Tune into IC Radio (www.icradio.com/listen.php) from 2pm today to hear interviews with the candidates for Union President and Deputy President: Education & Welfare! Email studio@icradio.com with any questions that you would like to be put to ALL candidates. The interviews will be available to listen to from www.icradio.com at any point after they are broadcast.

Tom, you are up far too early in the morning!

p.s. ICradio rules!!

'Biasing proceedings'

Ashley, if there is a hustings you bring supporters, I'm sorry if the other candidates did not get the memo about this...maybe we could loan them a couple of fans next time? While my supporters were vocal throughout, they were also fair and supportive of the other candidates, and were also the ones asking for quiet from the crowd during questioning.

Luke Taylor.

While that may be true, its also necessary to point out the fact that answers may have been carefully chosen based on the audience. With a room full of ACC people no-one is going to say that the ACC gets too much money. With a room full of SCC people, its possible the answers would be different.

Without context the answers are meaningless...

I also thought it was really rude the way some of Luke Taylor's supporters shouted "where's the money" and similar comments throughout Jon Matthews' speech, clearly putting him off. It swayed my vote this morning.

I think it is a little unfair to have a go at the ACC like this! members are merely showing their support for who they feel will do the better job...why weren't there members of the SCC there? is it because they are not as interested as the ACC?

it is also a well known fact that thursday night at the union is where you'll find the Links Tie Club, they were showing support for their friends, and i'm sure luke taylor did not ask them to shout out during jon matthews speech!

Who's having a go at the ACC?

I'm all for showing support for your candidate and I think it shows something positive about Luke that he has so many enthusiastic supporters.

However it also says something about him that the type of people that support him are also the type of people to bring an event down to harsh heckling of another candidate who was having his one opportunity to present his speech to the floor.

freedom fun fairies

I have to agree with Victoria on this, the harsh heckling of Jon Matthews was evident throughout the Presidential candidates’ speech. Comments like “Show me the money”, “Money!” and “Where’s the Money” were clearly directed towards Jon, they were not helpful and worse they showed their candidate (the ACC chair) in a bad light, sorry Luke it’s not your fault. One interesting moment that Ashley seems to miss however is the ACC chair’s bemusing joke and possibly the even funnier reaction to Jenny Morgan’s Joke about Seaweed he really didn’t get it (which may have been due to the mic). My favorite part was looking at the reaction of the crowd behind the candidates when this happened between the shoulders of the candidates. Luke appeared to turn round and whilst I could not hear the conversation that to place one guys reaction was just hilarious.

Have a nice day!

I wasn't there for Luke. Whilst he may be ACC Chair it doesnt automatically mean we all will vote for him.

However Jov as Felix Editor, (vote Jov)....thats why we all turned out!

If the press here at Imperial where alowed to report more of what happens in the Union, the Links wouldn't have to ask him where's the money.

I call for a FREE PRESS.

Also have you ever been to the House of Commons and seen PMQs?

The IC Radio interviews with the Presidential and DPEW candidates went really well, but unfortunately due to a technical glitch the interviews were not broadcast and did not record! My sincere spologies go to all the candidates that made the effort to come down and spend some of their valuble campaigning time answering our questions. I will attempt to do a quick write up of the questions and answers on www.icradio.com. Once again you have my sincere apologies!

Well if they read Live! , they would know that Jon gave the money back a couple of weeks ago. So now who looks daft.

Did someone forget to put the desk on air? ;)

Well I Freedom, I don’t think we want to turn hustings in to as big a joke as British politics (it seems to be only serious sometimes). However, I would like to point out that at PMQs the speaker ensures that people have the right to make their case. Jon was not allowed that and Steve did point out that this was unfair. If you wanted to ask your question you could have waited until he finished. Remember how people address each other at PMQs (“right honorable gentleman”), that all about respect. I think that they need to give Jon more respect because every candidate disserves respect. Do you think different and why?

Having caught the majority of two of the Presidential candidates' interviews... I have to say it is a real shame that Live! and radio listeners missed the opportunity to hear them...

Of what I heard both candidates gave good, individual answers (and I'm told the third, the one I missed did too).

The questions were well thought out and tricky to answer and allowed candidates to really show where they thought they could take the role (from what I heard). Not sure if the answers will translate well when written.

Compared to hustings I think the candidates (that I heard) came across a lot better...

Whether this was due the lack of free alcohol, the questions, time of day or the laid back environment. I think it is a shame that voters missed this.

I was at hustings and heard some of the acc lot calling Jon Matthews a thief without any evidence to supprort this. It seems to be that someone has been spreading rumours that Jon Matthews has stolen money from the union, is that really a fair way to run an election campaign?

"although the ACC - and Guilds tie club Links - turned up in force, biasing proceedings somewhat."

Unlike this article slating the links club (which is not the ACC, do your research!!!)???

The main accuser was not acc but a concerned student (sorry to ruin your fictitious argument but unlike you(oncer) I know the facts). If a presidential candidate can not deal with some questions about his integrity I am seriously worried about his ability to represent the union in a tough situation. Unfortunately too few know the facts as Felix was banned from reporting the story. I shall some up the concerns:

£1500 pounds was deposited at the union and subsequently went missing. The last person to handle the money was a presidential candidate.

If those who know the full details of the incident wish to come forward I happily await your response. However I will not be surprised if the current "hush hush" attitude to the issue remains.

P.s. "Well if they read Live! , they would know that Jon gave the money back a couple of weeks ago. So now who looks daft." - if he gave the money back, how did he get this money in the first place??

OK, one last time for the paranoid and/or hard of thinking: this article does not slate the ACC or Links (Links ~ ACC, given that Links is effectively a club for sportsmen). It states that due to their high turnout proceedings were biased. It does not say this is unfair, or underhand, or wrong. Jen Morgan had a number of her supporters along too, so it could be argued that there was some bias in her favour over those candidates with no supporters. But ACC/Links tend to get quite loud and dominate a room when they've had a bit to drink (much like the medics can)...

J.Skeen - the money that's been returned is from an honorarium paid over the summer. As for your rather serious implication above, without a log book you can never know what happened to the money - it could have been removed by anyone who knew it was there. There's no "hush hush" attitude about it (not on Live! anyway) - making allegations about people based on fairly shaky circumstantial evidence (x put it into the safe, so must have pinched it) is: a) unethical and b) defamatory.

J.Skeen - I'm afraid I know nothing about what happened to the sum of money that went missing from the Union safe. On the record, I took the money from the club and gave a signed receipt to them as proof of this, the money was then placed by staff into a safe to which I had no access (no elected officer has personal access to the Union safe), this was witnessed by two other people. The club were then informed that the money was in the safe ready for them to collect and bank. The next I heard of the money was when the new committee came to speak to me some six months later saying they had found the receipt but no record of the money. At this point, I instigated an immediate safe-check and there was no sign of the money. I requested an investigation into this but my term ended and I left office before this was concluded, I know nothing after this.

As for money from the honorarium, yes, this £2,000 has been returned to the Union. I returned this money as the money was meant to compensate the GSA Chair for the fact that they could not do any tutoring or demonstrating all year as College rules only allow postgraduates to work a maximum of six hours per week and this would include being GSA Chair. As postgraduates work throughout the summer, the money cannot be payment for full-time work over the summer as some members of Council, inlcluding the current President, seem to have believed. This failure to accept that the post was that of any other part-time volunteer officer led directly to my resignation as it became clear that I was going to be opposed for what I was trying to do and Council were not going to accept my efforts to change the GSA from a party-society for a small group of cronies to a working and useful welfare facility for all postgraduates.

If people are wondering why the money has only been returned recently and not immediately, it takes time to save £2,000 on a postgraduate stipend. The money was returned recently as that was how long it took me to save up the money.

I am very disappointed that the interviews I gave to Felix about both of these cases were suppressed and that false and defamatory rumours have been spread about me in an attempt to discredit me. I am more than happy to answer questions when they are put to me as questions, but it is hard to answer someone who says "You're a thief" with no justification, all I can say to this is "No, I'm not", not a very useful exchange for either party.

if its hard to save when a phd, then you shouldnt have spent it all in the first place.

Well its official the election are not free and fair the comments that are being spread probably have damage Jon Matthews’ campaign. I guess now if Jon wishes to complain to the returning officer he has a good if not airtight case. Oh well I guess the result will be delayed by a few days, weeks and maybe months. So what's new? Is the Live! editor monitoring the C&G elections or council elections - bit interesting, ehh?

All the candidates currently standing have been around a bit and are no real suprise, same with RCSU elections (I'm led to believe).

Only two people in all the CGCU elections!! and one of them with no seconds (surprising compared to the other's 17) I wonder who else will stand.

More interesting is who has withdrawn. Taylor?

Perhaps he just got confused when he went to vote... or maybe it's just there to remind Guilds people what degree he's doing?

Indeed, my error was due to getting most confused when trying to second others, the little button with 'stand' on it wasn't enough of a clue obviously...

Have you since seconded the person you wanted to?

Since RON or 'new election' does not require seconding can we remove the 59 'RON candidates' in the seconding options, from the CGCU nominations?

If you really want to get people involved, lets not be too silly about this...

Yes, it seems that the rumours have been spreading from completely misinformed people.

Thats the trouble with the f**ktards in the ACC (Links) lot - they have a vested interest in the Union but have no idea how it works!

And they've also been sending out emails to club lists telling people who to vote for! Naughty, naughty!

Really? That's quite a serious offence, should report it really...

Why bother we all know what's going on, it's a shame they are doing it because as far as I can see while Jess and Luke have competition, Jov has it in the bag... why would they want to implicate him in this c**p?

PS Complaints haven't been made because the emails mentioned all three candidates and there is a split in support for these candidates and some people are mindful of how a complaint would affect all of them as individuals.

No farce so far, things have been too quiet! Come on somebody, make an official complaint!

Maybe they were whining about the hustings report because they knew they were cheating?

'f**ktards in the ACC (Links)'

Ok, let's go through this bit by bit. For the past 4 years those f**ktards would include 2 Hockey Club Captains, 2 Rugby Club Captains, 2 ACC Chairmen, ACC Secretary and Vice Chair, CGCU VPA, and multiple Sports Team Captains and Committee members, so the chances are that if you've ever played sport at Imperial it was most likely a Link that organised it, and with apparently have no idea how the union works...jog on mate! But 'vested interest' yep, as students of course we do!

We have not been sending emails out to club mailing lists, anyone having any evidence of any candidate sending emails out, drop me, and the returning officer an email and we can look at that. If you make an accusation, back it up with an email address you coward.

Also no rumors have been spread about any other candidates, by myself at least, but with intelligent people with access to information, speculation is natural.

Any other questions, please ask...but if you want a serious and genuine conversation, please back up the convictions behind your comments with your name, don't hide behind the anonymity that this message board offers.

Luke Taylor

Anonymous posting is part of Live! maybe you don't agree but if you can't handle it now, then how are you going to cope if you get president?

Yes the emails have been forwarded to the RO, as a member of the rugby list yourself I'm suprised you didn't recieve them.

And no I don't agree with emailing a list telling everyone to vote for the rugby team's prefered candidates followed by emails telling everyone to ignore and delete counts as not breaking the rules; otherwise we'd all do it, we all have 'niave friends' who don't know the rules; it was your job to tell them.

I have nothing against the Links or the ACC, for the record.

May I just point out that if anyone were to make a complaint they would not have to email Luke. I’m sure Luke didn’t mean to sound quite so “threatening” but comments like coward do seem confrontational. Intimidating people who claim that there has been a breach of the rules isn’t very sporting and people making anonymous accusations is well within the remit of Live!, isn’t it?

Also what with the “we will look into it”? Surely, you realise as a candidate that this is dealt with by the returning officer and you answer to him.

Perhaps if the ACC (Links) people didn't get tanked up together in huge groups and shout aggressively at anyone they don't agree with, people wouldn't post anonymously.

My vote after hustings: RON=1, Luke Taylor=6 and I wasn't the only one.

"Jov has it in the bag..."

As much as I love Jov and think he has done wonders with Sport, his temperament just isn't suited for Felix Editor. I think him being Editor would be bad for his health and the hardware around him. Also Jov has barely campaigned as far as I can see so if he "has it in the bag" I'll only make depressing inferences about students at Imperial.

It is a not a well known fact (even amongst the members) that Links Tie Club is meant to represent C&G members who show good sportsmanship behaviour - unfortunately the ship has been lost - and now only sportsmen remain... and so really they do represent only the ACC - This is appalling and they should be ashamed (I know I am). Links was not started as "the rugby drinking club" When i joined there was one of those as well. The self perpetuation will continue and this is the result - poor sportsmanship at hustings by the sounds of things, by all means cheer for your fellow members - to put down another candidate is disgraceful. A public apology is in order from my viewpoint. I hope the future of Guilds does not continue next year when half the current members leave.

My bad, it isn't over until tuesday. I've only seen Jov campaigning, I have to admit I haven't seen Greg, but I'm fully aware that the campus doesn't revolve around me. I suppose we can't take anything for granted this year, they are so many candidates.

I'm not sure that sabb positions are good for anybody's health, but it's a sacrifice they are willing to take.

Luke... tell me....

I am on the Rugby mailing list - I received the email - I have spoken to the other candidates about this matter because I think it is disgraceful. I think it is even more appalling that you deny the fact that the Rugby list sent them when there are a hundred emails out there. (cue your clever use of the word "we")

Also - I find the way you dealt with the matter was plain stupid. In case you have forgotten - you replied to the post yourself minutes later saying ignore it and delete it. Ah ha - the perfect set up - the damage had been done - and it would have been so easy for you to set this up making you look like the good guy. Besides, what makes someone want to read an email more than someone else telling them to delete it. Had you been a mature person, you would have emailed the RO and elections committee instantly and explain what has happened rather than persuading your memebrs to delete the evidence.

It is interesting to note that one of Jess's seconders sent out the initial email - after Jess had sent all her seconders the instructions on how to campaign!

It is also very interesting to note that a facebook message was sent out to us as well. Facebook groups cannot be used in this manner either - and nothing was even posted to cover that up. Unfortunately it seems you have implemented Jov and Jess in this - also very clever, its very hard to disqualify 3 people from the elections. YOU ARE NOT FIT TO BE THE FACE OF OUR UNION - YOU ARE A COWARD - YOU SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED.

I also agree with everything your Ex Member of links says about you lot - perhaps you may invite some other members of the C&G rather than just your rugby chums this year.

Before this goes any further...

To 'An ex member': fear not, the ship has not been lost, in fact it is in the best hands, and best direction it has ever been. I am a little worried that you're taking frenzied rants from the hackfest that is a Live! discussion board, as a fair and accurate representation of the events that took place at the hustings. As we all know, this is a rather foolish action to take. However, the original article does give a very good and accurate account of the proceedings, but simply due to the massive number of ACC and Links supporters at the election, due to the many ACC and Links candidates standing in the elections, the crowd was indeed biased towards these people, as a hustings would be!

If you, or anyone here, have any questions or concerns about the events in question, please feel free to contact me, or the returning officer, as there is no point in continuing a discussion here where baseless and frankly poorly informed accusations can be made anonymously, and hence with no accountability.

Cheers,

Luke Taylor.

May I be the first to ask if this qualifies as a farce?

And to 'anonymity is my name'

That is exactly what I did, as soon as i received the email I forwarded it through to the returning officer, and took the action you describe above, instructing the person who sent the original email to send a retraction, because I personally do not have access to the All-Rugby-List.

As for the facebook group messge, I personally was under the impression that groups in the public domain were free to message whatever they liked, when I was informed by the returning officer that this was not the case, I instructed the group admin to send a retraction.

I have acted appropriately in all situations I have had any power over, and would welcome any further questions regarding these matters.

Cheers,

Luke Taylor.

Luke, you first said that no email was sent (post 37 "We have not been sending emails out to club mailing lists"), you now say you forwarded the email to the returning officer (post 47 "as soon as i received the email I forwarded it through to the returning officer"). This is completely contradictory, you have been caught out in your lie. How can we believe anything you say when you deny an email was sent and only admit to it when faced with a statement from someone else who received the email. What a sordid little affair.

To 'confused'

I was very careful in my original reply, post 37 to say 'we' and then clarify this by saying 'any candidates' as the email to the list was sent by another member of the Rugby Club, not associated with any candidate's campaign. They was trying to help out a couple of friends, but unaware of the restrictions on this in union elections. I have not lied at any point, I was merely not explicit enough in my statement for your liking.

Cheers,

Luke Taylor.

In post 47 you state you "personally do not have access to the All-Rugby-List", yet you personally managed to send a retraction email. Elaborate?

I personally phoned around until I personally managed to get the admin password for the All-Rugby-List, and then personally approved the email that I personally had sent...I still personally do not have access to the All-Rugby-List as I am not on the exec...

Cheers,

Luke Taylor.

"sent by another member of the Rugby Club, not associated with any candidate's campaign"

Except the person in question was a seconder of one of the candidates and hence is part of their campaign by default.

Not so much fun when YOU'RE the one being accused and heckled by misinformed people, is it Taylor?

RON = 1 Taylor = 6

There were SCC people there. There was an AMS meeting, which was spent more productively making badges and swapping mixtapes.

HEAR HEAR "hmmmm"

I would like to apologise for the mess created by the email i sent to the rugby mailing list. Luke Taylor sent me a response immediately saying "You bloody idiot! You’ve most likely just got me, jess and jovan disqualified." Evidently demonstrating that this was not "the perfect set up" as declared by Anonymity is my name. After Luke explained the seriousness of what I had done I sent an email to the whole list, requesting that they delete the email without reading it if they hadn't already.

The email was sent completely out of ignorance, I have no experience with how the union voting works, and was not aware that by seconding Jessica Marley i was part of her committee.

Luke was not aware that I had seconded Jessica Marley, that was an honest mistake. Everything else he has said is completely true.

The whole incident was a mistake, I am terribly sorry to all the candidates involved.

"and was not aware that by seconding Jessica Marley i was part of her committee"

She should have sent an email to all her seconders explaining the situation, including a pack for campaigners. See if you have it and familiarise yourself with it...

The Candidates Pack states that one is responsible for anything carried out supporting one's campaign, even if one is not aware. Therefore it is not necessary for the email regarding seconders to have been sent/received for this use of an email list to breech the rules. If this wasn't the case it would leave the door open for people to campaign in breach of the rules without being caught out as they are not on the respective candidates list.

Alex, run for your life...abandon hope all ye who enter this discussion here...not your fault, just don't do it again.

To 'hmmm'; you're right, it's not much fun at all, but unlike Jon at the hustings who had the opportunity to discuss any grievances face to face with the accusers I've made the mistake of trying to reason with anonymous posters who can say what they like and slink off into cyberspace...my mistake, and mine alone.

Cheers,

Luke Taylor.

Jess sent an email to all of her seconders including Alex telling them the rules, Alex cannot say he didn't know, the email was quite clear:

"hi people

some of you i know and some you i don't bu you all seconded me for the position of DPCS, so thank you very much for that!

now the hard work begins...as a seconder you are automatically put onto my official campaign team, whether you like it or not which means you have to abide by certain rules during the election, these are attached to the email, PLEASE read it!"

The rules were attached and he was told he was counted as part of an official campaign team.

The fact is that an email was sent promoting some candidates. Regardless if the candidate(s) authorised it or not, or if the original sender was or was not aware of the rules, the electoral regulations have been broken. It is now up to the returning officer to decide what has to be done. It would not be fair to the other candidates for this not to be investigated by the returning officer thouroughly.

"the opportunity to discuss any grievances face to face with the accusers "

If it is possible to discuss anything with a large group drunken rugby players who are shouting so loudly the amplified microphone is completely inaudible, then yeah - they did have the opportunity to discuss any grievances face to face.

President : Jen

DPFS : Christian

DPCS: John

DPEW : Hannah

Felix Ed : Jov

I bet 5 pounds this is the Sab team next year. Any takers?

No way

No, I think DPCS will be Lily

I'd have possibly agreed with you, but after having witnessed Jen's campaign, I'd say no.

PS Ryan will be DPEW, but I'm not against Hannah, I'm undecided on that one.

Dont care - they are both FIT!

President - Jen

DPFS - Christian

DPCS - Lily

DPEW - Hannah

Felix - Jov

President - Jennifer Matthews

DPFS - Christian Nominations

DPCS - Lily James

DPEW - Ryan Theodorou

Felix - Greg Mead

Why not Jov Mead

It is a demonstration of how firmly I believe in Greg. Actually I wish we could have two editors like in years past (go look in the UDH) as Jov and Greg would do a great job together.

Jon Hughes

Christian Nominations

John Nominations

Ryan Theodorou

Jov Mead

Is it wrong that I would quite like to be the RO next year?

When are results supposedly announced?

At Council on 3rd March was the original aim, although it seems we might get them earlier...

Why earlier?

I think it was so if there were as many complaints as last year they could be dealt with in the few days after voting closed so that the results could still be announced at the official time. But if all the candidates sign their thingmebob then they can release the results to put the candidates out of their misery!

Isn't council on the 17th of March?

Ryan Theodorou? Oh my!

There was supposed to be one in between, but it doesn't seem to have materialised.

I think Jon may win in the president stakes - he has done a heck of a lot of campaigning!

I'm not t sure about the presidential campaigns they all have been campaigning hard. Jen gave me a soft drink with her name on it. Jon gave me a chat about the union. Ed gave me a friendly wave but Luke well im not sure where he has been. Maybe he thinks he has won already. Maybe ha has different tactics.

I've got to admit, I've not seen Luke campaigning at all and I've only seen Jen out on the first day of voting but I've seen Ed around a lot and Jon out there every day. If it comes down to effort and who has run the best campaign with the best policies, Jon should win it. If it comes down to the usual rubbish popularity contest, it will either be Luke or Jen even though neither of them deserve it or are the best people for the job.

No, I don't think thats true.

Jen has had a really good campaign and she has a good manifesto. She could have won a landslide victory but circumstances have not gone in her favour. Her policies are strong but suitable for the union. Has she got the message across well enough?

John has experience, but some of the things he want may be too difficult. He has been out there, I think that he will steal votes from Jen and Luke. Will it be enough??

Ed clearly enthusiastic but does he have the "fly time". He is clearly outside the hack circle (V.good) but we all know one thing. At imperial only the hacks know the loopholes to get things done. The question: Does he know enough?

Luke, well he is running a strange campaign no offence to him. Have not seen him out once. Nor have i seen a poster. His manifesto says he get to the job then do something (fair enough). He said as much at husting. So I dont know what to think. It might just work. Then again maybe he has the "sports teams" vote. This isnt related to the email, just the fact that he is ACC chair. However, even on this forum he has gotten very angry imagine what will happen next year!! Maybe he will take it out on those poor union volunteers or the SAC staff. Maybe he just a bit of a joker and i mis-read the comments.

So many questions.

'hang on' has some interesting views and i'd just like to add that I think jen would add some fresh new enthusiastic views to the union which it probably needs.

jon's been here an age, is it 8 years now? and i think it wouldn't add anything new to the union we haven't seen before if he is voted. in fact (this probably sounds harsh but sorry...) i can't help thinking it would be more like a dictatorship because every idea that someone else has he'd come back with a miniscule clause of a constitution against it or a reason from his 'experience' why it could not work.

i dunno, i just want someone new.

so with at least one complaint and everything else anyone want to guess when we will see results??

Victoria, your right about Jen. I have a feeling that she is perfect for the union.

However, i disagree with our comments about john experience is not a sin. If he were here for 20 years it wouldn't matter. I think though you were saying that it is a fresh view that the union needs and were questioning if Jon has it. The think is that Jon does have a vision of the union and has been using his knowlegde of the consitution to fight for it. In the process he has shot down many ideas (some of which were good). Nevertheless he has some vision. The question is whether people want his vision or maybe why is he fighting so hard for it? I feel the questions are linked that may or may not be a good thing. I leave it up to you.

Errr... if you have listened to Jon's campaign then you'll understand that it has nothing to do with the constitution (apart from changing the RSM back to a union and possibly consulting about re-assigning the 'services' role to the DPCS)...

And focuses much more on what the president really does, spending time in meetings with college and keeping the campaign focused on that. We elect DPs to run the Union services and clubs... it's just not the president's job.

I think people listened as well, but we'll see.

Only one more hour till voting closes!!!!!!!

BETTER GET CAMPAIGNING!

Jon's campaigner I meant no disrespect. Nor am I implying that his manifesto is based around the constitution. I will clarify, in the past Jon has used the constitution to fight for his vision.

Jon does have a vision; I want to know whether students want it and why he has fought for it so hard.

I Hope thats clearer.

well I think Jon's campaign has been the best. Jen's seems keen but a little immature and facile. Luke clearly hasn't bothered at all (save posting angrily on Live!), but Ed has made a reasonable effort.

Again, Jon would probably be the best man for the job. He's got a lot of experience and is clearly very dedicated. Jen would be good in a kind of matron-esque way, but might not have the toughness required.

Luke seems a bit of a meathead and clearly needs to realise that life is not a rugby pitch, not everything is solved by aggression and directness. Ed might inject a bit of fun, but does he know enough?

Apart from that, the Greek bird looks fit and John James is THE only person for the job. That is all.

Interesting, what about Christian... you forgot to mention him?

I think for the presidents position it will come down to Jen Morgan and Luke Taylor and Jon Matthews. Jen Morgan especially is a name that a lot of people will know and recognise, and Jon Matthews is a really strong candidate. Will the sportsperson vote be enough to carry Luke Taylor through? I think that Edward Hughes as much as he has tried cannot really compete with those three: if he had stood for DPFS for instance he would have had a really good chance. I honestly cannot see Diogo Geraldes going too far....

I also believe that the STV system might be more important than in the past. If Diogo and Edward are eliminated early it could be anybodys to take. Note that Jen mentioned at both sets of hustings that if she was not your first choice, think about putting her second....

Yes so I RONed her, that works both ways.

A civilized and mature discussion on Live! finally!

A couple of comments have been made regarding my campaign, and they are entirely correct in evaluation, but a little misguided in their assessment of motivation. I have been almost entirely unable to run any meaningful campaign over the last couple of weeks simply due to the amount of work and other commitments I have had on.

Recently I've had to train regularly to get fit again to play for the 1st XV in the Varsity game tomorrow, begin my final year project in Aero, sort out ACC Budgeting (which is why I've been posting on here at silly hours over the last couple of days), and also started working behind the bar in the union due to a very tight personal balance sheet. *NOT LOOKING FOR SYMPATHY* but merely explaining why I may have appeared not to have bothered with campaigning, rather than just not having enough waking hours...

I think [hope!] that it's going to be very tight, and as mentioned previously STV could play a very important role. Bring on the Results!!!

Just think that someone out there [Danny] knows the results by now...hmmm, get him smashed at Richmond tomorrow and drag it out of him I hear you cry!?

The results cannot be counted (by anyone) until the candidates have signed off to say it was a fair election. Especially with a complaint still in the air.

Not to say that it can't technically be done, but it mustn't be done.

Although numbers of voters are known... a little birdie told me that more people had voted by Monday morning (before personalised emails went out) than did in total last year.

Which can only reflect positively on all candidates involved - well done!!!

The little birdy thinks we may be approaching NUS Referendum proportions!

Tweet tweet ter WoooooooooooooHooooooooooooo!

4,000 votes cast? That's amazing, all campaigners should be very proud of themselves.

I think 'approaching' was the operative word... my guess would be closer to 3000.

Still good though!

OK, so 75% of NUS referendum proportions, still impressive though!

I bet there are at least another 1000 or so that are still intending vote, but just haven't realised when the elections closed though!

As long as you aren't talking about votes cast overall, but votes cast per position.

3,000 votes cast would be a fairly low turnout...

so perhaps popularity contests aren't such a bad thing for the union after all - loads of people got interested and voted even though they wouldn't normally

I really cannot see how an election is a popularity contest. At a guess I would say you need 500 votes to win - that to me says that it is a lot more than a popularity contest.

I've heard a rumour going round that next year's president will be a surprise to a lot of people!

If anyone knows who next year's President is, they should immediately be dismissed from their position.

Hmm, I read the discussion above, just checked my junk mail to find an interesting email to the rugby mailing list, corrected later by Luke Taylor. Has anyone reported this?

That's what the discussion above was about...!

Unless this is a new one.

ye, i just wondered if anyone actually reported it

I don't think anyone really knows who has one but it will be a shock. I really can't tell. At the start there was one candidate. Then it became three. Then two. Then 3 again and now one has been chosen.

I believe there were 5 presidential candidates, not 3. With the large number of votes cast anything could be possible.

I meant one candidate in the lead, then 3 candidates in the lead, then two in the lead, then 3 again in the lead.

It was always about the lead... not just standing

Regarding the nominations for CGCU etc, is it really necessary to have RON for every position in the list of seconders? It is tricky to see who is actually standing!