After what can only be described as one of the easiest runs to the Presidency in SU Election History, Alex Corck-Adelman has, unsurprisingly, been elected as the Students’ Union President for 2011-12.

Corck-Adelman ran a strong campaign throughout, though his fellow candidate Ngoc Tran failed to run a campaign that gained much credibility with the electorate. Despite an intial challenge from former Karni Director Sam O’Flaherty, this never became an impediment to Corck-Adelman’s campaign, mostly due to O’Flaherty’s lack of attendance at Candidate Question Times, and subsequent resignation over grievances filed against his manner of campaigning. Abundant rumours that Charlie Sheen had entered the Presidential Race proved incorrect, paving the way for Corck-Adelman’s victory.

Corck-Adelman’s campaign was easy to spot around campus with his distinctive ‘Tesco’ style branding and his slogan “Every little Vote helps”.

Corck-Adelman will now have a mammoth task on his hands, and will have an ambitious set of manifesto pledges to implement, such as a ‘London style bike scheme’ and a ‘Campus Card’ system, which he hopes will allow students to have discounts on bus services and goods on campus. He has also promised to ensure the University provide a commitment to extending its bursary schemes.

Speaking to Impact, Corck-Adelman said, “I’m excited, happy and ecstatic. I wouldn’t have been able to to do this without my campaign team”.

Previous post

Simon Proven the Papa Smurf

Next post

SU Elections Results Night in Pictures

18 Comments

  1. Student
    March 12, 2011 at 01:33 — Reply

    I am quite disheartened by the treatment that Ngoc received from the SU and students in general throughout this election campaign. She was treated as a laughing stock and “joke” candidate from day one. The SU has an equal opportunities policy, and pays no attention to this whatsoever in the way it mocks its candidates. I feel so sorry for Ngoc losing to RON.

    A bad night for the SU.

  2. David
    March 12, 2011 at 10:21 — Reply

    While I’d agree that there was some unnecessary mocking at her expense from certain members of the SU, and particularly those who were supposed to be playing the role of an impartial chair at times, I have to admit I don’t really feel sorry for her losing to RON.

    If there’s one thing that was shown repeatedly through the various Question Time events, it was that she didn’t really know much of anything about the SU, and it could be argued that although specific knowledge of each area isn’t needed, the president HAS to be a ‘generalist’ in order to work well with the rest of the Exec. Her consistant misunderstanding of questions, long and rambling answers, and shouting over people didn’t bode well for a potential future in high level meetings either, and didn’t really lend itself to the ‘I’m a good listener’ mantra that was constantly repeated. I realise this is a somewhat blunt assessment, and she did have some qualities as a candidate, but there are reasons far beyond her being treated as a ‘joke’ candidate why her vote was so low.

    I very much admire her for running as an ‘unknown’ student beforehand, and especially for such a role, and I wish that more people would do that in the future. But in this case it was just the wrong person for the wrong position to stand any realistic chance in my opinion.

  3. Matt
    March 12, 2011 at 10:29 — Reply

    I suspect her comments on the LGBT community, whatever her intention, were a final nail in the coffin…

  4. Student
    March 12, 2011 at 10:33 — Reply

    I agree with your points about her not really being a suitable candidate totally Dave. However, the treatment that she received from the rest of the students and the other candidates was unacceptable. There is a line between accepting that she was never a realistic challenger for the presidency, and then quite frankly bullying her.

    I really feel that the RON option should only be available if there is one candidate standing. If there are two or more, what is the need for RON? All other students had the opportunity to come forward and nominate themselves for election, they chose not to do so. They should not then have the option of voting to RON when there are two candidates who have shown the motivation necessary to sign up.

  5. Matt
    March 12, 2011 at 10:44 — Reply

    There is always a need for RON. Not every student can combine an SU role with a late year in their degree, or put their degree and career/further education plans on hold to spend a year in SU politics. These people still have a right to representation, and a right to reject being represented by someone they don’t agree with.

    I voted RON before Ngoc Tran simply because, unlike almost all candidates for all positions, I didn’t see a trace of her other than on the elections webpage, and more importantly I didn’t agree with her policies. If I was still unsure, I’d have been put off by her responses a the question time. There’s nothing prejudiced or sinister about it, and complaining about the result is pointless.

    It may just be student politics, but it’s still politics, and if people want to put themselves to an electorate they have to be ready for a pretty rough rejection.

  6. tesco shopper
    March 12, 2011 at 11:59 — Reply

    “After what can only be described as one of the easiest runs to the Presidency in SU Election History”

    Please can people not be under any illusions that the reasons for this are because Corcky was/is so outstanding. He made it ‘easy’ for the constituents because he is by far and away the best member of the students’ union for the job. Put him up against anyone else out there and its Corcky for me.

    Not a bad night at all, im proud to be part of a union with a pres-elect like Corcky.

  7. Andrew
    March 12, 2011 at 12:34 — Reply

    Ngoc is an extremely nice and personable. She did not deserve to lose to RON however it must be noted that outside question times her campaign was near non-existent. Answers she gave in the question times themselves may have been misconstrued however as Matt said above, there has been nothing sinister or prejudice about the way the election has been handled . The SU and Elections Committee did a great job.

    Best of luck to both Corcky and Ngoc for the future.

  8. Student
    March 12, 2011 at 12:52 — Reply

    I agree Tesco Shopper, although it doesn’t mean that Ngoc got fair treatment. Corcky would probably have won anyway, and I’m happy that we have him as president, although for the SU as a whole, and as a democratic and inclusive body, it was a bad campaign and a bad night.

    On another note, what is the relevance of the tesco theme, and why is it so popular with candidates?

  9. Thomas
    March 12, 2011 at 13:21 — Reply

    It is clear the real reason that Ngoc lost to RON was because of the nature in which Sam O’flaherty was removed from running for presidency. In light of the unusually professional way he ran his campaign and the massive on-line presence he had it seems clear that most of the votes for RON are in fact a stand at his removal. In terms of Corky being completely unchallenged I think that this is only true noting that his main competitor was forced to withdraw and so the second paragraph of this article is ridiculous in my opinion.

  10. rich
    March 12, 2011 at 15:25 — Reply

    Student- what kind of stupid point is questioning the relevance of the tesco theme. it’s such a stupid statement it is impossible to reply to. you really are an idiot.
    She was treated as a joke candidate because she was a joke candidate. She did absolutely zero campaigning, had no team, and came across terribly in the candidates question time, struggling with the english language just as much as she did with the policies. No, that is not racist, it is the truth. She bumbled along talking rubbish which didn’t make much sense. No one made her go for president, she was deluded enough to go for it, if people have a little joke about her its her own fault. No one joked about Corcky because he was brilliant.

  11. jason
    March 12, 2011 at 15:57 — Reply

    I would never say this to him, but I don’t think anyone can deny that the presidential contest was something of a non-contest this year. Alex versus Samo would have been very interesting as Samo was very popular too, I’ve just seen his video and its brilliantly put together, I urge you to watch it. However, when Samo pulled out, it was inevitable that Corcky would be president. However, don’t criticise him for being president because he wasn’t up against anyone (essentially), I think even if there were other strong candidates in the running, Corcky would still have done well because he is very popular, had good policies and campaigned very well.

  12. Andrew
    March 12, 2011 at 16:29 — Reply

    Anyone complaining about lack of competition should have just run themselves. Corcky did great and continued to campaign tirelessly despite it looking likely that he’d win anyway.

  13. March 12, 2011 at 18:09 — Reply

    @Student In what ways did the SU both fail to comply with its equal opps policy and remain neutral? Having watched the CQTs and interviews with NUTs, I personally was impressed at how neutral the SU remained and that she was taken to be a serious candidate by the SU. If there are any instances I have missed, then please list them.

  14. Rob
    March 12, 2011 at 18:11 — Reply

    wah wah wah, students poked fun at a poor candidate. FFS, screw equal opportunities. Anything sexist, homophobic, racist, etc etc would be a cause for outrage. But simply poking fun and calling a terrible candidate terrible is not an issue. She was crap, deal with it.

  15. Alex
    March 13, 2011 at 20:58 — Reply

    And it still remains that SamO was unfairly pushed out of this race. He should have been allowed to exploit his network, the uni are forever barking on about establishing a network, yet you aren’t allowed to use it? Ridiculous. And although I would have voted for Corcky anyway (he really is a great guy) this is not a great example of a democracy. SamO’s campaign video really is brilliant too.

  16. DMB
    March 14, 2011 at 21:04 — Reply

    Whilst SOAS has a union president who’s prepared to lead the way against government cuts, stand side by side with university staff who’ve lost their jobs and forge links with community groups in the local area, we have one whose promises- despite the appalling attacks on higher education made by our current government- are managerial rather than political, and have absolutely no credibility whatsoever (does he have any idea how much it would cost to implement a ‘London style bike scheme’, or that it would be utterly impossible in his one year tenure? Has he spoken to Sustrans, who already operate a bike hire scheme for NU students? Has he looked at the abject failure of a similar scheme in Southampton?). Not to mention the fact his campaign centred around pinching the corporate identity of Tesco.

    Now, more than ever, SUs need to be strong enough to fight for the future of education, and yet we get depoliticised managerialism. Wake me up when it’s over.

    • Rob
      March 16, 2011 at 16:43 — Reply

      I fully and utterly concur with this.

  17. mikey
    March 18, 2011 at 19:30 — Reply

    DMB- why dont you stop being so catty and run for a position yourself if you think that your opinion in agreed with throughout the student body?

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.