guarantee - they haven’t heard the last of us!”
No, students won’t have heard the last of you, because this year we will be turning the Students’ Union around and show how much better it is when it engages with students. When officers are supported by the Union rather than restricted by its rules, when students can communicate and engage with the Union, when the Union delivers results on issues care about, we will be reminding people just how awful the Union was in the days of the SWP, so new students will never make the same mistake again.
Feb 3rd, 2008 by Chris
The public transport company Stagecoach, including one of its brandnames Magic Bus, dominate the student-heavy Oxford Road bus route in Manchester. Unfortunately Stagecoach isn’t a nice friendly company providing low-cost, environmentally-friendly public transport that students might assume, as it is owned by a man named Brian Souter. Brian Souter is well-known for donating between £500,000 and £1,000,000 to run a corrupt polling exercise in his (failed) attempt to stop the repeal of Section 28, a homophobic piece of legislation which, among other things, set back over 10 years attempts to tackle homophobic bullying in schools.
In addition, Stagecoach’s employees appear to have a culture of homophobia, with a gay couple being thrown off a bus in Aberdeen and a gay employee in Manchester recently made complaints about anti-gay comments going unchallenged by senior staff. Queer Up North have called for a boycott of the company until the company’s behaviour changes.
Not only does Stagecoach have a shameful attitude towards LGBT people, but Brian Souter paid himself over £1m in bonuses last year despite the massive rises in fare prices (usually blamed on “rising oil prices”). The company is a disgrace and people should avoid it as much as possible.
For students on the Oxford Road corridor, Finglands is 10p cheaper per single. It is also possible to get a free ride between the Royal Infirmary and North Campus (a short walk from the city centre). Please avoid Stagecoach, and join the group on Facebook calling for a boycott.
If you don’t want a motion to be debated or passed at a meeting, is it right to walk out of a meeting so that it no longer has quorum? I would generally say no, but on the other hand, is it right that turning up to vote “no” may actually lead to the motion being passed (cf. the monotonicity criterion - voting against something should not make it more likely to occur)?
Twitter Liberal Democrat blogs