My tale of me - Chris Jenkinson

I’m delighted at the reaction I’ve got from party members of Liberal Youth about my campaign and what I’ll do if I’m elected as Vice-Chair (Membership Development).

I haven’t put as much time into my campaign as I’d like as I’ve been busy helping the current chair of Liberal Youth Manchester, Kate Little, run for a sabbatical position in our Students’ Union.

As a sabbatical officer myself, I know I’ve developed a huge amount as a liberal, as a campaigner and as a person, and if I’m elected I’ll be a loud champion of encouraging our members to stand for election in your Unions.

I’ve also brought liberalism into my Students’ Union and the University (through introducing online voting so more students are engaged, making decision-making more transparent, and supporting widening participation so access to higher education is based on merit, not one’s social background).

I know the reputation student politics has, and some of it is deserved. But student politics also teaches valuable skills like preparing for meetings, holding others to account, public speaking, lobbying and campaigning. I want membership development to be more than just increasing the number of members on the books.

Elaine Bagshaw, who I’m backing for Chair of Liberal Youth, visited Manchester yesterday and spent most of the day with Kate campaigning. I’m proud to support her - she has done a fantastic job as Chair since she took office and I know she will do even more if re-elected.

I’m voting for Elaine as I know she has a plan. A plan which means more branches, more campaigning, more communication, more socials, more teamwork, more policies, more activists, more members, more elected young people, and a Liberal Youth of which we can all be proud.

I hope you support her too - please join her group on Facebook.

I’m running for Postgraduate and Mature Students Officer in the University of Manchester Students’ Union elections. Here’s the video I recorded for the campaign:

I’m running for a national position within Liberal Youth - Vice-Chair (Membership Development). The job description is pretty self-explanatory, being responsible for supporting branches, organising training and helping branches both grow in terms of numbers but also as people.

My full manifesto is available to read. Please show your support by joining my Facebook group or become a supporter on Facebook. I’m also on Twitter, and can be contacted via email at memdev@chrisjenkinson.org.

If you’ve got any comments about my manifesto or campaign please let me know!

I support a strong, independent, democratic and campaigning National Union of Students, which can effectively deliver results on issues students care about.

I am the Academic Affairs Officer in the Students’ Union, a full-time position, giving me a great deal of experience in effectively representing students and campaigning on issues students care about – like the environment, civil liberties, and tackling student debt.

I believe strongly in equality for all regardless of background, and do not believe that means-testing is a fair or equitable way in ensuring access to higher education. The 2009 higher education funding review is a critical opportunity for both current and future students. I support a free education, want to tackle student debt, and am adamantly opposed to any lifting of the cap.

I believe our government is not listening to the views of students and the country on climate change and that the NUS should lead a strong campaign.

I believe that ID cards are illiberal and unworkable, and are an expensive ‘solution’ to a nonexistent problem and that the government’s plan to impose them firstly on foreign students and then all students as a requirement to obtain a loan is appalling and systematic of their continual degrading of human rights.

I oppose zoning of students by town councils, and the selling of university halls to the private sector.

I support NUS reform, as it offers a strong solution to the problems that NUS faces. It keeps democratic structures while increasing our ability to campaign on key issues affecting students like the environment, access to higher education, and human rights.

If elected, I will vote according to what I believe is best for students and the NUS.

I was delighted when my proposal for updating the election regulations at the University of Manchester Students’ Union so that students can vote online in our upcoming elections was endorsed overwhelmingly at Union council on Tuesday evening.

It is simply ridiculous that students have to vote in a building miles from where they live and the other side of campus to where they study. It is also ridiculous that the times polling stations are open (10am-6pm) exclude hundreds of students from voting because they are working or studying. It is ridiculous to lecture to students about how important it is to vote when they would have to spend up to half an hour queuing to get a ballot paper.

If students cannot make it to the ballot box, we have to bring the ballot box to them. From now on, there won’t be any queues when students want to vote - they can vote from any computer. Students won’t be disenfranchised because they have to work to pay for their way through university, or because their degree takes them away from the Union. We’ve finally taken the step which needed to happen several years ago to bring in a voting system which facilitates voting rather than restricting it.

There was one dissenting voice in the vote - that of a member of the Socialist Workers’ Party. As usual, the SWP continue to be a barrier to democracy when it comes to the crunch - they claim online voting is “populist”. If it is populist to want more people to participate in Union democracy and decision-making then I am a proud populist - though I prefer to call myself a democrat.

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):

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.

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)?

The University of Manchester Student Union’s Council is an interesting contraption; it’s frequently criticised as being rather pointless. The obvious question is why is it pointless? I am going to attempt to answer that question, and propose some solutions. That question can be broken down.

Is Council pointless:
- because of its structure?
- because of its power/responsibilities?
- because it has few resources?
- because of its current members?

First of all, what is Council and why does it currently exist? The constitution defines Council as “sole representative of the student body of the University in all matters”. It has control of the Union’s property, and premises used by the Union, is responsible for the Union’s management, can bring legal proceedings, it oversees societies, and can borrow money. It can pass motions which are binding on the Union. That is quite a broad remit.

So why, at our last Council meeting, were the two motions discussed, while important, rather lacking in ambition and scope? Why weren’t any (if they were questions asked, they weren’t particularly memorable) questions asked to the Executive? If students who are actually on Council and therefore are (presumably) interested in the way their Union runs aren’t questioning their Executive, how can we expect “ordinary” students to take an interest?

Enough preamble! On with the problems.

Council’s structure probably acts as a barrier to ordinary participation. It’s on a Tuesday evening, when many societies hold their events, when many students do both academic and paid work, and some decent TV is on. Other than for society events, many students are unlikely to be around on campus. Would a Wednesday afternoon be a better time for Council members and students to attend?

It is only possible to submit written reports, and only executive members can do so (or do so). I believe having executive members giving a brief oral report summarising their written report would act as a way to facilitate more discussion and scrutiny.

In order for something to be discussed at Council, a motion must be proposed. There is no way to have a general discussion about an issue, or to have a non-adversarial debate. Not everything Council does has to be zero-sum.

Ordinary students aren’t able to contribute motions. The only way for most students to directly have their say in how the Union operates is at a general meeting, and past experience of general meetings is that only controversial motions get enough people to discuss them, leaving the supporters of uncontroversial motions (like lobbying against cuts in IT services or for environmental issues) out in the cold, meaning it is only with the goodwill of the current Executive that what students want will be done. If ordinary students were able to attend Council and present motions, I imagine the Union would have a lot more policy, and would be far more inclusive.

Is the way Council is formed appropriate? We have four tiers of membership, the Executive, “secretaries” for various positions (including Societies, LGBT, and Education), school representatives, and general members. Is this a good way? Is it fair? Perhaps having titles means that council members feel they can’t bring motions in another member’s “field”.

It might be better to abolish general members and secretaries, and have a proportional number of reps for each faculty or school. While positions like the disabilities or EM secretaries would be lost, they would be replaced with non-sabbatical executive officers for each liberation campaign (who would have responsibilities and a budget). Committees would still exist, just any title-specific role would be replaced by an election to those positions amongst all Council members.

Moving on, I can’t see how Council’s power or responsibilities limit Council. Council can basically do whatever it likes. But, do Council members know this, and if they do, do they know how to take advantage of it? If the Union had the money, Council could have ordered the purchase of Melbourne University Private (which I think would have been ironic). Is Council’s ignorance about what it can do holding it back? Perhaps it is because what Council members aren’t formally required to do anything other than attend meetings. I would recommend having formal descriptions of responsibilities for all positions, and making sure Council members can be individually held to account for failing to fulfill responsibilities.

Semi-related, Council would also seem to have all the resources it would need. So why do Council members pick up their agenda just before the meeting? Do people feel that the Union supports them in what they are trying to do? Perhaps the Union should provide more resources to enable Council members to research issues and present them before Council (photocopying, etc.).

Finally, is Council restricted because of its current members? I would say partly - Council meetings are hardly filled with passionate argument and are by no means setting the agenda for students in Manchester or nationally. But I believe that Council members this year would like to do so, but don’t feel able to, either because the barriers are due to uncertainty or because of barriers the Union has placed.

We can smash these barriers, but we require a change in both culture and structure.

I would be interested in proposing motions to Council (and constitutional amendments where appropriate) in order to make these changes. Thoughts welcomed.