Hair Raising

When is war aggressive? And when is it defensive? These questions puzzled Mr. M. O'Brien, and the meeting, too, He wished to have the Manifesto amended to oppose aggressive war. Miss Martin, however, suggested that the difference was generally one of opinion. She might have pointed out that Hitler's thesis in 1939 was that he was defending Germany from encirclement—a peculiar kind of defensive war? She failed to convince Mr. Weblin, though, Mr. R. McDonald's remarks on the subject were clearer—he noted that many wars which had been supposed to have been aggressive were in fact defending against an economic attack. The distinction could not be drawn with any validity.

And the meeting finally got down to taking Mr, Goddard's sugestion; the amendment (Mr. M. O'Brien's) was put and lost (47 to 61) and the motion for the adoption of the Manifesto was carried.

Home Again

Leaving the world situation, the meeting moved to the electoral system in the association.

Mr. L. Robinson explained the constitutional amendment which he was moving. There was at present too much that was haphazard in the system of voting: a considerable number of voters listed the first two or three (and the last two or three) as they wished them, and then put the others in alphabetical order down the page. He did not think that this showed a healthy state of affairs. A terrific number of man (and woman) hours were spent in counting votes. Mr. Searle, in seconding, was rather too technical for us to understand, but he thought that those who had been consulted on the suggested improvements were in favour of them; they would give substantially the same effect without the draw-backs. "The previous speaker had given us figures to show how many more hours were taken to count this year than last year. Were the women making all this difference?." asked Mr. Evison. He did not know whether this matter of man and woman-hours could be left to the discretion of the scrutineers. Under the existing system, though, no-one has to vote for more than four, and it is quite valid to fill in only the first four names. What was the good of changing the system, then? If it was desired to fill in only the first four, we might as well have a "first past the post" system. He suggested that if people were voting in alphabetical order, then only those whose names came in the first half of the alphabet should be allowed to stand. He deplored "the cussed ignorance of those people who don't know the important people round here." This moved Mr. K, B. O'Brien from the chair (warmed for him in the meantime by Mr. Battersby) to tell the meeting that the present system was "most unsatisfactory." The voting paper is not clearly understandable: the matter of just which preferential voting system we should use should be left to experts. He therefore suggested that a committee could be set up to report on the system and improvements which could be made. Mr. Clayton opposed the motion, but was ruled out of order, and the motion to set up a committee to consider the system was carried.

Co-opting

At present, if more than two Exec, members retire, a third cannot be co-opted, but an election has to be held for that member, and for the two who have already been co-opted. M. I. T. Heath moved the second amendment to the constitution—to change this number to three, and so avoid the necessity for a series of by-elections. Mr. Melting appeared to think that two was a company, but three a crowd, since he opposed it, remarking that three co-opted members, who had not been chosen by members of the association, was too great a proportion of the committee. It was pointed out by Mr. Battersby that the present number (2) was arrived at in the days when the Exec, was smaller than it was now; He did not think, that three was therefore such a large proportion. The motion was carried.

. . .But Not the President

Miss Martin, who moved the next constitutional amendment, explained that it was not the same as the one which had gone before. Her motion was, in effect, to make an election necessary when a president retired within nine months of his election. At present, the vice-president was co-opted if that happened. She did not think that the vice-president should be asked to take over this if he did not wish to, or to face the responsibility of precipitating a by-election himself if he refused office. Moreover, she thought that it was unfair to the college to have someone who was not directly appointed by their votes in a position of such importance. Her exposition was so clear that Mr. Garrett had nothing to do but to second it, while Mr. O'Brien left the chair again.

Unbearable?

He noted that it was impossible to hold elections between October and March. For that time, then, there could be an effective president under this system. "The nine-months period," was arbitrary. "You're in an impregnable position." remarked Mr. Jenkins.) After he had pointed out what he thought could be impracticabilities in the motion. Miss Martin asked his advice, and an amended motion to make the election necessary if the situation arose before the end of the college year was carried.

Off the Record

The meeting then diverted itself with a discussion or Extrav. It was decided that, for archive purposes, each Extrav, should in future be recorded, as was done this year. This would make a permanent record to be of use to future producers and casts. Mr. Treadwell picked up his cue at this, and supported the motion. A suggestion by Mr. Jenkins that one copy be also given to the British Museum was ruled out of order.

On the Table

The cafeteria report was then discussed. The committee set up at the last SGM handed in its report: this opposed subsidising the Caf. and also opposed the idea of letting the contract to an outside firm. Mr. K. B. O'Brien, who ought to know, again left the chair and explained the produce mart system to the meeting, when buying came under discussion. Mr. Cook, for the committee, explained that the system of private contractors would not work here, though it worked in the railway workshops, where there was a far larger turnover (Question from the floor—"Apple?").

The report and recommendations were adopted by 53 votes to 23 (it was getting late by now) and Miss Martin made the very sensible suggestion that a dietary expert should be consulted to get better food, even If we don't get more. This was added to the recommendations.

"That man" Henderson was In agreement, as he said, with Miss Martin for the first time in his life.

Water . . .

A belated constitutional amendment to make water polo players eligible for blues appeared to meet with no objections.

. . .Weir. . .

Inspired by Mr. Jenkins' fervent plea for the suffering at Weir, moved by his and Mr. Cameron's exposition of the plight of the bed-and-break-fasters, and warned by the chairman's remarks, a unanimous motion asking the next Exec, to take an active interest in the situation was carried.

. . . and WFDY Again

Mr. (That man) Henderson wanted to know why sums of money had been paid out to delegates to attend the, forthcoming WFDY Congress. He angrily remarked that this was a gross breach of trust, since at the SGM in April, the Exec, stated that they had made no payment to the person whom he referred to, in a singularly insulting manner, as "that man Smith." Tempers got a little frayed from here on.

He was sure that the disaffiliation motion would have been carried if those present had known that they were going to pay for "that man Smith and that man Scoones." And so he moved "that the meeting deplored the action of the Exec, and refused to ratify the payments."

When Mr. Evison rose to answer, there was so much noise from the right side of the hall that he used the microphone for his speech. He wished to point out—and did so effectively—that the Exec, could not have decided to make any grant before the SGM since it had already decided to pass the matter to the association to consider. But when the SGM had decided to remain affiliated, then there was only one course to take, that which we took with any other body to which we were affiliated—give token grants to delegates to attend. "Is it normal to pay these token grants?" he asked. "Yes, of course." We did this when Mr. O'Brien went to the NUAUS conference in Australia, and we had done it many other times. If we could afford £20 per year to send someone to Australia, then we could afford the small sum it would cost each year to send delegates to these conferences at three-year intervals. Mr. Smith was going, and we should, in normal decency, pay him something towards his expenses.

A fair amount of acrimony was exhibited at this stage. Mr. Battersby supported the payment, though he deplored the affiliation and said so heatedly. Mr. Pottinger supported Mr. Evison with less qualification, and Mr. Piper took exception to the references to "that man Smith" and "that man Scoones." This did not deter "that man Henderson" from using the same terms again when he exercised his right to speak after the closure motion had been carried. However, that motion was lost (no division), and from there on the meeting was less interested. Mr. W. McLeod (note the name) moved that the association be represented in those who were opposing the rise mooted in tram fare costs, and this was to be acted upon. A question was asked as to whether the Exec, would study Zoo meat being used in the Caf.; and Mr. Garrett moved that, as a practical measure to get over the present very grave danger to students at the Salamanca Rd. bend, the Exec, members institute a roster system to have a school traffic patrol there, and that a supply of white coats and stop signals be purchased for the purpose. Unfortunately, both this and the traditional brass spittoons were ruled out of order.