A special investigation recently undertaken by Varsity shocked Cambridge by revealing that, of all the SU presidential hopefuls, only Matt Alderton has explicitly condemned all forms of terrorism.
Alderton’s position is now crystal clear, but the investigation has thrown up questions about the positions of the other candidates. A troubling failure to support Alderton on this issue has left open the possibility that the other candidates may indeed condone some, or perhaps all, forms of terrorism.
It is rumoured that Varsity is expected to run a number of articles following up on their ground-breaking initial piece exploring other pressing issues that candidates have troublingly neglected to express views about: examples include the repeal of the Corn Laws, Love in the Time of Cholera, and, most problematically, their favourite student-run Cambridge newspaper (although Alderton has reportedly expressed views on this issue in private recently).
Some voters are worried that Varsity have unfairly given Alderton more press coverage than other candidates, allowing him the opportunity to distinguish himself from the pack. One popular explanation for the phenomenon is that Alderton is simply more interesting, and, whilst Varsity writers undoubtedly have the ability to write captivating prose instead of relying on shock and outrage, a healthy dose of the latter keeps the public interested: in short, Alderton just knows how to play the media, and the voting public.
Despite the clarity provided by Alderton on the terrorist front, questions remain about the “great leadership” he says he demonstrated as Magdalene May Ball Staff Officer, a leadership experience that no other candidate has claimed (again, another fact uncovered by Varsity). SU insiders are said to be sceptical about the idea of administrative competence, but excited to see how it could potentially fit into the existing system.
The Provisional IRA have been contacted for comment but so far no reply has been forthcoming.