Features

Critic sent the Creme-de-la-Creme of OUSA political pundits along to the Presidential forum.

James Meager
Internet Conspiracist
2010 OUSA Finance and Services Officer
Last Wednesday, Parliament passed Heather Roy’s voluntary student membership legislation, which some are saying will spell certain doom for students' associations.
 
Several hours prior, a small crowd of people at the OUSA Presidential Debate witnessed the real reason why some associations might fail.
 
Stumbling through an hour and a quarter of part-vapid emptiness/part-comedy routine, the two presidential candidates (Logan Edgar and Daniel Benson) failed to put forward a single substantive policy or programme to help OUSA through its inevitable drop in funding.
 
In fact, both committed to a maximum OUSA membership fee of $0, a position which will ensure that income must come solely from commercial or contractual arrangements.
 
So at a time where student Executives should be finalising plans to ensure they thrive in 2012, it appears that the most these two could produce was that the University Book Shop should either continue to make profits and pay a dividend (Logan) or cease profiteering and reduce book prices for students (Daniel).
 
What service level agreements would they aim to sign with the University? Dunno.
 
Will OUSA remain a part of Unipol, at a potential cost of $1million (at last look)? Good question.
 
What will they do about the Aquatic Centre, the Yacht Club, and the Squash Courts (all buildings which are owned by OUSA, but are on leasehold land)? Maybe that’s for next time.
 
What about their part-ownership of and levy to the University Union Limited, which doubles as rent? The heavily damaged Mojos building? The Clubs and Societies building? The Student Support Centre?
 
We’ll never know. What we do know is this:
 
There is no plan. No matter who you vote for, there is no plan. And if there is a plan, it’s being kept very, very, very well hidden, like some sort of #bryceedwardsconspiracy.
 
It is sad. OUSA has total equity approaching $14million, with around $4million of that sitting in short-term deposits in several bank accounts.
 
You might say it’s too big to fail. You could put a monkey in charge and it would still go on. Well, you’ve been given your choice of monkeys.
 
Perhaps this will help you decide. One monkey thinks disgraced former Executive Officer (now running for election again) Dan Stride is a “great guy” who made a mistake, and shit happens.
 
The other doesn’t. He’s the one with the ratty. Choose him, and while you’re at it, choose his brother too.
 
The Eagle
Columnist of the Eagle of Liberty
It was with a sense of elation that the Eagle soared into the OUSA President’s Debate. Last time, the debate was between four potential dictators keen to rule over their forcibly imprisoned flock. This time, the two new candidates were battling it out to be the President of the new voluntary OUSA. So much more legit.
            The loveable Logan Edgar, looking dapper in a striped shirt and suspenders, played the ‘experience’ card, and made a few jokes at Dan’s expense to put him on the back foot. Logan wants to move OUSA in a more politically neutral direction, somewhat abandoning the socialist activism that has plagued the organization over the last few decades. He gets a black mark from the Eagle for opposing voluntary student membership, but his roguish charm and the fact that he doesn’t have a poster of Helen Clark in his room makes him the Eagle’s candidate of choice.
            Dan B-G comes across as genuine and competent, and would certainly work hard if he were elected President. He took the debate seriously, and discussed his plans for OUSA, such as holding weekly student meetings and creating a Minorities Rep (at this point the Eagle struggled to contain his sharp beak). Dan thinks Logan has done a “great job” so far, but that OUSA should be more active in protesting against the government with regards to various socialist causes. To quote Dan on universal student allowances, “students should get money from the government for free.” Oh dear. Dan was also questioned about his involvement with the International Socialists: he was a member for 17 months before being kicked out for not advocating violence.
            For Finance and Services Officer, vote Ryan Edgar. The Eagle has never met him, and doesn’t know anything about him. But he’s got to be better than disgraced former officer Dan “Young Labour” Stride. Incidentally, Logan took a stand against Stride running again, saying he “should have got the message and done something else”. But Dan B-G believes Stride to be  “great guy” who made a mistake. Wrong answer.
            The Eagle is disappointed to see that yet another Young Labour lackey, Francisco Hernandez, is running for some position or other. Don’t vote for him, eaglets. OUSA needs to be purged of the Young Labour virus killing it from the inside.
Enjoy your new voluntary OUSA,
The Eagle
Joe Stockman
Critic Feature writer, washed up political hack, Jelly-Bean aficionado, and puppy hater
 
Politics is an art as old as Socrates, a science as ancient as Jim Flynn. We pundits have some very technical ways of divining the underlying motivations and ideology of politicians: polling, focus groups, and political modeling, but in the end none of that really matters. The important thing is to ask the potential pols two simple questions. 1) Which do you prefer, puppies or kittens? And 2) which Jelly-Bean do you choose not to eat?
Seriously, this is all you need to know to break down the id, the ego and the super-ego of these political operatives, to understand their deepest desires, to break open their promises and examine the gooey sugary centre.
You see, Logan, told us that he loves puppies, ergo, he hates kittens. Do you really want a kitten hater as president? Logan’s hatred of kittens is truly concerning; it underlines his unresolved issues with his parents, his deep-seated attachment to sexual misadventure, and his desire to see the world in Lycra and shaven legs.
Dan also hates on kittens. But he’s a socialist. His hatred of kittens is due to their refusal to accept the constraints of puppy-like uniformity. Kittens are individuals, they refuse to work to any political ideology. Like Brad Pitt in Fight Club, kittens challenge the world by napping in the face of your social justice causes. Dan can’t accept the independence of kittens, especially kittens in multi-coloured mittens.
And what about the Jelly-Beans? Dan is especially concerning in his attitude towards the humble sugared bean, that divining rod of politics. Refusing to cast out the offending black bean, and its insipid aniseed, Dan would eat all the jelly-beans as a whole, ignoring the beauty and majesty of each individual bean. Do you really want to watch a man eat Jelly-Beans like that all year?
Logan wouldn’t eat the black Jelly-Bean at all. He’d cast it aside, putting it on the edges of the society, leaving it uneaten, unfulfilled, a failure of a bean that never achieved its purpose of assaulting a man’s mouth with its extravagant ineptitude.
So who should kitten lovers and black Jelly-Bean defenders support in this battle of puppy lovers? How can we choose between these two extremes? There is one more question we can ask, to clear up any ambiguity. Balls in or balls out, boys?