Comments on: Presidential candidates discuss arms divestment campaign

By: Dan Taylor

Dan Taylor — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:59:44 +0000

Additionally, Mr Rose, if you’d have read the article properly you would have seen this:

“both Bradley and Bushby agree that they would support any motion passed by the student body in a UGM…”

I think it directly addreses your concerns.

By: Dan Taylor

Dan Taylor — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:51:19 +0000

Jason, I’m sure you will understand that voting in a UGM is a private act, as is any form of voting in a secret ballot; some of us choose not to vocalise your feelings and opinions quite as much as you do. Charles didn’t attend the UGM in question, but has voted on every UGM since he has been a student at The University of York.

What is listed is his election policy. It is a sensible policy. He was asked for his view, and gave his view. Obviously, if mandated by students to campaign for something, then this is what Charles will be doing if elected. However, as you are well aware, the issue of arms is on going and a UGM on the issue next term is not out of the question, indeed it is highly likely.

I direct you to the facebook group supporting continued investment in BAE/Rolls Royce: It now has more members than the disinvestments group. Obviously this is unofficial and the like. However, it does show that opinion continues to be over-polarised on the matter, which is why Charles’ position is one of common sense. As the question that was asked yesterday refers to, ‘how would one stop small but overly-vocal students furthering their own “left-wing” causes without alienating the rest of the student population’ (not asked by me, incidentally). Well, Charles has come up with the answer.

His policy reflects an ethical dimension whilst not alienating those who happen not to view investment in BAE and Rolls Royce as unethical. Additionally, he reaffirms his commitment to furthering the very important financial and research interests of this institution.

By: Jason Rose

Jason Rose — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:36:07 +0000

“Believing that “the role of the President entails furthering the interests of the University” he argues that decisions need to be considered carefully. Finally Bushby states that if the campaign “does not compromise the interests of the University; both in research and financial terms, then it is something we should support.” ”

I’d just like to clarify a point. A UGM has powers above and beyond the YUSU President and it is not up to the President to decide whether he (in this case) agrees with the UGM. There will often be cases where Officers disagree with union policy but, well, tough luck. It is voted for by the students and overrules personal opinion. There’s no “we should support” about it once it has been passed.

I’m curious to know whether either Bushby or Bradley attended the UGM in question or voted for, or against, it. The motion had plenty of information and the speeches were coherent. There have been plenty of discussions on it and the student *most definitely* had enough information if they wanted it – though the Registrar’s misleading words on BBC Radio York weren’t helpful (albeit were at 8am so wouldn’t affect students!)