End of an era

It is with great pride and honour that I hand over my office with UDSU tommorrow after 2 long, happy and successful years.

I am confident that I can move on, safe in the knowledge that I leave UDSU as a more accepting, more accessible and more inclusive organization.

It may come as a suprise to some of you, that in September 2009, I almost gave it all up. Internal politics forced me to reconsider my position as my integrity and intentions had been questioned. But I was reminded by a couple of close friends, why I entered union politics in the first place. I'm here to campaign for and with the students, to represent the students, but most of all I am here to "Defend and extend the rights of my fellow students, by creating and maximising opportunity".

I would like to thank a few people now, James Chick & Mike Duckworth can claim the credit for dragging me into this mess in the first place...

I would like to thank jack Clemson for being there to provide a great rivalry for many months, but more so for the great mutual respect we have formed since March.

Can I thank Sally Cunningham for being a rock to us all. Ami Lewis for always smiling, Peter, Sukhi and Dan for obvious reasons.

Last but definately not least, Leoni "Rottweiler" Sullivan. The most committed Disabled Students activist outside of... Well... Me! I owe Leoni so much. For her campaign support, professional and close personal friendship and just for being Leoni... My campaign would not be what it was without her. I know that Barney is leaving UDSU Societies, media and the Sabb office in good hands.

UDSU, its been an honour, a pleasure and a priveledge.

Thanks for the memories

I love you all

Richard "Bull by the Horns" Harris

Voting reform?

My "political" career began in 2008 in bottom line student union politics. We had just undertaken a governance change at UDSU at the time and with it came an alteration in the way in which we voted in student union elections.

Under the new system we were using single transferable voting, a form of alternative voting, as opposed to the traditional first past the post system.

Although, 2 years on, the majority of Student Politics uses STV, certain corners of the NUS are only just getting used to the idea. The problem is that even for single seat elections, only a hand full of people understand how to count it, but with multiple seat elections, it really is a nightmare.

I will try to explain the way in which STV works.

The idea is of course that each voter, rather than crossing the box of the person you want to elect, numbers the candidates in order of preference. So if I was voting today, I might put a 1 in the box next to the Conservative Party Candidate, a 2 in the box next to the Liberal Democrat Candidate a 3 in the box next to the Green Party etc.

The votes are then counted by taking all of the first preference votes first until a candidate has met the quota of votes needed to win. The quota is usually devised, in the case of STV, by taking the number of voters and dividing that by the number of seats. If nobody meets the quota in the first round, then the person with the lowest amount of votes is eliminated and their second preference votes are then distributed out amongst the remaining candidates. The process is then repeated until somebody has met the quota and been elected.

AV is almost the same except the quota is 50% of the votes.

But given the average turnout that we currently experience on polling days in Britain at the present time, is it a good idea to alter the way that we cast our vote?

Are we going to disengage thousand of voters by altering the voting system? The young first time voters often find first past the post confusing and disengaging enough, without complicating it even more. I mean the idea of having a commons seat quota is alien to the majority of young voters who are probably used to the idea of simple majority.

So how will the country's older generation react to a new system, Its difficult enough to manage change in life as it is, but this would be a seemingly needless change.

Without wishing to be controversial, it was the Liberal Democrats who wanted to propose this system in the first place, and statistics have shown that under the alternate proportional voting system, the Lib Dem's would have gained a further 22 seats during the 2010 General Election.

Would it not make more sense to try to increase the amount of voters, turning out at the polling station, rather than altering the voting system, which could potentially disengage voters rather than recruiting them?

I am skeptical about altering the voting system. But then I am an IT technician and an instinctive Conservative, so skepticism is in my nature.

I don't think that NUS and student politics has made a very good job of STV. So therefore, if change didn't happen all that well at student level, where change management is relatively simple, I don't see the change being a good one at a national parliamentary level.

response to scope press release

In response to the press release by scope on the DWP figures on employment.

http://tinyurl.com/35eysr4

The whole ethos behind the UDSU Disabled Students Campaign under my control and indeed the ethos of the social model of disability in general is and has been the empowerment of the disabled people.

Therefore it is society as a whole that makes us disabled.

I haven't seen the criteria on the medical re-assessment tests for ESA. BUT in light of the social model, which is the model by which we live and breath, there does need to be strict guidelines and criteria for a person to be deemed unfit to work.

Maybe the question should exist on the other side...

Is the place of work fit for me to work in?

Marching on Together

As with many political blogs I will add a spot of football to the mix.

Many followers will know that I am an avid Leeds United Fan.

I will begin by celebrating a 3-1 victory for the whites over SK Brann.

It was good to play against former United defender, Gunner Halle.

Stay tuned for political/disability/football related commentary.

Benefits or Employability?

A few weeks after the 2010 UDSU Sabbatical Elections, I was asked a political/welfare question.

Is it more important to support those who can work, but don't, back into work or pay the benefits to those who can't work?

Well with much deliberation I returned the answer, and I'm sure many of my colleagues to the centre right would agree, that it is equally important to do both, but it is more of a priority to people who are out of work, but can work, back into employment. The proceeds of the income tax that these people pay back to the state, will ease the financial pressure of the benefits paid to those who cannot work.

This question, of course refers to the Perkins report, and has provoked many debates through my campaign over the past few months.

Funnily enough, it was the only issue that provoked cross party debate and agreement within UDSU.

Disabled Student (with disabilities)?

Disabled Student or Student with a disability?

Its the question that has plagued my life in E&D...

Its a confusion point alright... but what is the correct terminology and why?

Well before we can answer the question in hand, we need to answer a different question...

The question is, what is Disability?

well, under social model of disability, disability is nothing but a perception, an idea, a label that society imposes on a person.

So what makes me disabled? the answer is simply, PEOPLE!

So the answer to the question, Disabled student or student with a disability is, Disabled Student.

But Why, I hear you ask?

Well the real answer is, that the term student with a disability implies that the student owns their disability and thus they can use it to their own advantage. The simple answer is that the term disabled student infers that society is disabling the student. Which fits perfectly with the social model of disability.

good for politics?

Since the General Election, I have been asked on many occasions, "Do you think the coalition has been good for British Politics"?

The answer, I have to confess is yes, its good for British Politics, but I have to ask the question, Is it good for democracy?

The answer to that I am afraid is No...

I don't think it is a good move for democracy, in the same vein that I thought the hung parliament, although being good for British politics, was a bad thing for british democracy.

I woke up, early on May 7th 2010, I had an assignment to get into University, but before I left, my brother, a first time voter and coincidentally a newly reformed Conservative voter after making a bad choice in the 09 Euro's, got up and said; "well, who won?"

That could not have been a more open ended question, if he had tried...

My answer was; "that depends on whether you're asking: A) Who got the most votes, and therefore won the election; OR B) Who won the right to govern.

He said, "is that not the same thing"?

After I had explained, he said, that it proved that politics was and is a waste of time, as the party you vote for, wins the election but still doesn't win power.

Therefore, the hung parliament and the current system, is disengaging towards first time voters and anybody on the outside of the political game.

The coalition, in this case, provides the answer but not the solution to this disengagement. It allows the Party who clearly had a large majority in the election, in fact only 13 seats away from holding a mandate to govern, to do exactly that, whilst also giving the Liberal Democrats a shot at influencing policy and government. But it is my personal belief that the coalition is bad for democracy.

Another question that I am asked is: "Were the televised debates good for politics"?

Again the answer is Yes, they were good for politics, but not for democracy.

They may work in a presidential election, where the president may differ in ideology from the senate, etc. but essentially, we vote in this country for a political party, with set values and little room for movement in ideology and Any differing ideology will be detailed in the manifesto. Therefore, the televised debate becomes nothing but a charisma test.

So for the little addition of a few younger voters, they are a superfluous addition to the media circus.