A group of York students has won the opportunity to have their very own I-phone application developed after winning The App Challenge final, held at the Ron Cooke Hub on Wednesday, January 18.
YUSU Welfare officer Bob Hughes has warned students to be vigilant after a student loans phishing scam has been revealed.
Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting York on Maundy Thursday, 5th April, as part of the 800th anniversary of York’s Charter for the traditional “Royal Maundy” ceremony.
A flood caused by a heating system “failure” forced the university IT services to shut down many essential systems on Sunday night, causing problems for many students on the eve of their exams and assignment due-dates.
The motion, proposed by Miles Layram, put forward a “stepping stone” solution to reinstating portering hours by suggesting that a 3-additional-porters compromise, allowing lodges to stay open until 2am be adopted. The motion stated that such a solution would significantly improve the current situation in terms of welfare and security. It was noted that the last time this specific policy went to UGM, which was in 2001, it achieved a 100% vote in favour: the Union’s greatest victory yet.
There were speakers, including YUSU President, Tim Ngwena, Ben Humphrys and Matt Bailey, who expressed problems with the motion, as well as a written statement from Pro-Vice-Chancellor for students, Jane Grenville. All speakers emphasised their support of the Portering Campaign, but were keen to point out issues with the details of the motion. Such issues included the fact that Tim Ngwena believed not all costs to have been taken into account in the drawing up of the motion, a belief seconded by Grenville, while Humphreys stated that the University would be more willing to listen to the campaign, once real-life “proof” of the welfare advantages to 24/7 portering is found.
Jason Rose defended the motion by arguing that if there are examples of ineffective portering, something has “gone wrong”. He suggested that the University shouldn’t need such examples, given that such evidence will be examples of students in trouble – something that should be avoided at all costs.
Another member argued that the motion was “restarting the campaign that has stalled under YUSU leadership”, and answered Ngwena’s claim that activism at Open Days (to make prospective students aware of the portering situation) would damage the University and act contrary to YUSU’s purpose of encouraging students to attend, by stating that he believed prospective students would be attracted by a clearly strong and active political community on campus.
A routine ratification of Union Council Minutes was taken, before the Annual Constitutional Tidy-Up and motion to alter the name of Student Action to YUSU Volunteering: Student Action in the Community were resubmitted after problems with passage after the last UGM.
A motion to reform the Eqaulity, Welfare and Diversity Committee to restrict voting members in order to create a more manageable and accountable Committee was proposed without question, as was the proposal to create a YUSU Disability Committee to increase representation of disabled students and awareness of such disabilities.
A motion to include Nightline in the Union Council was proposed by the Nightline Committee in order to give Nightline equal status and support in recognition of the important service they provide on campus. It was opposed by YUSU Democracy and Services Officer, Lewis Bretts, who claimed to be speaking up for “pragmatism and democracy” in stating that he saw no reason why inclusion on Union Council would benefit Nightline and defending the Council’s need to remain exclusive in order to make efficient decisions.
A motion entitled, Your YUSU, Your Officers, Your Information, proposed by Chair, David Levene, to increase communication and accountability within the Union was unopposed and the meeting was finished by progress reports from the officers in attendance.
A disappointing turnout of no more than 25 was present.
Voting on the motions will open on Monday Week 9, at 4pm, on the YUSU website.
Just to point out that the claim that the previous portering motions passed 100% is actually false:
Passed: 11th Nov 2009, Expires: 11th Nov 2012
Portering on Campus 496 18 13
Passed: 7th Feb 2007, Expires: 7th Feb 2010
PORTERING ON CAMPUS 216 6 1
http://www.yusu.org/policy
Please also remember that if you are ever are in an emergency to please call 999 or 3333.
It's also worth noting the following in the 2007 motion:
(iv) If portering does not return to the staffing levels of October 2006 after the period of temporary closure, to boycott University Open Days and, if felt necessary by Union Senate, actively campaign against the University on any such days.
This is somewhat less drastic than what is proposed in this motion, this motion propose a campaign to actively discourage students from attending York through multiple channels. This is against the mandate of the Union, and also very stupid.
To top it off, the motion says that sabbatical officers will have to submit a vote of no confidence motion in themselves if they do not fully support the motion, which I also think is highly divisive and is not what the students of this university need.
We have 24 hour portering on campus, some universities do not.
Please vote against this motion, there are better ways to continue the campaign than this.
Matt, could you just clarify what is said in the 2007 motion and what is said in the 2009 one - there were a few too many "this"s for me to follow it...
Matt, don't be a noob - you were there and heard what he said! He didn't say "the last motion on the subject of portering" but rather "the last time *this* motion was put forward, it got 100%" - THAT motion received 100% last time and you know that.
Also "the motion says that sabbatical officers will have to submit a vote of no confidence motion in themselves" is a complete non-truth. There was a clarification read out at the meeting, which you were present at, from Rules and Revisions Committee to explain that any no-confidence motion would be entirely voluntary. It's not going to destroy the Sabbs; it all adds up; nothing said was false.
As I said before, people like Matt will try to persuade you with mistruths and words taken out of context. Likewise people in favour will say things that make you lean that way. Yes, the President and Welfare Officer spoke against - yes, an older student spoke in favour and the University spoke against. None of these should matter: READ THE MOTION and make your mind up yourself!
That's what I said in my speech: I didn't argue in favour of the motion but rather argued against the people biasing the arguments with non-issues and persuasive techniques! PLEASE read it fully and make a decision yourself.
In terms of what Matt said and #2's request for clarification: The 2007 motion suggested boycotting Open Days and campaign against the University. The 2009 motion suggests releasing the information about Service Cuts at Open Days and doing so in other media - such as newspapers, online potential-student websites and the like.
In my personal opinion, the difference is that the first one is *opposing the University as a whole narrowly at prospective York students* and the second one is *raising awareness about the cuts far more widely* so both are moving against the University but I personally feel that this second one is more long-term and is also more geared against the services cuts especially instead of just "against the University" as the 2007 motion says.
I'm not saying I'm in favour of the motion or not - just that the differences aren't as extreme and the motion isn't as drastic as some people have claimed! Likewise it's not just another portering motion so don't treat it as either 
Jason,
Don't lie - the clarification solely referred to the salary aspect in notes (5), as you well know. Resolves (4) would, as Matt says, mean that "that sabbatical officers will have to submit a vote of no confidence motion in themselves if they do not fully support the motion". Eitehr support the motion or don't Jason - but as a Union Officer I'd expect you to refrain from attacking students without being sure of the facts yourself. This faux 'representing both sides' stuff is getting a bit tiring and is just disingenous.
I indeed got it wrong; sorry! I meant to say that the clarification said that any staff reductions are completely voluntary of the Sabbs - and that it means that any opposition to that tenet of the motion would qualify as a no-confidence. That's what I meant!
It IS genuine that I don't feel in favour or against the motion. I think there are several things in the motion that I disagree with but many things I agree with. I think that it is IRRELEVANT, 100%, as to how I actually feel anyway since that's up to how I vote and should NOT impact how other people vote. I'm sick of politics on-campus where people just warp the truth as much as they can to try and shove their point of view through. I'm not saying it's that bad in this case but it's important that there is CLARITY and if someone makes a mistake - and I'm not saying Matt was deliberately making the error but since he was at the UGM and Miles was quite clear then it's a little bit noobish to make that kind of mistake (and I would also point out that it was noobish of me to have made an equally foolish mistake in my retort!) then I feel the need to correct them.
To clarify:
A) Matt made a mistake. THIS motion was passed 100% the last time it went forward but the last two motions only passed with 97.4% and 99.5%.
B) Matt wasn't clear and then I made a mistake: Sabbs aren't mandated to offer their salaries to be cut and only need to put up a no-confidence if it is unambiguous that they are being ambiguous
Sorry if I ruined the point I was trying to make about clarity - we all make mistakes. I try to avoid being a noob where possible and this time I failed >.>
"As I said before, people like Matt will try to persuade you with mistruths and words taken out of context. Likewise people in favour will say things that make you lean that way. Yes, the President and Welfare Officer spoke against - yes, an older student spoke in favour and the University spoke against. None of these should matter: READ THE MOTION and make your mind up yourself!"
Mistruths... Jason I took the data from the active policy page on the YUSU website, short of going to YUSU and demanding 3 year old UGM data to post a comment on a website I can't see what I did wrong. And I apologise if there was a 100% passed Portering motion, its not obvious to the normal student who doesn't spend his life at YUSU. Jason, could you tell me when this motion went through the UGM. If I made a mistake I apologise.
It is worth re-emphasising this difference between the 2007 & the 2009 motion is that the 2007 motion says that demonstrations at open days etc would be at the discretion of YUSU Senate. This is not mentioned in this motion, effectively meaning the highest body within the union has no say on what is in my opinion highly destructive and divisive motion.
To be honest Jason, I don't know what you're trying to achieve. Your speech at the UGM was basically pointless, as there was no side to it. I thought David was harsh on the proposers for counting it as a speech for the motion. Your comments on here show the same general apathy to the subject. Maybe if you spent less time flaming me on here, and more time organising effective campaigns then this daft motion wouldn't even have to be brought forward.
"I'm sick of politics on-campus where people just warp the truth as much as they can to try and shove their point of view through" I don't consider myself to be highly involved with politics on campus, and I certainly don't warp the truth. This is the first UGM I have spoken at, and I did so because I read the motion and thought, "oh sh*t if this gets through its bad times, what can I do to stop us looking like arses".
Please vote against the motion.
I agree with Matt: given that you are one of our campaigns officers Jason, and that portering is the most high-profile campaign going on at the moment, I find it very hard to understand why you have allowed a motion concerning it to be put forward which you feel ambivalent towards. I would have thought it was your job to help create a motion which you think is the best way of helping as many students as possible, rather than one which you're not really sure about.
Or if you are sure about it, as someone who knows more about the issues than most students, being our campaigns officer, try to convince people of your view. People will still make their own minds up - that's the beauty of advice: if you have it you can decide whether to act on it or not, if you don't you're stuck with whatever you can work out for yourself.
On which note, Matt has presented a clear argument against the motion by highlighting what he thinks is wrong with it, so now I can consider whether I agree with him or not. Shouldn't you be doing something similar to him Jason?
Does Miles Layram do anything within YUSU at the moment?
Thanks #7.
#8, I am unsure about Miles' involvement. However this motion has brewed from this:
http://www.theyorker.co.uk/news/uninews/3799
The motion can be read in full here: http://www.yusu.org/motion/229
Please vote against the motion.
"Mistruths... Jason I took the data from the active policy page on the YUSU website, short of going to YUSU and demanding 3 year old UGM data to post a comment on a website I can't see what I did wrong."
The word mistruth isn't the same as the word lie - you argued against a point that Miles didn't make. The previous time that motion was submitted, it got 100% - which is what he said.
"This is not mentioned in this motion, effectively meaning the highest body within the union has no say on what is in my opinion highly destructive and divisive motion."
Firstly, the boycott wasn't up to Senate and secondly Senate is not the highest body. The UGM is higher - and that's where the decision should be made.
"To be honest Jason, I don't know what you're trying to achieve. Your speech at the UGM was basically pointless, as there was no side to it."
I'm trying to stop students from believing mistruths - trying to get them to make their own mind. "Please vote against the motion" should never be something that is said - people should vote based on how they personally believe on a subject and our jobs should be to raise awareness.
If I DID have an opinion massively on one side, the job should be to raise awareness of those issues; not to try and force people to vote that way. Ending with "please vote against the motion" is similar to how I end a debate with YUDS - the entire point of that phraseology is to persuade people to agree with you, not persuade people to make their own mind up. A UGM is there to let people make their own decisions. That's what it should always be for.
"I would have thought it was your job to help create a motion which you think is the best way of helping as many students as possible, rather than one which you're not really sure about"
Then you don't understand my job or the job of a UGM! This motion was put forward by students to be voted on students. I didn't create the motion and this motion isn't part of my campaign. If it passes, it will become part of the YUSU Campaign - and that's how democracy works!
I don't understand why I get attacked when I promote democracy. It's strange. PLEASE don't just vote against the motion because Matt says so - he keeps saying things that aren't true.
The motion didn't brew from that story - it was actually submitted significantly before that (the UGM motion submission deadline was actually before that Campaigns Committee!) so please don't just believe what people say without doing your own research. READ the motions and vote the way you want. Aaargh.
Matt - your UGM figures arise from a misquote in the above article (not
your fault), but your stuff about the motion being anti-constitutional is nonsense. Motions get checked thoroughly for that kind of thing before they even reach a UGM, and any negatives in the policies would be offset by things like getting porters back, improving student welfare, etc. But if you still think it's a problem then make a proper, official complaint to the Rules and Revisions Committee, via Lewis, instead of just slinging mud on a chatboard.
Your bit about sabbs not being allowed to disagree with a motion is a misreading - the motion doesn't say that! - and the sabbs having to get together behind a policy once it has become a mandate, regardless of their personal views, is the LEAST divisive part of the Union, and is what they should be doing anyway.
Your stuff about open days and negative publicity has already been very thoroughly answered in Miles's speech, but you haven't bothered to listen to that set of arguments and engage with them. You've just made that point as if it hasn't already been addressed.
Now you've come up with something about how the motion originated at a meeting which took place after it was submitted. It's almost as if you are TRYING to get everything wrong. And what, in any case, does it matter where the strategy originated, or how many votes it got at some past UGM? If people have to develop fixations, try developing fixations on reading the motion in an accurate way, and addressing relevant issues, such as:
Do the outline figures in the motion add up? It seems they do, as the money is already built in for stuff like training and National Insurance (which Tim and Jane Grenville mentioned), as the 20K is above the mean porter grade salary, and because the savings from not employing one of the planned new security people would be a lot higher than the 20K estimate. Go through it carefully, and the basic costings pattern given in the motion works really well - even on Jane Grenville's extra-15K terms. And if it still turned out that Hes Hall had to find 5K more than the outline figures suggest, then so what? The managers have been awarding themselves huge pay rises over the years, and the V-C and one of his colleagues are on about 450K between them. The scraps of money needed to hire three porters are small change. So .... is the three-porter scheme affordable? Yes.
Does the motion contradict the idea of handing a dossier of incidents to the management? Of course not. If anything, it gives them a very cheap middle way. They are never going to hand back full 24/7 cover on the basis of a list of welfare incidents, because it's too easy to say that each individual problem could have happened anyway. Plus, these are the same people who want to reduce portering, not increase it, as shown by the fact that they have just reduced it. (This isn't quantum physics.) But if they see a solution available for 30K of new money instead of 180K, then there's a far greater chance that they'll go for it.
Are there any better options than this motion? Probably not. Relying SOLELY on the dossier, would reduce the chances of getting hours restored, and if we don't put forward something along the three-porter costings, and just hold out for full 24/7 or nothing, then that's a good way to end up with nothing.
Yes, parts of the motion aren't great, but the fact remains that, in relative terms, it's probably the best option currently available.
Instead of taking ill-informed potshots from the sidelines, people need to engage with all this properly, and - if they're not satisfied with this particular motion - come up with a better campaign alternative, which avoids the downsides of this one and has a realistic chance of getting results. If anyone comes up with a better idea, then say what it is. If Matt or anyone else can come up with a solid alternative, which is clearly better than what's contained in the motion, then great. But if nobody can come up with anything better, then I will vote for the motion, and so should anyone else who wants to see portering hours restored.
Jason, people don't have time to do their own detailed research. The vast majority of students who are interested will go to the YUSU website, look over the motion, look over the speeches for and against and make a fairly quick decision. We rely on the knowledge and judgement of experts, such as the YUSU Officers, to inform our own judgement. If you don't provide any it doesn't help us make a decision.
Also, do you genuinely believe your job is so narrow that you should ONLY campaign on current YUSU policy, and not try to influence what will become YUSU policy at all? Surely it would make your life a lot easier if the campaigns you end up mandated to run are based on policy you believe to be as sensible and beneficial as possible?
That is why I think you should be helping to create the motions submitted and why you should be offering opinion on them once they are submitted. Democracy does not have to involve leaving everyone to make up their own mind entirely unaided, in fact it is an important part of democracy to try to inform people's judgements as much as possible and if you think you are right to try to persuade people of that.
Unless you are intimidating people into voting for your point of view, it is still a democratic process.
In any case, #11 has now done your job for you, by putting forward a clear argument for the motion AND why they think Matt is wrong. Instead of saying, "Matt is telling mistruths," they have explained how in detail, not just by quibbling over statistics. And they have also explained why they think the motion is good, independently of Matt's views. As a result of what they have written, I am now in a better position to make a decision on this motion.
I suggest you take a leaf or two from #11's book.
If I get things wrong it is not intentional. As you probably have gathered I am pretty awful at debating. Also, I haven't had the time to check absolutely everything I say or do.
The main issue I have still stands; that I believe that running around like children on open days discredits the students of York and also the YUSU campaign.
There is no faster way to allienate someone in negotiations than to suggest taking money away from them.
The porters are there to support welfare not to be the first line of defence. People should realise that the police and/or campus security should be the first contact in an emergency.
Also #11 I didn't have a copy of Miles' speech until today and I cannot recite it exactly from memory. I will look through it and will try and make sense of his viewpoints.
I appreciate the portering at York, and there were a couple of times in my first year when I had contact with the porters during the night.
I do not believe in the motion because I think as students we should be proud of our university, not actively trying to destroy its reputation.
This thing has garbled up my message, and I can't ungarble it...
You may be bad at oratory, Matt, but at least your messages
look smart. Anyway....
What will it do to the reputation of the University if there's a
major welfare incident, and portering cuts contributed to it?
Someone involved in the portering campaign had to run to the Derwent lodge to escape from some nutcase chasing her. It's not common, but
it does happen - and the next time it happens, the victim will be able
to ... wait by a red 'phone. Great. There are other ways for the University to get a bad press than campaigning at open days. The
local press is already linking all its reports on campus burglaries
and so on with the cutbacks. That'll all go national if a big incident happens. The best way to help the University on every level - in terms of ambience, safety, welfare, reputation, and everything else - is to
fight hard for front-line services like portering. If we are REALLY
proud of the Unversity, we should get porters back. This particular campaign strategy might not please everyone - how could it? - but it
will give portering a fighting chance, which is more than can be said for leaving things exclusively up the goodwill of the management,
or for moving some tables and chairs onto paths at the back of Derwent.
Seriously, Matt, let's get right down to raw realities ... if you had
a girlfriend or a sister, would you want her to be without an on-site
porter when she's walking through dodgy dark areas like the path from
Heslington to Derwent? I went past through there an hour ago, and it's
grim for me - a big male. It's so important to win this fight, and the
management aren't about to hand back portering just because we give
them a list of things which have gone wrong. Tim tried exactly that
the other week - and the management just said stuff like "That burglary
could have happened anyway". They are never going to hand porters back
on the basis of a list. You said about how you appreciate portering -
so if you were in charge of this whole thing, what campaigns strategy would you use? Whatever its faults, I can't see a better way than this motion..... How would YOU win the portering campaign? Give an outline.
I'm getting so tired of hearing the same points over and over about the motion - I want to hear what strategy would be BETTER..... And I'm
assuming from everyone's total silence on the question of finding a better alternative that there isn't one. I'll be voting "for".
"Jason, people don't have time to do their own detailed research. The vast majority of students who are interested will go to the YUSU website, look over the motion, look over the speeches for and against and make a fairly quick decision. We rely on the knowledge and judgement of experts, such as the YUSU Officers, to inform our own judgement. If you don't provide any it doesn't help us make a decision"
Thanks #12 - I do appreciate the comments. Firstly, though, it's important to point out that I wrote the paper at Union Council last week and chair Campaigns Committee (which actually implements the policies) and am now working with Chris and Ben on the next stage of the campaign.
Also, I do help out with facts and figures, though I'm not as big a fan as causing schisms within YUSU - but I am more than happy to help anyone that asks with any questions: how's this? I sent an email a while ago with a link to some documents - here's the same content public.
University top-end salaries, page 28; http://www.york.ac.uk/media/communications/corporatepublications/OperationalFinancialreviewFINAL.pdf
Number of students living on campus found at: http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/accom/colleges/index.htm
To approximate, based on the above link:
330 Derwent
600 Goodricke
970 Halifax
600 James
380 Langwith
620 Vanbrugh
460 Wentworth
550 Alcuin
Which totals 4510 students, though is a little off here and there (because the university doesn't always update their website properly!)
According to http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/aso/senate/minutes/july04.htm the budget surplus for 2004-5 of £1.5M and though I can't find more recent statistics, I'd guess about £1.5-2M for the last year makes sense.
As I've said before, if people want any numbers found then just email me at jr543@york.ac.uk and I'll try and get some digging done on the website - and as I said at the UGM, I do think there are some mistakes in the numbers (based on the above; though knowing there are 4500 or so students, I'm not certain over percentages of 32-week, 38-week or 51-week lets and so can't confirm the cost per week to a decimal place.
And again, the numbers are just examples. If anyone has an idea of places that money might be best saved, they can drop us an email and suggest it! Whilst I'm not pushing for anything specific, I will ultimately be one of the members of the group who decides what money-making measures can be promoted and if people offer some good suggestions then we won't have to suggest 7p-per-week rent increases among them?
Again, I'm always glad when people try and offer recommendations as to how I can improve in my role as a YUSU Officer. Thanks to #12 for the comments - I wish you didn't post anonymously and we could chat about it but basically there are my explanations as to my actions and if you still think that I'm not fulfilling my role properly, I'm happy to consider being more active in policy-making (and if you don't know already, I am the person who has written the most UGM motions in the last year so it was an active decision to *not* write this one!) - thanks
Would it be possible to vote out the current motion, but then resubmit a variant at the next UGM?
I think most people would be behind the concept of a two phase campaign - assuming the figures are correct then it provides an excellent affordable alternative to the current situation, even if its not 24 hour portering.
If we stripped out the more controversial elements of the motion, mainly aggressively targeting admissions, then I'm sure it would win support from a much wider group of students and as such be more effectively implemented.
This would take out the bit that would 'force' the university to follow our recommendations, but then is this motion about providing an alternative middle way to the uni or is it more about portering by any means?
As for Jason's role as Campaigns officer - the democratically elected YUSU officials are there to reflect the will of the student body, not shape the will. They should be providing evidence and information to help form people opinions. However there is nothing wrong with them contributing to a debate much the same as any other student would and expressing their own opinions. Whether they do or not should be totally up to them.
I've got hold of a copy of the proper, original proposal speech - which is better than the YUSU transcript, and gets round the misreport,
above. It's all delivered in a big, bombastic style. But it does deal
very directly with the arguments about the reputation of the University,
and how it needn't be a choice between listing and doing other stuff, and so on. You can't say it hasn't engaged with people's concerns.
I, for one, think it's a very strong case - especially for lack of a
good alternative. The list by itself will almost certainly not work- it's too easy for managers to say "That could've happened anyway" -
which is why it's scary that so many people are campaigning for a No
vote, because that'll virtually guarantee no return of porters.
Here's the speech:
This motion states that, as a stepping stone to 24/7 portering, the Union should ask the management to hire three extra porters. This would give evening cover back to Vanbrugh and Derwent six nights a week until 2am, but it would require less than 30 thousand pounds a year of new money from Hes Hall.
If this plan is refused, the Union would publicise that refusal and the welfare problems associated with the cutbacks, until the managers agreed to compromise.
Someone said we must avoid bringing the University into disrepute and discouraging applicants. Of course we must – and the best way to do that is to make sure that campus is a safe and welcoming environment by getting porters back. Publicising the dangers in order to get portering restored will do infinitely less harm than allowing the current situation to continue, especially if the lack of portering ends up contributing to a really serious incident.
The Union’s core campaign strategy is to log incidents, on the basis that we may one day be granted a review of portering. We SHOULD be logging incidents, but to RELY on a possible future review conducted by the same managers who’ve CUT portering, and by the same managers who are already refusing to accept any responsibility for the problems at
Derwent; to RELY on a list of incidents which is bound to be incomplete, and which will only have an impact if it contains a rape or a murder – by which time it’d be too late anyway – is no way to win a campaign. And if a major incident does happen, the management will NEVER admit responsibility, because of the potential for litigation
and bad publicity.
Every week there’s a new excuse for inaction. “York has a good safety record – so who need porters?” That good safety record is largely BECAUSE we’ve had 24-hour on-site portering.
The sabbs say they have to preserve their working relationship with the managers. But this exact same strategy has been used before, and not only did it get us thousands of hours of restored portering, but it didn’t alienate the managers, because the managers knew that the sabbs were enacting a mandated policy which originated outside the Union. The working relationship wasn’t affected.
The latest excuse for inaction is that if we stand our ground over portering it might weaken other campaigns. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. A combination of affordable demands and strong sanctions is the only realistic way to get any portering restored, and if we show that York students are capable of standing their ground against a management which pays itself a fortune but won’t pay for essential services, then that’s the best way to ward off future problems – not just with portering, but with rents, cleaning – even tuition fees.
Finally, the last time this strategy was submitted at UGM , it got 100% of the vote, and it produced one of the biggest victories we’ve ever had on any campaign. Please vote Yes.
As news editor, I must apologise for a misquote of Miles Layram's speech. He was referring to a portering policy from 2001 which achieved 100% of the vote in favour, not to the motion from earlier in the term.
Sorry for causing confusion.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report