Bitter defeat

Yesterday was so long it felt like at least three days. I stepped outside at 6.30 to find a couple of centimetres of snow that I certainly hadn't been expecting. I'd got up really early in order to carry out my Master Plan, which consisted of covering LSE with as many flyers and posters as possible so that no-one who went into uni that day could fail to be aware of the motions coming up at the UGM. I put posters on notice boards in the Old Building and St Clements, and on Houghton St, and flyers went into all the computer rooms (that weren't having maintenance done) in St Clements, C120, and even a few classrooms. Sadly quite a few of the flyers hadn't come out great- many had been cut too close to the top, and a lot were faint in places or even all over. I then nipped into the Government Common room before my 9 o'clock lecture, to find that D had also been up very early- she'd found some green paint at home and had painted the outline of all the letters on the banner.

I'm afraid to say I dozed off towards the end of my lecture, though I did stay awake throughout the computer class. I actually finished the work 20 minutes or so before the end- it really isn't difficult for that course though of course it won't be computer work in the exam so that might be quite a bit harder.


I thought there was a meeting of the anti-Sutherland people at 12 so that the speakers could tell us what they were going to say, and went and waited in the room that had been booked, with a hastily bought sandwich, for 10 or 15 minutes before deciding no-one was coming. So I went to the War room (as the Government common room became known), where I found quite a few people, and discovered that the meeting was actually just for the speakers. I sewed the top of the banner round a piece of long thick string/ rope/ braid that D had brought in, with R working on the other end, and thought I should probably take advantage of there being no meeting to hand out some more flyers, but didn't want to leave.


Then we had the UGM. Only one of the friends (X) I'd asked actually came, though three in all said they definitely would. We waited outside because one of the friends had a class that finished at 1 so said she might be a bit late, but went in at 10 past. It was kind of odd and awkward having X with me- I felt a bit like I was using her by asking her to come along and vote, especially since we've only recently become friends, and I hoped that she enjoyed the UGM. She said she did, but I don't know if she was just being polite.

Our two were the only motions to be debated. There were quite a lot of people there, but it was not as packed as I'd hoped. And unfortunately it turned out that those in opposition had done a better job of mobilising than we had. I take my hat off to them- I wouldn't have thought it was possible to get large numbers of people to bother to turn up in order to vote against a referendum.

Both motions fell. I'd thought that the first one would go through fairly easily, since it just related to future appointments- after all, who would have a problem with being consulted on appointments? But it fell by more than 20 votes. The argument against that got me most was that only the students who cared about the issue would turn out to vote (essentially, though they didn't quite phrase it like that), and that this would 'screw things up for the majority of students' who would probably hold other views as to the appointment (according to the speaker). I really fail to see how that is a good argument against a referendum: surely the point is that everyone is given the opportunity to vote, and if anybody 'screws things up for the majority of students' it would be they themselves by not voting rather than those who did vote- but anyway I disagree that it would screw things up at all: if someone doesn't care enough to come and vote that implies that they don't feel that strongly about the appointment and thus wouldn't be too upset if the outcome was different to what they would ideally like- and even if that describes the majority of students, going with the referendum result would cause less discontent than going with what the majority want, since those who voted do care and would probably be considerably more unhappy than those who didn't if the appointment goes against their wishes.

By the time the first motion fell, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that the second would too. It was intended that it would have the support of the first motion (having established that the UGM believed in referenda in principle), and it was clear that we had not managed to mobilise enough to create a majority on our side. The only chance now was really if the motion was postponed until next week- admittedly there was no reason to suppose we could be any more successful at mobilising in a week's time than we had been today but at least it would give us another try. There were only about 10 minutes left of the meeting by this point, so it was put to the vote whether to wait till next week to debate it- but that fell massively (actually quite a few of the anti-Sutherland people voted not to postpone; presumably because they thought we were likely to mobilise even fewer on a second occasion). The Residences Officer gamely made her speech for, even though she must have known that she couldn't say anything that would stop the motion falling. The Societies Officer spoke against; I think it says something about the unpopularity of the anti-Sutherland people that this didn't stop people voting against the motion. Both speeches were rushed and delivered to a great deal of noise- the Residences Officer was shouting all the way through- and to an atmosphere that was no longer listening. I don't think there were any questions, or if there were they were few and not terribly earnest. The motion to vote also passed by a large majority, and the motion itself quickly proceeded to fall.


I had a lecture at 2 which meant I missed out rather- I imagine most of the anti-Sutherlanders spent a while talking over why the motions fell and what happens from here, and I still feel somewhat incomplete- undebriefed- for not having had that. My personal view is that there were two reasons: first that even though these motions should still have been submitted given the fall of the earlier motion on Sutherland, that earlier motion was a tactical mistake. Both the inclusion of opposition to the appointment (even though it did mean since the process by which it had come about was faulty), and the fact that we didn't have the motion on future appointments at that time caused problems: had we submitted both motions as they were this time round in the first place, they would have had a better chance of passing, but the failure of the first disposed large sections of the audience to vote against us, not least because in their eyes it probably looked like an attempt to sneak in something they'd already voted down. I still think we were right to submit the motions- but their chances were impaired. Secondly, we clearly failed to mobilise enough people to counteract that effect. Maybe that was because we didn't stress enough that it was going to be really close and we needed every vote we could get- after all, who would think that a motion calling for referenda on appointments was in any danger of failing? Perhaps a lot of people who were sympathetic but not regular UGM go-ers didn't feel the imperative to go out of their way to come this time, thinking it would pass quite happily without them. Or maybe we really did get all the supporters that there were (bar those three of my friends who didn't come after saying they would and two more who would have come but for classes scheduled at the same time)- which is not to say that the majority of students favour Sutherland: the majority are probably unaware he even exists; we could possibly have done a better job educating people though I'm not sure how.

Whatever, the UGM left me feeling pretty depressed. Depressed at the failure of our aims, but also depressed by what it said about the UGM that it would pass, for example, the Newsround motion last week but not a motion which would allow students to have a say in who's running the School (not so much the failure to pass the Sutherland motion which after all was not so unexpected). The vote against the Sutherland motion could be seen as a fear on the part of those who want him as Chair that a majority would vote against him, and an attempt to forestall this, or even a desire to avoid the need to campaign since the status quo suited them but a referendum would mean work to maintain it. Whilst it would be nice to think that people would prize democracy enough to put it above these concerns, this explaination is at least understandable. It can't apply to the first motion (except I suppose for the referendum on Howard Davies' probable re-appointment which would be an automatic consequence of it- but there is no reason to suppose that he wouldn't be approved by it), which mostly concerns the appointment of people whose identity is as yet undecided, and thus it is possible that they would be candidates those people wouldn't like (though admittedly the kind of person one can expect to be appointed as Chair or Director is unlikely not to appeal to them). Thus it is pretty much the case that a lot of those voting against (unless they were swayed by the screwing-things-up-for-the-majority argument and others) voted against because of who was behind the motion. Really I would have hoped that students were mature enough to put the idea over who was proposing it.

At least it was the motion to have a referendum and not the referendum that didn't go our way. If that had happened then whenever we spoke against Sutherland they could have dismissed it as the views of a minority. As it is, if the SU says that then we can come right back at them with 'How do you know? You wouldn't let us find out.'

Although I had read the papers that people were presenting as usual, I was too depressed to say anything in class this time (but it's always been the same people (myself included) talking so far, so it was about time someone else had a turn). I also felt suddenly very very tired- too tired to think of anything to say let alone say it. In any case, somehow I hadn't really thought of as many points while I was reading those papers (maybe my mind wasn't really on them)- in spite of their being the most flawed papers we've had so far. The presentations pretty much covered the flaws anyway. I actually fell asleep in this lecture too, despite my best efforts. This was more of a problem than in the first lecture (which was with the same lecturer)- there were a lot of students in that one and I was quite far back. In this lecture there were only ten or twenty, and the lecturer was sitting to the side to hear the presentations, with me being clearly visible through a diagonal gap. At least I managed to stay awake through the presentations.

After the class I was dying to get back and see if anyone wasn't yet surfeited with analysis of What Happened, and would be prepared to discuss it with me, but I had to copy leaflets for the evening's protest first, which was quite a lengthly process and was fraught with a selection of problems as always with copying things. I did bump into the newest member of C&S on the way in though, and discussed it with her, which went some way to providing closure on the subject (though I could still have done with more). Incidentally, she's growing on me- I think I judged her motives rather harshly before, and though I'm still not sure, I think maybe she was being genuinely friendly.

I stopped at the SU shop on my way back to get some Lindor (they have some in the pick and mix), because I thought everyone would need cheering up, and to recognise that even though we lost everyone worked really hard on it. They went down pretty well, though fortunately people seemed to be quite upbeat and enthusiastic about the evening anyway (maybe they'd got over the frustration of defeat after talking about it for a while). I helped a bit more with the banner (sewing the thick string in a few places so it was no longer free to move) and making placards, but not much- there were already two people doing placards and only two sellotapes so it wasn't very easy for me to help too. We had a bit of a discussion of the fine details of the plan before eventually setting out for the Old Building.

We got up to the fifth floor no problem, got our oil slicks (gloss paint on paper) down and stood in place with placards and the banner. I and a couple of other people volunteered to hand out the leaflets. We were in position for quite a while before anyone started arriving. The security guards were very nice but did move our oil slicks out of the path from the lifts to the dining room and didn't let us have our 'Caution: wet floor' signs which was a shame. They also put a couple of red cordons up, with some protesters packed into a corner behind one of them, to give a bit of protection to the path from one lift.


We were a bit concerned that they might be smuggling people in a different way*, but in the end the guests started turning up. I was quite pleased with my leaflet handing manner (which drew praise from a couple of people incidentally): big smile, 'Are you here for the Lawyer's Alumni Dinner? Here you are [for the last few, 'Here's a menu'], have a nice evening.' Only one or two people didn't take one from me, and one refused one from one of the other hander-outs (though I'm afraid in my enthusiasm I rather trampled all over their rights as handers-out and rushed to give them to guests no matter which direction they came from. Well, it was my leaflet** :-) ). Though the manner and the speech were designed to maximise uptake, and though I'm quite sure most if not all thought I was an official part of the dinner separate from the protest until they read the leaflet, I don't feel that it was inappropriately devious: after all, we weren't protesting against them and I genuinely did wish them a nice evening (hard as that must be when it involves listening to a speech from Sutherland), just as I wish anyone else one- and nothing I said was untrue, and if it gave a false impression it was due to their assumptions based on context rather than any falseness inherent in the words. As CMCC and others pointed out, whoever had the idea of doing a menu was a genius, though it wasn't till the protest that I was won over (I thought it was a bit extreme-literature, but I realised on the evening that the humour made it a lot more accessible).


But the bit I'm proudest of is the bit when Sutherland arrived. He came via the red cordons, and the security guards stood to prevent me coming forward to hand leaflets from the position I'd adopted with all the other guests, but I reached around behind one of the security guards and handed one to each of the people coming out. The first was one of my failures, but the second took one and the third was Sutherland who also took one- though whether by that instinct that makes people take a flyer when the person in front has, in an inadvertant action that he kicked himself for later, or whether in a carefully calculated PR move so as not to show himself unwilling to engage with students/ accept peacefull protest I'm not sure.

Some of the guests came up the stairs- someone suggested (based on the way the lift seemed to be behaving) that some were being got out at the fourth floor and sent up the stairs, though I'm not quite sure what purpose that would have achieved (if it's true it does mean more hassle for the School though which all goes to gradually wearing them down (well hopefully).


The mood throughout was really positive. Everyone was happy and making jokes in between arrivals of guests; what we lost in discipline we gained in positive energy. The security guards congratulated us several times on conducting a dignified and peaceful protest, which was nice in one sense but annoyingly made any stronger action later very difficult (though it was already pretty much ruled out anyway since the guests had taken the leaflets and Sutherland had done nothing to object to; it would have seemed odd to step things up after that).

In fact we had planned a sort of epilogue to the protest, which would have still been peaceful and dignified and would have worked in the context of the first part, but logistical factors that were not as we had hoped they would be prevented us carrying it out. We spent a long while discussing whether or not to proceed with it in the War Room, but given those logistical circumstances any modified version would have involved entering the room which however peaceful and dignified (and the bit where we would have had to push past security couldn't really have managed the dignified bit even if technically still peaceful) would have been an unwarranted escalation.

So we all went to the pub instead. I got chatting to the Beaver reporter and it turned out she went to the same school as me. We had a great time ranting about the headmistress (who fails to be as bad as Sutherland only because she (presumably) hasn't been committing human rights abuses or having people murdered by paramilitaries), and comparing notes on which teachers overlapped both our times- I'm afraid poor R was rather left out.


It was actually a reallly really good evening- I can't remember the last time I enjoyed myself so much at a pub. The people were all really interesting, and AH and D even invited me to come and work in the Government Common room whenever I wanted- which was nice because I was feeling a bit sad that there wouldn't be much to do on Sutherland in the near future- I'd miss hanging out with everyone. It was also nice because I like AH (not just as a friend). I'm unclear as to what he thinks about me though: he has been very nice to me over the past few days, and has done some things which if I'd done them it would be because I was interested in the person, but he is basically a really friendly person and it is perfectly possible, maybe even possible, that becoming friends is all he was aiming at. Which already makes me very happy, but leaves me a little uncertain- I'm now worried about jeopardizing that friendship, by making things awkward if I was too overt about my interest and friendship was all that he was thinking of. On the other hand, such a cautious attitude is probably what has got me where I am today (in my seventh year of being single).

What are those things that I say would have meant interest if it had been me doing them? Well, he praised all the hard work I'd done on the Sutherland campaign, saying I'd done more than anyone else (not true: I would have said EMCC and CMCC, with AH and JK coming second)- not in itself a terribly significant thing, but he said it about ten times over the course of two days (not that I minded- I lap up praise however dodgy the grounds for it are so long as it's sincerely meant :-) and I especially like praise coming from people whose opinions really matter to me- as far as I'm concerned he can say it as often as he likes), which of course could just be his nice nature, but if I praised someone that often it would be because I liked them (actually I have to admit one of my weaknesses is that I tend not to vocalise praise even though I feel it- it is partly because I feel that in some contexts to praise someone would be to set myself above them (in a teacher or manager sort of role) by making myself the person authorised to dispense praise, or to offer recognition on behalf of a group). If it were due to his liking me that he said it so many times it would be rather sweet... And he called me a hero (in a slightly joking way) a couple of times during the protest, for nothing much- one time was when I stuck my hand through the lift doors as they were closing to give some non-lawyers who happened to be passing through in said lift a leaflet, since everyone wanted me to- admittedly this seemed to strike quite a lot of people as dangerous, but I don't think it was because lift doors automatically stop if there's something in the way and anyway they don't crunch that heavily.

He also encouraged me several times to join Facebook (which I was planning to do soon anyway as R invited me and I finally decided to succumb)- again quite probably indicative of nothing more than a desire to be friends being expressed by a friendly nature, but the enthusiasm could suggest something more... Again, if it had been me I would have meant something by it, but then I'm comparatively introverted. And in this context he was telling me about poking on Facebook, which didn't seem 100% like something that absolutely had to be naturally mentioned in the conversation at that point and could therefore have been motivated by an interest in me, and that his relationship status was 'in an open relationship with D', but that this was just a joke (rather like me and Ginger I imagine), which again didn't entirely need mentioning but maybe he just didn't want me to get confused about their friendship as we were becoming friends just because misunderstandings can be problematic.

The final thing was that after a few people had left I moved to sit next to him and when our legs touched he didn't move his, so that most of the time we were sitting with legs touching- but maybe it's just a relaxed attitude to personal space- I think maybe it's just me who would move my legs if they were touching someone I wasn't interested in. And maybe I was subconsciously moving my legs into his space and he didn't have anywhere to go, or thought it would be rude to move them.
It's not just the kind of interest, friend or more, that I'm not sure of: in spite of everything I'm still not sure about how single he is. When he said the open relationship on Facebook was a joke it seemed to imply that they were just friends, and that was mostly how they seemed, but it could also be interpreted as it being a joke because they're actually in a closed relationship, and if not, it doesn't mean that it isn't one of those friendships where one or both parties actually want it to be more but can't quite work out how to try to achieve that without risking the friendship. There were one or two points where I wondered if that was the case.

I'm now wondering whether to poke him on Facebook (which I did join today). I'm not sure how common the poke is, and whether it's something that really is accepted as a normal part of beginning to go out with someone or whether actually in spite of what it was intended to do it is the online equivalent of going up to someone and saying 'Will you go out with me?'- or whether it's used a lot to the point of being frequently employed as a joke (he did say that he and D often poke each other in that spirit). The issue is further complicated by his explaination last night that if someone pokes someone else 'they have to shag each other'- of course he was joking and I'm pretty sure from hearing about it in other contexts that a poke can just indicate interest, but if he thinks that I think that's what it does... And even leaving all of this aside, and assuming that a poke would simply convey to him that I was romantically interested, there is the not inconsiderable risk that the feeling is unreciprocated and it then turns out that things are too awkward to be friends- and I would be sad to miss out on that friendship.

On the other hand, as I say, being cautious has not thus far got me anywhere terribly interesting, and this is probably the easiest way of indicating interest to someone (assuming it means that) that I'll ever come across- and how many times have I wished there was a simple way of doing just that that didn't come with all the problems of the going-up-to-them-and-saying-'Will you go out with me?' approach?*** And face it, we're in February already, I haven't got that many more months at LSE. Though I'd like to think that we would remain friends after I graduate, even if I miss out on that via this course of action, whilst I would of course regret the loss of the friendship a lot at least I wouldn't have many months of seeing him around and it being all awkward. It's probably the prime time for embarrassing myself...

So I think I might do it. But of course my nerve may fail me...

Incidentally, I'd like to make it clear that my interest in him is not simply due to his current interest in me (as friend or otherwise etc) and his praising my work on the Sutherland thing. I've actually been interested in him for quite some time, but I've made sure it stayed on a very low level since at that point he seemed quite distant (not in manner but in terms of how well I knew him and what the potential was for getting to know him better) and also I thought he probably had a girlfriend. When the opportunity came to spend more time with him (along with the rest of them) and I discovered that he probably didn't, I allowed the interest to rise. And of course during that time I saw more to like.

*a Beaver reporter told me later that they'd originally been going to take Sutherland round another way but abandoned that idea as either she or a different Beaver reporter was standing there

**mostly- EMCC did make some alterations including authoring the best bits of the menu. Which I pointed out to people when they were praising me for it in the War Room before the protest.

***I hasten to add that I do not speak of these problems from experience