Last week was weird, so the minutes are weird.
The 15th “Ordinary” Meeting of the 166th Session of the literific took place on the 12th of February in the Senate Room and was attended by 35 members.
Presidents questions were heard from Calvin Black regarding David Tennents magnificent performance in just a minute, Mr Brendan Kelters, Miss Lili Vetter, and Miss Marie Louise Synnott who asked the President about her thoughts regarding the thrill ride that was the release of the 50 shades of grey motion picture. The presidents response: “What’s wrong with a little bit of bondage? Why don’t we all just watch porn?”
The house then passed a motion to commission another one of the secretary’s naughty little stories, or ‘literotica’ as they have become affectionately known.
After a few announcements, President Pouryahya opened the debate by announcing the evenings motion “THB Robin Hood Had the right idea.”
Mr Calvin Black opened the case for the proposition in what I can only describe as a tyraid of complete irrelevance. Seriously, it was like the UU debate all over again. He claimed that Mr Hood had in fact 3 right ideas which were, to live in a wood, to enjoy the company of merry men, and to tell the evil sherif to royally shove it. He described life living in a wonderful royal forrest, the mighty 540 acres as a chance for society to spread its wings, living in a majestic major oak. Quickly dismissing all points of information as completely irrelevant, Mr Black went on to talk about the noble trees and Adam Kydd’s magical tweed jacket. The exciting fact that the BBC had listed Sherwood forest of one of the 7 wonders of the midlands came as a shock to the merry men and women of the literific. Moving on from this display of leafy fetishism, Mr Black went on to insult the members of the literific council by comparing them to the characters in the famous tale of robin hood, not least the secretary to maid marion, that famous feminist who relies on a man to save her from the clutches of another man, doing nothing to help but occasionally swooning. Mr Black concluded by encouraging the house to fight against the powers that be in these sacred isles, just as Robin fought the evil Sherif of Nottingham. Sadly, Just as Mr Black actually started to address the motion, he ran right out of time, perhaps saving the house from more utter obscurity and whimsy.
Mr Fionn Rogers was then entrusted with the task of bringing the debate back into a more intellectual and normative space….. God help us.
Surprisingly, Mr Rogers was able to keep the monty python references to a minimum and delivered his well reasoned and polite arguments…. sort of.
He claimed that Robin Hood killed his stepfather, was made an outlaw, ran to the woods, gave up his status to live with a group of lingerie wearing blokes. To steal from the rich and give to the poor, in Mr Rogers reckoning made Mr Hood a tight wearing, arrow shooting Tony Benn, MP and Cabinet Minister, who he claimed was a much better example of a life long advocate for social justice. He asked what dicking about in a tree, playing the lute had to do with modern taxation law and advocated that we should work within the law to change it. Mr Rogers claimed that part of an idea is how you go about executing it. After all, Theadore Rosevelt did funny things to birds but he was brilliant. He mourned over the fact that people who do actual good are usually either boring or shot and that stealing from the King is not a sustainable economic model, or 4 year plan. In concluding He asked the house to consider Robin Hoods principles as selfish, after all he was just a fox.
Captain Ciaran Gallagher then continued the case for the proposition who stated that in his role as SU President, stealing from the rich was not entirely a new cocnept to him. He claimed that historically the real Robin Hood was ambiguous so for the purpose of debate was happy to go with the legendary outlaw. Robin Hood had the right idea as a socialist revolutionary, a competent Russle Brand figure who understood that peasantry was no fun at all. He argued that he led an admirable personal life with left political ideals, good bowmanship, leadership, a faithful lover, loved by the masses, a properly top bloke who defied royal authority, and perhaps not too good to be true. The pirate announced that Robin Hood sowed the seeds of social change, a saint and a nearly communist. The modern world, in which the richest 1% own the majority while millions live in poverty, needs fixing. He concluded that today, authority figures could not in good conscience arrest Robin Hood.
Closing the case for the opposition was Mr Craig Miller who accused the proposition of presenting no real arguments. Feisty. He ranted for a while about taxation, spending and politics claiming that the redistribution of wealth is a stick with which to beat the poor at which point some members of the house got out their tiny little violins for the poor poor rich people. He claimed that a Robin Hood tax would hit the privileged and banks and backed all of that up by some statistic-y rambling. He argued that the government needs to improve the possibility for upward social mobility and to provide a safety blanket for the poor. He said that the labour Robin Hood tax costs us money and is used mainly as a political stick to beat the tories. Apparently there was a lot of people being beaten up with sticks that day. He concluded that by taxing the rich, there is less money in the pot to redistribute and that we need policies that are better than this simple model.
The debate then went to the floor where questions were heard from Miss Christine Flemming, Mr Brendan Kelters, Mr Graeme Rice, Twitter and Miss Emma Chadwick who was close to having a coronary.
A preliminary vote was taken on members opinion which passed 26 ayes, 9 nays, and 3 abstaining before a vote on speakers performance was taken. The motion was abstained with 7 ayes, 8 nays and 13 abstentions.