Right-Wing Victory in UCD SU elections

by Starstruck - DGN Fri Mar 03, 2006 22:35

It saddens me to read these results from here in the U.S.
UCD had gained a well-earned reputation for activism in student politics
and larger social struggles over the past few years and much of the good work
involved was spearheaded by the S.U.
The level of productivity declined greatly this year as a Fianna Fail fencesitter and two weak
liberals were elected and this is merely solidified by todays results.
My comiserations to Enda and Kate,I am sure a strong campaign was fought by both,alas the
appeal of centrist politics,white wristbands and pop concerts is a powerful force these days.
Solidarity to the defeated Left candidates.

by leftywatch Fri Mar 03, 2006 23:03

I thin k thats disgusting to dub certain member of Dan Hayden's team as "rogue labour members". In fact i admire them that they did not go fopr the easy option and back Enda Duffy, as they clearly felt he was not the best man for the position, and given the size of the defeat, it is possible that he is not the right man at all. In fact there is an exceptional chance that the so called "hard left" are dead in UCDSU.

by Darragh Fri Mar 03, 2006 23:07

Fools get what they vote for.

It'll be a dark year for UCDSU.

by Gaz B -(A)- Fri Mar 03, 2006 23:24

I always wondered why anti-union FF right wingers stood for union elections. In an interview with a college paper the FF welfare officer elect didn't even know if it was legal for a womyn to travel to england for an abortion.

by lefty Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:35

when you overstretch your position.

by evening student Sat Mar 04, 2006 15:05

Well has anyone got the breakdown of the counts ?

I voted for Orla but the Duffy team were hardly helped by the helpful member of his campiagn team that removed posters on campus, which did annoy a few ordinary voters

also Enda seems to be against everything and for nothing

by UCDSU Anarcho-Syndicalist Sat Mar 04, 2006 15:20

" In fact there is an exceptional chance that the so called "hard left" are dead in UCDSU. "

I don’t agree with your point. Even tough the soft liberal Dan Hayden got in with a few other “nice people” who wont challenge the college, there is always hope. I believe that you will have an increase in dissent from students that will lead to a strengtheing of "hard left" values in people. By how much, who knows? I believe the mis-guided sabbitical officers of UCDSU will be detached from this.
Where you have a corporate university like UCD, you are going to have reactionary elements to it of a political nature (socialists, anarchists, etc) and of a social nature (Undemocratic college nature like top down bureaucratic control being a factor to student and staff apathy). The intensity of the co modification/commercialisation of education in UCD will only intensify resistance. For example, the organised protests about the lack of consultation of the college managerial elite to consult staff and students in relation to the pushed reforms of modularisation and semesterisation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_Dublin_...ublin)

Although the UCDSU defeat yesterday is bad, student and staff will continue to struggle on the ground. Again, we are the underdogs. Yesterday, just re-affirms that point.

by Conor.J. McGowan - Irish Socialist Network (personal capacity) Sun Mar 05, 2006 13:21

Enda and Kate’s defeat was a disappointment for all activists on campus, but I think that people have lost all sense of perspective over SU elections.

Dan Hayden and the people around him are irrelevant. There are a few ultra-liberals in his immediate circle, but nobody with a distinct, interesting, or relevant political analysis. Dan himself is as politically and critically neutral as his soppy victory speech. He, and the coffee drinking wristband wearers in his circle are the embodiment of what Tony Benn referred to as “lazy liberals who make up for their lack of radicalism with an assumed eccentricity”. From what I could gather, the vast majority of his team were apolitical students – on the other hand, the majority of Enda/Kate’s team were active students who seem to have become more radicalised over the course of the campaign. If only for that reason, the SU election has been more of a success for the left than the poles indicate.

The first election I was involved in (Finn Vs Hourihan) was rounded up with a count attended by 10-15 people. Dan Finn (Socialist) lost the election, and 4 months later the government (just after winning their own election) proposed the reintroduction of 3rd level fees. With absolutely no support from UCDSU or USI, the Campaign for a Free Education (CFE) - a genuinely radical network of students - emerged to fight fees: and it won.

Over the following months, we harassed every minister that entered campus, blocked the Stillorgan dual carriageway, protested to college authorities, shut down government buildings, and forced the woefully passive USI leadership down a moderately more radical direction than dumping rubber ducks in the Liffey (their initial response). The CFE was mainly made up of members of the Labour left, Socialist Party, SWP, SA and assorted non-aligned anarchists and socialists.

While the Students’ Union leadership proposed a softly-softly approach to dealing with the issues (asking the minister kindly, that sort of thing) and the University Observer editorialised against the various demonstrations, the CFE grew in numbers and strength. Although the CFE didn’t act alone, it raised the issue of fees time and again – along with offering a clear and radical approach to defeating the government. The political unpopularity of fees soon resonated in government buildings, and the then minister (Noel Dempsey) was forced to capitulate to most (but not all) of the demands of ordinary students.

Although the CFE won the majority of its demands from government, its struggle was more important than its victory. The CFE succeeded in radicalising a large amount of students in UCD. After various splits and internal fighting, CFE candidates won nearly all major Union sabbatical elections for 2 consecutive years. To me, this was of limited importance. It is important to have the support of union bureaucrats and money, but it is far from essential.

The conditions for radicalism don’t exist in UCD at the moment. There is a solid activist base in Belfield, but the limited conditions for radicalism generated by the overt reintroduction of fees has past. Most of the people radicalised during the CFE years have left or will soon be leaving college.

The conditions for radicalism in UCD are similar to the time of the Finn/Hourihan election, but there is a much stronger activist base on campus now, then there was then. As I looked around the count centre on Friday, I was struck by the fact that there were 100-150 people there.

The majority of those gathered were hacks (in the worst sense of the term). People who live off a union bureaucracy for their own reasons, with nothing meaningful to contribute either way, and without the will to change the conditions of students – let alone anyone else!

The people with a clear analysis of society, the ambition and ability to change it were exclusively in the Enda/Kate corner.

We cant expect the liberals (or indeed, the many naked reactionaries) in UCDSU to support a “strike first, talk later” approach to Union affairs, and when an election is decided on the tactics rather than policies to bring about change, the wolly headed everysexual is always going to beat the radical candidate.

To equate loosing sabbatical elections with loosing the fight for radicalism on campus is wholly wrong.

I am confident that the left will continue its strong tradition in UCD. As a dear comrade from the Socialist Party is fond of saying about union bureaucrats “support them when they fight, fight them when they don’t”. The Socialist struggle will continue in UCD – inside and outside the Union.

by Proper Lefty Sun Mar 05, 2006 15:11

Yes indeed Conor, while Enda was an good candidate, one member of his team became so active that he ripped down many of Dan's posters. Just because the man in question is a good activist or whatever cannot legislate for what he did. Id rather have a team of "lazy liberals" than a few cheating bastards in the rank. Activist or no we need a leader who will build a relationship with the college while initiating radical change, and its bullshit if you believe that the two cannot go hand in hand.

by Conor. J. McGowan - Irish Socialist Network (ISN) - Personal Capacity Sun Mar 05, 2006 15:34

For those not in the know: A single member of Enda’s campaign team ripped down posters while drunk a week prior to the election. The returning officer punished the Duffy campaign, and posters were confiscated. To colour the team as “cheating bastards” is false, and a substitute for discussion of the salient issues in our union. I wasn’t heavily involved in the campaign – maybe someone else can fill in the exact details about numbers, etc.
“Proper lefty” if you want me to take you seriously then come out from behind your pseudonym. Until you do, I’ll assume you are “proper” in the same way that one of Frank Butchers second hand motors is, and a “lefty” in the same way Nick Cohen is (without the intelligence, mind).

You fail to respond to the thrust of my argument, and provide opinion with no backup. After providing a real name, maybe you’ll provide a real reason why its “bullshit” to think that a relationship of any kind with the Tatcherite college authorities can be maintained by a radical union leadership.

I don’t expect you will. Instead, I expect the kind of fashionable liberal analysis that so many simpletons about campus subscribe to, expressed behind a false identity with characteristic gutlessness.

Lotta Continua.

Idiots Never Learn.

by Gaz B - -(A)- Sun Mar 05, 2006 15:39

"we need a leader who will build a relationship with the college"

This kinda shite makes me laugh. Hugh Brad has publicly stated he's in favour of the re-introduction of third level fees. What the college admin want and what students want are at total odds with eachother. We've seen through social partnership that these cosy relationships usually favour those in power, to the detriment of those under it.

Students don't need a leader, they need to get involved in taking it upon themselves to organise campaigns and to get active rather than waiting for some knight in shining armour to come and solve everything for them.

in reference to what conor was talking about - http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=34860&tim...04400

by UCD student Sun Mar 05, 2006 16:28

A single member ripped down posters while drunk....?

Yeah right. He was cought so the obvious excuse is to say he was drunk. You have to be delusional to believe that he was acting alone.

Hayden won cos he was a far better candidate. End of story. He will be the best president we ever had. He won by a landslide too.

Fair play to all those who ran. Next year will be the best SU ever.

Up the centre!

by Emma Sun Mar 05, 2006 16:51

lets hope no-one with a crisis pregnancy goes to the welfare officer for advice.

by Class rep Sun Mar 05, 2006 17:08

Single member, ya, but Drunk too? Now you're talking the piss. I've seen the cctv footage and he looked like he clearly knew what he was doing, strolling up to the Dan Hayden poster and taking it down, making sure as not to rip the one beside it. And come on no ones gonna get through around 200 posters in one "drunken" night

Where as now for the new sabbats. Congrats to all of them getting it but I think this team will make the soppiest union as of yet with a real "Lets all solve our problems by giving everyone hugs" approach to everything. Dan, Dave, Brian and Barry will literally welcome people with open arms and I think will treat the college authorities the same. I don't think it'll get us anywhere and won't be as good as this years union. Only time will tell though and I wish them all the best and hope that they can do a better job

And for the information of others, Dave Redmond won the re-count by 9 votes. Thats 0.2% of the over-all votes

by ex ucd Sun Mar 05, 2006 17:22

As a class rep who attended class rep training two years ago when Dillon+Regan where in office, Dan Hayden declared to me that he was going to run for president at some stage. He then proceeded to tell me that he hated politics, and i asked him, why was he a class rep, he replied half jokingly, "because this is where the power is". Me, as a final year Science student paid little attention to what i thought was a jumped up naive first year, he was drunk, ranting on about some shite, in fact, i said to myself after our conversation that this little self centred apolitical type of student is precisely what ruins the potential of the student union. Alas, he is now president, perhaps i was the naive one to think that he would never succeed, never underestimate the power of self centred power triping ego's!

by Arts student Sun Mar 05, 2006 17:44

''Up the centre!''

Interesting cos a couple of months ago young hayden told me that he was a ''very left wing'' presidential candidate, has he moderated his tone as part of his deal with the fianna failers.

by Gaz B - -(A)- Sun Mar 05, 2006 17:53

I remember Charlie Kennedys election rhetoric - "not left, not right but liberal.", ie what ever get votes.

by politics student Sun Mar 05, 2006 18:07

It never ceases to amaze me the angry left's ability to demonize everyone who opposes them. Dan is literally one of the nicest and most popular guys in UCD. He is honest, hardworking and would never hurt a fly. The fact that you losers can work yourselves up into disliking him is absolutely hilarious and reveals how twisted you all are. Ah well your time in power is over. Good bye anger, hello sanity.

Alan Morkan absoultely disgraced himself being cought red-handed sabotaging an election campaign. It is very unlikely however that he was acting alone given the sheer scale and systematic nature of the sabotage.

Next year's union will be the best ever. The new constitution will mean even more participation than this year and all of the new sabbats are solid and hardworking. The fact that 2 of them are sabbats this year means a good deal of experience will be carried over.

The fact that the new council will be much bigger will mean the union will not become dominated by an unrepresentative minority of either the left or the right, but will be more in touch with the views of students.

So happy days altogether

by Emma Sun Mar 05, 2006 18:16

"Next year's union will be the best ever..... 2 of them are sabbats this year "
sounds like more of the same to me.

"The new constitution will mean even more participation
some new words on a piece of paper is hardly going to get uninterested students involved.

"The fact that the new council will be much bigger will mean the union will not become dominated by an unrepresentative minority
Size doesn't matter!

by Nothing to do with UCD students Sun Mar 05, 2006 18:24

Funnily enough, several people seem keen enough on this Hayden chap to post in his defence. But none of them has enough confidence in their opinion to sign their real name. Why is this?

by J Sun Mar 05, 2006 18:27

As somebody wise once said..

If the people make the wrong choice? Well then, we must change the people.

by Paula Sun Mar 05, 2006 18:46

The irony of your post is obviously lost on you, given that you are yourself posting from behind a pseudonym.

As for people having confidence in hayden, well he won by a landslide so obvioulsy people do have confidence in him.

by Patrick Thomas Carroll - West Ham United FC Supporters Club Sun Mar 05, 2006 19:04

I think we should simply congratulate those who proved victorious and commiserate with those who didnt get elected. This kind of debate over the left and the right is really silly. As long as the elected sabbats do a good job for the students i really couldnt care less. If we can mix rational debate with strong action (such as Enda's co-op) we can have an exceptional union regardless of whos in charge. At the end of the day the buck stops with the students, and if we can do things to promote a better educational experience for the students, we have accomplished something. Bitching about Right Wingers, Liberals and Lefties does noting for the union accept promote the clequish steryotype which is synonomous with the union. Dave Curren must be commended for the excellent job he has done for the union. I say that because he has involved more people in the union than in any of my years in college. Last week 56 out of 82 members of council turned up for the meeting. Something productive has clearly been done. Furtheremore, Dave has an excellent working relationship with Dan Hayden which will be of benefit for the students. It is counterproductive to have a president and the Deputy at loggerheads over very trivial issues (for the record im not saying that Orla or Enda have or would have a poor working relationship with Dave).

I for one say congratulations to the winners and well done to all defeated candidates for having run an excellent race. UCD had an abundance of choice of excellent candidates, and i hope, for the benefit of all UCDSU members, that the right people have been selected. Also, i think its excellent that all constitutional amendments were carried. As many people will have seen i was helping Pierce and Abey out last week. I jumped on the bandwagon because i felt it was an excellent chance to increase representation and accountability.

Heres To 2006-2007 !

by Conor.J.McGowan - ISN - p.c. Sun Mar 05, 2006 19:09

The Pro Hayden camp (still unidentified) are undermining language in an effort to stifle honest analysis and debate.

“Angry” left Vs “Sane” “Centrists”
“Losers” Vs “Popular, Nice guy”
“Twisted” Vs “Never hurt a fly”

I’ve no personal problem with most of the people around Dan. His mannerisms and metro/retro sensibilities irritate me, and I find him boring. I don’t hate him. I haven’t met anyone on the radical left that “hates” him, or has any serious problems with his campaigners. Most of the people around him are equally mawkish and even more politically naive. Hardly the kind of characters that one would bear grudges against (compared to Hourihan and the like).

The people who anonymously post such stuff up are trying to promote an artificial schism based on personalities rather than politics. This is an effort to avoid the articulation of any analysis by liberals – I can only assume the reason is that they have none.

Alan Morkin did not disgrace himself. He ripped down some posters for a Toy-Town election when drunk. The Duffy campaign team were punished for it. Don’t loose any sense of perspective here. To me, the only people who disgraced themselves in this campaign were those who returned to the shoeshine days by wearing sandwich boards with the candidates’ posters on them. Some people have no sense of self-respect, it would seem.

by Nothing to do with UCD students Sun Mar 05, 2006 19:21

Paula, it seems as if your understanding of irony is as primitive as that once displayed by the ghastly Alanis Morrissette. I have no interest in expressing an opinion about Hayden (don't consider him important enough to bother) so I'm under no obligation to sign my name to a non-existent viewpoint. However, people who do feel so strongly that he is a wonderful person, and are happy to throw mud at his critics, should really have the confidence to sign their real names. Again, I wonder why they don't?

by Elisa O'Donovan Mon Mar 06, 2006 13:16

I for one am not ashamed to say that I was delighted to see Dan Hayden winning by a landslide on Friday.I am astonished at some of the things that have been said on this thread abouth the newly elected sabbatical team.
I am a fourth year medical student and was heavily involved with the election as I was nominated to run for the welfare position but had to withdraw due to personal reasons.
This is the first year I have been actively involved with the union since I started college in 2001.I have worked closely with Dan Hayden throughout many welfare campaigns this year.He is everything that a student president should be.He holds strong principles and has the students best intrests at heart.It makes me laugh to read that Conor McGowan condems Haydens supporters for calling him 'a nice guy' and 'he wouldnt hurt a fly' when all Mr mc Gowan can say about Dan himself is that 'I find him Boring' and 'he irritates me'.Maybe you find him boring because he works extremely hard behind closed doors to get things done for us students.Whereas Enda Duffy just parades witha placard making a lot of noise and ultimatly achieves nothing.
I am shocked by Emmas statement 'Lets hope no one witha crisis pregnancy goes to the welfare officer for advice'. I sincerely hope ANY girl reading this thread from UCD does not listen to this advice.Knowing Barry Colfur well at this stage you really just can't compre him and Michelle Killeen.Michelle maybe a 'nice person' but just has absolutely no clue about serious welfare issues.This was reflected quite obviously in her observer interview where she dangerously replied that informatiuon on abortion can be found on the internet.Barry is somone that has a lot of experience with Aware and other such organistaions,something which I think is important for the welfare officer to have.To be honest I would be terrified if somone with a crisis pregnancy with the risk of suicide had gone to Michelle who has no clue or experience of the depth and seriousness of these problems.Being a medical student I know how to deal with these situations and Barry struck me instantly as somone who would direct a girl well and appropriatly in a crisis preganacy situation.Michelle was grand for organising a week full of fun night time events in the student bar for womens week,but the welfare position is a serious and compassionate role and she was far too inexperienced for this.
It also baffles me to see how the original poster talks about Dave Curran and other labour youth members having no allegiance to their party.This did not seem to bother or concern the labour youth members when they chose to endorse Michelle Kileen a tottally inactive party member over me who has been an active member not of the UCD branch but in the labour party as a whole.I find it strange now that suddenly party allegaince has become so important to the labour youth's of UCD when they didnt give two hoots about it when they actively tried to ruin my campaign.
On a final note to clear up the fact that an ex-UCD student calls Dan 'a self centred power tripping ego'.This could not be further from the truth.Do you really think all those class reps from every faculty and every year would have turned up in their droves to canvass for a power tripping ego??Knowing Dan and his friends very well at this stage,all of them are selfless and would always put the needs of the students before their own ideas.Knowing Enda Duffy and his friends pretty well at this stage too,I would have no confidence in him at all putting the needs and want of us UCD students before his own poltical labouryouth agenda. The students of UCD realised who was the biggest ego and this reflected in the landslide victory for Dan Hayden on friday.

by john t Mon Mar 06, 2006 13:59

so what was the final result, it doesn't seem to be on UCDSU.net yet which is no surprise !!!!

by SH Mon Mar 06, 2006 14:04

Elisa, you state that you were nominated for Welfare as if it wasn't your decision, this is complete fabrication of the election process. It is not the case that people deemed that you should be nominated for welfare, what is the case is that you took out a nomination form yourself. Your withdrawing for personal reasons is a matter for yourself, but do not come on this website portraying yourself as a great activist which resulted in a groundswell of support for you to become welfare officer as this is complete nonsense. The job of the Welfare officer is mainly a referal service, it is not their job to counsell or offer their own amateur advice. Save your electioneering for next year, the students can reject you then and you can spare us one year of drivel emenating from any posts from yourself.

by Elisa O'Donovan Mon Mar 06, 2006 14:25

I never claimed to be a great activist on my post and it was never my intention to come on to indymedia claiming I was thus.I just dont think its fair for the original poster to talk about allegiance to partys when really this isnt a big problem for the left in UCD. I have seen it stated by Chris Bond on the labouryouth message boards that its a disgrace that some 'rogue' labouryouth members didnt suport Enda Duffy.The intention of my post was to show how hypocritical this is off the labour party to say this now,when I was running they said it didnt matter if I was in labouryouth or not, they weren't going to support me.That was the intention of my post to show the sheer hypocrisy of the left in UCD.

by SH Mon Mar 06, 2006 14:38

Elisa, you claim to be part of the left in UCD as a member of Labour in the college, so the old saying people in glasshouses etc, etc. I believe that party politics shouldn't take priority in the elections as I wouldn't want to see political parties running candidates in SU elections.

by Topper Mon Mar 06, 2006 14:40

Elisa, your rantings merely confirm the points made by Conor earlier. He made a number of political criticisms of the Hayden camp, he said that they were soggy liberals with no substance as activists who would do little or no good as SU officers. He also said that the vast majority of people campaigning for Hayden were apolitical types with no real interest in activism.

For making these political criticisms, he was accused of being bitter, hateful, crazy and so on. So he explained that he did not hate Dan Hayden; he might find him boring, and he might be irritated by his mannerisms, but he didn't hate him. Nor did he hate the people around him. And he said that pro-Hayden types were accusing him and other left-wingers of personal bitterness and hatred to avoid engaging with the real political arguments involved.

Now you have proved his point definitively. You pretend not to notice all of the serious political points that Conor made, and focus on the section of his post where he explicitly stated that he didn't hate Dan Hayden, taking quotes out of context in a feeble attempt to "prove" that he is motivated by personal bitterness.

The rest of your post is of no interest whatsoever.

by historian Mon Mar 06, 2006 15:15

These elections have about as much relevance to the real world as who runs the Dublin Freemasons or the local tennis club.

by Elisa O'Donovan Mon Mar 06, 2006 15:30

So SH you agree with me and everyone that supported Dan Hayden that party politics shouldnt be important in these elections.But the left in UCD obviously think it is if Chris Bond is still ranting about rogue 'labouryouths' on the labouryouth boards and the original poster who is obviously an Enda supporter telling labouryouth UCD'ians if they didnt support Enda then it was a 'disgrace'.I cant see any disgrace in supporting Dan,it should be the person running and not the party there in that decides who you will support.Thats why I hold no bad feelings against the UCD labouryouth branch for not supporting me in the welfare race,but I think it extremely hypocritical of them to come on to indymedia then and talk about people having no party solidarity or allegiance etc.

''he said that they were soggy liberals with no substance as activists who would do little or no good as SU officers. He also said that the vast majority of people campaigning for Hayden were apolitical types with no real interest in activism''

As I have said before I do not claim to be an activist and I'm sure no one in Dans team would claim to be one either.We only have to look at previous great 'activists' such as Ciaran Weafer and Fergal scully who have got elected to a sabbat position to see how influential they were!Dans team may not have an intrest in activism but they sure do have an intrest in whats good for the students of UCD.This is refelcted in just how many were supporting him and canvassing for him.You only had to see Enda Duffy's team filled out with old hacks,non ucd labouryouth supporters etc to see that Enda's ONLY intrest was in political activism and not the intrest of us students.

"And he said that pro-Hayden types were accusing him and other left-wingers of personal bitterness and hatred to avoid engaging with the real political arguments involved."

I as a pro-Hayden would never accuse anyone of personal biterness against Dan.I have been at the receiving end of much of this personal biterness recently that I would never inflict it on someone else.You see I would engage with the the supposed real politiocal arguments involved here but I just cant see what they are?Dan won fair and square because he was a better,stronger and more experienced candidate than Enda Duffy.

'Alan Morkin did not disgrace himself. He ripped down some posters for a Toy-Town election when drunk. The Duffy campaign team were punished for it. Don’t loose any sense of perspective here. To me, the only people who disgraced themselves in this campaign were those who returned to the shoeshine days by wearing sandwich boards with the candidates’ posters on them. Some people have no sense of self-respect, it would seem. '

Also while I will not linger on the ripping down posters debacle I do have to admit that if Conor is going to talk about students having no self respect then he should look a bit closer to home to Duffy's team.Firstly,Having ex and non UCD students running aroung telling US students what they think is good for UCD is just a joke.There not even in the college so to have somone like this canvassing for you reflects on what sort of president you will be.Also,having canvassed in the arts block and Earlsfortt terrace it was a disgrace the way Enda's canvassers were carrying on and they would turn anyone off voting again.They were holding students hands and leading them directly up to the polling booths.Many people in my class saw this done by both Geroid Cashmann,Fergal Scully and Niall Dollan.They were treating students like they are 7 and its this sort of demeaning canvassing by shileding voters all the way to the polling booth that turns people off voting for life,so I hope the left in UCD are proud of themselves.

by Topper Mon Mar 06, 2006 15:34

The discussion can now end. You have exposed yourself more than adequately. No left-winger will bother engaging with your irrelevant arguments. You clearly understand nothing about activism and never will. Conor's arguments have been vindicated

by Conor.J.McGowan - ISN-p.c. Mon Mar 06, 2006 15:36

“Topper” has already comprehensively answered most of the petty criticisms made of me, so I wont bother repeating what has already been said.

The remarks about Michelle are absolutely out of order. I am not interested in a popularity contest of any kind. I critically supported Enda, for explicitly political reasons. Enda is well aware of my political differences with him. I refuse to get drawn into personal bickering with anyone – I always have done, and always will. If anyone else from camp Hayden has anything objective, constructive to say, I’ll respond in the best faith. I’m still waiting though!

At last, the Haydenites come out from under the cloak of their uninspiring collective alias. I asked in a previous post that those for those who support Dan Hayden to:

1) Provide real names.
2) Provide political/objective reasons for doing so.

1 out of 2 is a fair start. In the absence of any political analysis from the soft left (if only Woy Jenkins would wise from the dead!), we can only assume that there is none. In the eyes of the present leadership and their helpers, the Union is there to serve a clientalist function, to focus on representing students “behind closed doors” without empowering or involving them.

For that reason, I consider the politics of the present leadership to be decrepit. The points made on abortion illustrate how little help radicals can expect on campus next year. It is now the job of the activist left to go about affecting change on campus with the same energy as was put into the Duffy campaign. Here’s hoping that a radical pro-choice campaign is only one of many next year.

by Elisa O'Donovan Mon Mar 06, 2006 16:13

I just want to categorrically say that there is no 'personal bickering' going on here.It is you conor that keeps on bringing this argument up that the pro-haydens are making this personal,we are not,it is you who is repeatedly suggesting this.

'The remarks about Michelle are absolutely out of order.'
How are they out of order?She said in the observer that the only place to find information on abortion in Ireland is through the internet.No mention of the IFPA?from the womens officer??I like you am not intrested in any popularity contest and that is why I backed candidates not because I'm friends with them but because I truley belieeved they'd do the best job

" In the absence of any political analysis from the soft left (if only Woy Jenkins would wise from the dead!), we can only assume that there is none. In the eyes of the present leadership and their helpers, the Union is there to serve a clientalist function, to focus on representing students “behind closed doors” without empowering or involving them."
You obviously havent read any of my previous posts which really sums up why Dan won.Enda had support from only old hacks and labouryouth and he hadnt any positive experience of really making a good difference to campus life.Can the political analyst inside you Connor whose obviously dying to get out,Can he not see this??Also through the union most of it's better work is done behind closed doors.Which do you think student mothers in UCD would prefer?Dan working tirelessly with the creche commitee to form a non profit creche and with 40 extra places.Or Enda Duffy like his 'end the rip off' campaign standing outside the creche protesting continuassly and probably getting no results.I'm sure the single mothers on campus would feel empowered and involved by protesting as Connor suggested but realistically I'm sure its a huge relief for them returning to college next year knowing that Dan has sorted out the creche crisis simply and effectively.

"For that reason, I consider the politics of the present leadership to be decrepit. The points made on abortion illustrate how little help radicals can expect on campus next year. It is now the job of the activist left to go about affecting change on campus with the same energy as was put into the Duffy campaign. Here’s hoping that a radical pro-choice campaign is only one of many next year"
Finally something I suggested to the left ages ago.Actually getting up and doing something about your pro choice views instead of just complaining everytime a pro-lifer comes to speak at UCD.

by Darren Cogavin - Socialist Party, UCD (personal capacity) Mon Mar 06, 2006 16:21 darrencogavin at hotmail dot com

There is no point putting a gloss on a gloomy result for student activists in UCD. It underlines the fact that we cannot expect linear progress forward and upward; reverses along the way are inevitable. Enda Duffy, Kate O'Hanlon and Michelle Killeen all exemplify an unfortunate fact that the best candidate doesn't always win. There is no single explanation for this setback. I agree with Conor McGowan when he writes that the conditions for radicalism don't exist in UCD at the moment. There were no immediate threats like the re-introduction of fees that would have stirred student activity. Another problem facing the activist base in UCD was Dan Hayden and Dave Curran emerging last year under the guise of a being a moderate left opposition. But this year has provided clarification for student activists at least that in practice, they are right-of-centre.

Despite the defeat, student activists will not remain despondent for long. For one thing, we have seen the emergence of a new layer of activists in UCD, politicised by the struggles led by us on the issues of grants and modularisation. Despite the UCDSU being run by conservative elements this year, we were also capable of utilising the UCDSU as a vehicle to mobilise an admittedly small number of students around a multitude of issues, including demonstrating support for Irish Ferries workers and the Ballybrack 3. With such an appetite for struggle, I am very confident this hard work will be carried on next year.

All socialists agree that the best way to fight for reforms is through building strong movements. More than ever, we need a more focussed, targetted approach to make this happen. Since the decline of the CFE, a strategy has been pursued whereby the actions of a small number of activists are substituted for the building of a strong movement . The recent protest against Micheal McDowell is a case in point (see http://www.ucdsu.net/newswire.php?story_id=965&search_t...owell). Many on the UCD left would also have falsely argued the necessary strategy for reclaiming the UCDSU would be to elect a more “radical” leadership.

But instead we need to rebuild an organisation such as CFE, linking up with activists in other colleges and building it into a national organisation. CFE’s great strength was that it provided a forum for activists to come together on a limited platform, where issues could be discussed in an open non-sectarian manner. As Conor McGowan earlier pointed out, the CFE was capable of basing itself on the active participation of students, winning important reforms through organising unified and militant actions. The actions of CFE were counterposed to the approach of people like Hayden/Curran/Doyle lobbying the government as if they were our “partners”.

When threats like the re-introduction of fees are again on the agenda, we can be confident that the student body will once again look towards activists when faced with a passive union leadership. I say Hayden and Co. can 'Shove their Hugs'.

by Niav - BODY/AFC Mon Mar 06, 2006 16:51 choice_ireland at hotmail dot com

Non-directive pregnancy counselling (which provides women about all their options - adoption, abortion and parenting) is available from the following organisations.

Ballinasloe CPS 1850 20 06 00 (Callsave)
Dublin Well Woman – Lwr Liffey Street 01 8728051
Dublin Well Woman – Coolock 01 848 4511
Dublin Well Woman – Ballsbridge 01 660 9860
Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) 1850 49 50 51
Mayo CPS 1890 20 00 22
Midlands CPS 1800 20 08 57
One Family 1890 66 22 12
PACT 1850 673333
Sexual Health Centre, Cork 021 427 6676
Youth Health Service, Cork 021 422 0490 and 021 422 0491

For information about abortion services in the UK.

British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS)
To contact the BPAS action line from Ireland phone +44 121 450 7700.
This action line is available, Monday to Friday from 8am to 9pm, Saturday - 8.30am to 6pm and on Sunday - 9.30am to 2.30pm.
Or visit their website at http://www.bpas.org

Marie Stopes International
To contact Marie Stopes from Ireland phone +44 (0) 845 300 8090
Or visit their website at http://www.mariestopesorg.uk

If students from UCD are interested in getting involved with BODY or would like to host a pro-choice event on campus contact us by e-mail choice_ireland@hotmail.com

by Darren Cogavin - SP (pc) Mon Mar 06, 2006 16:52

"Finally something I suggested to the left ages ago.Actually getting up and doing something about your pro choice views instead of just complaining everytime a pro-lifer comes to speak at UCD."

Maybe you'll join us then on International Women's Day when we hand out pro-choice leaflets? With details of British abortion clinics? Or perhaps not, considering you oppose the UCDSU providing non-directive counselling and abortion information, in spite of a referendum passed in 1993 where the motion was as follows: “That UCD Students’ Union shall provide non-directive counselling and information on all pregnancy options, including abortion, both verbally and in union publications”.

Everytime without fail Elisa, you add nothing to a discussion except moronic baseless assertions without substantiation and colourful charachter assasinations. And as always, as others have already shown, it is a matter of consummate ease for any literate person to pick apart your arguments about your ex-comrades and the hard left in UCD. There are many rotten apples in the Labour Party, but Elisa O'Donovan passed her 'Best Before Date' a very, very long time ago.

by Elisa O'Donovan Mon Mar 06, 2006 17:20

I do realise I am on Indymedia here so any chance of a decent discussion hearing all viewpoints left and right is never going to happen.I would be more than happy to hand out pro choice leaflets on international womens day darren.I think it's maybe you darren who is using 'baseless assertions without substantation'.I have never ever ever said that I oppose the non directive councelling stance of the union.Of course this is the best way for the union to be.However,as somone mentioned in another post, it is only the duty of the welfare officer to refer a girl on to a more experinened person and the welfare officer should be there to support whatever decision the girl makes.Please show me one example on this thread about me using colorful character assasinations?I havent assasinated anyone without proof. As a potential welfare officer Michelle should have been a lot more careful and informed (especially considering she's womens officer!) for an interview with the official college paper.If Barry Colfer had made the same mistakes as Michelle did in his interview then the lefts would have been all over him like a bad rash.No one here has said anything in reply to why michelle would have been a better womens officer?Bring it on tell me why I'm wrong-I want to know.All you can say about Kate and Michelle is that they were slightly left and as previous posters have said political affiliations shouldnt come into this it should be the person who will do the best job.I'm not even going to comment on Darrens bad apple tangent-as your fellow socialist conor mc gowan said there's no reason to lower the tone and make this personal-take his advice.

by Michelle - Student proud to have voted hayden Thu May 11, 2006 23:01 silver_shell83 at yahoo dot co dot uk

I am proud to say I voted Dan Hayden for President of the STUDENT union and can stand by it. i have spoken to him personally and think he can actually listen to me without being patronising or distant.

I think in his capacity as welfare officer he came across the issues that really affected the students and as such I think he brings to the role of president insight and impetus to bring positive change to ucd and the lives of the students.

To those who comment on the lack of a definitive affilliation with a political party i say this; It is better as president of the students union to be concerned with promoting the rights of the students of the college as opposed to using the post as a forum to air the political views with the view to gaining acceptance or promotion with whatever political party.

To those harking back to the days of the coke ban etc in the days of paul aiden and oisín, Dan Hayden reminds me of Paul Dillon. I just wish people could see that if an idealist is to change anything they must at some stage become a realist and that his personality does matter. People are far more willing to cooperate with the charming and charismatic pauls and dans of the world than those who go on the offensive on every issue.

I also think its better to respect that people have various opinions on issues and are entitled to air these opinions, such is the freedom of thought. As for ms hj who thinks its better to change the people if they disagree, i say its better to live in a democracy than a dictatorship.

by Former Hack Sun May 14, 2006 20:28

As a former hack and all round great student union guy, I remembered that the SU Elections are around this time of year. As I see you are busying yourselves with polls and back-chat, all in the name of democratic elections. You all believe and strive on this so strongly, its great! But I have learned the horrible truth since my college days. Its all a load of wank. You are all wanks. Get over it you idiots and concentrate your time on something constructive. In the real fucking world getting 2cent of your shitty bar chips isnt that important.

Live long and prosper you fucks...to next years batch of union hopefuls...don't bother.

Yours etc.

Former Hack