www.brianforchancellor.com has persuaded me. I'm voting for Brian.
I think he'd do wonders for access, and for me, it really comes down to the ROLE of the Chancellor - he's a neutral, apolitical, powerless figurehead who doesn't actually run the university (the Vice-Chancellor does that).
I actually agree with a lot of Mansfield's points, but I just think they're irrelevant for a figurehead role. He's promising to resist fees and resist cuts, but the Chancellor has no power, so even if he wants to, Mansfield couldn't keep any of those promises.
I've been quite impressed by how positive the campaign has been from all sides - so I'm not worried about asking Sainsbury for more cash if he loses. If there'd been a dirty contest full of mudslinging, that would have been different, but instead all 4 candidates have been talking about what they want to offer.
I also think that Sainsbury being Chancellor would make it MORE difficult to solicit donations, since it would be highly inappropriate for a Chancellor to be giving money. I imagine there'd be an uproar over financial interests if Prince Philip had ever given a penny. So explaining that would be a gentle way to let Lord Sainsbury down.
For me, Brian as Chancellor is just a great opportunity to have an articulate communicator tell the world how wonderful Cambridge is, and to make a statement about voting in someone with great achievements, but from a humble background.
Pity they couldn't have found a woman candidate, though.