by Jono on Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:33 pm
In the interests of debate, I shall present a theoretical rebuttal to the above.
In terms of money, the Union Debating Society (hereafter, UDS) saw its grant from the Union slashed last year, and this situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. Conversely, UDS has seen a boost in support and offers of sponsorship from members of its alumni. Though I haven't seen the accounts, the finances of the UDS are far healthier and a good deal more self-sufficient than plenty of other affiliated groups I could name, and has the means to go it alone, should it so choose.
Secondly, the extension of free room hire is at the behest of the University, not the Union. There is nothing inherently sacred about union membership, and considering the history of the UDS as part of the university, I see no reason why a similar arrangement couldn't be made (assuming they keep up their good conduct, and don't regress back into the misbehavior that got them kicked out of the senate room).
On the voice within the Union; Apart from running the society itself, the Bo10 has a very marginal role within the institution at large. The Convener is elected, it is true, but most of the major policy decisions are taken by the Exec, the Association Board, or just by the Sabs. Last year's convener was on the Exec, but that was due to her going forward for a separate SSC election. The fortnightly SSC meetings last year were basically dick-waving competitions, where subcommittee chairs aimed to out-do each other in how many activities they could take credit for. I can count the number of actual governmental decisions we made that year on one hand! As for the debates themselves; I think the opinions pertaining to the value of the LPH debate in matters of policy making, representation and opinion canvassing are a matter of public record (check out comments pertaining to the KK debate on the KK thread below). If the UDS pulled out it wouldn't be a huge loss of influence.
Finally, the charge of sticking the society on the fringes. Let's face it, the union brand is tarnished! I think it got better over the last year (although plenty will probably disagree), what with concentrating on cool shit, rather than making up more stupid rules and regulations. Sadly, people still associate the union with pointless bureaucracy, grumpy staff, self-serving hacks and all the other (unfair?) clichés! Consequently plenty of societies, and indeed several directly-elected subcommittees have been at pains to disassociate themselves from the Union as a brand (e.g. Vanquish, STARfields, Etc). In many ways, it might have the opposite effect; allowing the UDS to stand as an impartial forum (like the Sinner), where the relative value of the Union’s policies could be debated in a dignified environment (not like the Sinner).
Again, the above is theoretical. In the same way that members of the UDS don’t believe that smoking is good for your health, or that Hitler was right; the above doesn’t necessarily reflect my opinions of beliefs.
Now some people weren't happy about the content of that last post. And we can't have someone not happy. Not on the internet.