3 Days of Purgatory: NUS Conference 2009

Whilst radicalism in Britain was seeing a revival around the G20 protests, some poor sods on the left drew the short straw and had to make the annual trek up to Blackpool for the NUS Annual Conference.


However, the conference started off with a pleasant surprise for me – it only took us 3 hours from Bangor to get there - it usually takes me that long to get to Manchester if I’m lucky!
The conference reflected the situation that NUS finds itself in at present – the vast majority of the motions were fairly pointless and without substance. Most of the motions with any substance had been proposed by groups and students unions on the left which tried to bring into conference the voice of the energetic movements that had developed. Unsuprisingly, amendments of free education, supporting the gaza occupations, recognising the success of those occupations etc. all got voted down. The only motion that did get passed was an amendment by Sussex against Ultra-vires that saw Wes Streeting speak for it (we believe he was deliberately baiting the Organised Independents).
Conference also featured some of the worst chairing I’ve ever seen with some NEC members blatantly deciding to ignore delegates wishes. We also saw a motion of censure being passed against Hind Hassan and Rob Owen.

The left was noticeably weaker than the last time I had gone to NUS conference. Another Education is Possible (SWP) were a lot smaller than the last time I’d seen them they maybe around 40 delegates. Education Not For Sale were also smaller – with around 10-12 delegates. Our delegation was very small – however, we’d have been around the same size as ENS if we hadn’t sent people down to the G20 protests instead of NUS Conference – our delegation of 5 was holding the ‘fort’.

Another presence at the conference was Communist Students – but it wasn’t Communist Students that’s associated with the CPGB – instead it was the CPB attempting to reclaim the name. Whilst they didn’t have any delegates they did run a stall and put on a fringe meeting which they asked us to speak at about the No2EU campaign. Indeed they were very friendly to us through the whole conference – allowing us to put copies of my election leaflet on their stall.

The CPB fringe meeting was small but very interesting – due to the smallness of it I was able to quiz the guest speaker, a consul from the Venezuelan Ambassy, about crime and criminal justice in Venezuela (post coming shortly!). We also had a brief discussion on how the No2EU election campaign was developing. I also went to two fringe meeting organised by the SWP – the first was a debate between Rob Owen and Wes Streeting which went over most of the same old ground. The second was the SWSS fringe on ‘How Can Palestine Be Free?’ There were two speakers – a SWSS student who talked about Zionism – unfortunately most of his contribution was stuff to do with the guy who came up with it rather than an actual analysis of its development and influence today. The second contribution was that of Michael Lavalatte who spoke about how we can solve the conflict there – a contribution which was good in some ways – stressing the need for socialism and opposing the Hamas tactic of firing rockets into Israel – but was still vague. Unlike the SWP fringe I went to three years ago, this time they allowed a handful of contributions from the floor (although they ignored Dan Randall of ENS who had his hand up first) and another Socialist Students member came into the discussion pointing out the inverse relation of the strength of Zionist ideas to the strength of the working class in relation to Russia and Germany before commenting further on the working class being the force for socialist change in the Middle East, including in Israel. The SWP seemed to have clearly prepared for us to come in on this point as they began attacking the very idea that the Israeli working class could be a force for change saying that the official labour movement is tied to Zionism and excludes Arabs (but that doesn’t stop Israeli workers organising outside that, like we are doing with NUS). The SWSS speaker then also started replying to stuff we’d never said – one memorable point he tried to make was that the Palestinian working class (which we hadn’t mentioned) is very small – he said around 20% of the population (but the working class were only 5% of the population when the Bolsheviks took power in Russia!)

For me, the struggles of students mostly lay outside that conference. But compared to the expected weakness of our intervention we made a good intervention into the conference, making several good speeches (including mine for the block of 15 – I didn’t get elected by the way). We also did a mildly successful stall in Blackpool on the Wednesday lunchtime. But I guess the best moment for the left in the conference was when Dan Randall (ENS) got elected onto the new trustee board with the highest number of first preference votes running on a anti-trustee board platform. (the appointees to the board include the Sheffield Uni vice-chancellor who threatened his own student with court action and a director of Lloyds TSB bank – which says it all about the board). James Haywood (AEP) was elected to the block of 15 and Dan Swain (AEP) was elected to the democratic procedures committee.

NUS conference - 31 March to 2 April: Students need a mass fighting organisation

From this weeks issue of the Socialist. A version of this article also appeared in Seren, the newspaper of Bangor Students' Union.

Most students have to borrow thousands of pounds each year to pay tuition fees and living costs which mount up into colossal student debts. Many students also face an uncertain future with a large growth in graduate unemployment last year, a situation which looks unlikely to improve any time soon. On top of this it is likely that fees will be increased.

Iain Dalton, Candidate for NUS 'block of 15'

On 25 February there was a national march against tuition fees. In the past this would have been organised by the National Union of Students (NUS), using its resources to ensure that students can voice their opposition to fees. But the NUS has abandoned the struggle for free education. Instead, in an attempt to fill this void, a coalition of left student groups, including Socialist Students, and student unions organised a demonstration.
For a long time the official leadership of NUS has been in the hands of Labour Students, the student wing of the Labour Party and their co-thinkers. NUS did not organise a serious campaign against fees, failing even to organise a major demonstration on the day of the vote in parliament to introduce fees, despite a strong mood of anger and opposition. With one of the closest votes, such a tactic could have potentially swayed the extra few votes needed to defeat fees.
Since then the NUS leadership's role has become progressively worse. For example, the whole basis of the most recent NUS Wales lobby of the Welsh Assembly is based on acceptance that the Assembly is going to stop paying part of the tuition fees (currently up to £1,890) for Welsh students who study in Wales. That money is instead to be spent on bursaries, which are means tested and do not come near the huge levels of debt students face. This approach is based on the NUS leadership's belief that nothing can be done to stop the cap on fees being lifted.
The recent NUS governance review has been all about consolidating this do-nothing leadership and weakening the democratic structures.
In fact, the two most significant student movements this year bypassed the NUS nationally; firstly the wave of sit-ins against the invasion of Gaza across the country and secondly the small, but significant anti-fees demonstration.
NUS certainly needs change - but it is a change in political direction that is needed. Socialist Students provides a strategy for fighting attacks on students. That is why I am standing as a candidate in the NUS Block of 15 elections.

Assembly learning grant ‘reorganisation’

From the Socialist Party wales website.

by Glyn Matthews

The Welsh Assembly plans to reorganise the way in which the funding of the Welsh assembly grant (WAG) is to be administered. The proposal is that from 2010 the top-up grant for fees will be scrapped and instead the WAG will simply constitute a larger maintenance grant. On the surface, this simply sounds like a bureaucratic and unnecessary change to the system without any damaging effects. If we analyse the proposals in more detail it is quite clearly an attack on education. Currently only a thirdof students in Wales are eligible to the maintenance grant but many more are eligible for the top-up fees grant. When this is gone they will not receive any part of the WAG as the are not changing the eligibility of the maintenance grant, leaving many students having to take out larger and larger loans to cover the cost of their loans.

The other side of this is those students who will lose the fees grant but will receive a higher maintenance grant. Once again on the surface this sounds fine. However, Jane Hutt the Welsh education minister said: “much of the £61m used currently to fund the tuition fee grants should be added to Assembly Learning Grants. These are means-tested grants available to help pay for students’ living costs.” This shows clearly two things, firstly this will mean a further extension of means testing in education which all socialists should oppose. Secondly without stating the amount of money involved is this new ‘scheme’ Jane Hutt does omit that not all £61m used now will then be used by using the word ‘much’ rather than ‘all’

Despite this, both the assembly government and Welsh universities have welcomed the proposal with all the Orwellian language they can muster by presenting this as an improvement. At this stage we can only speculate why, but clearly if the fees are not being paid for by the assembly any longer then it would open the door for Welsh universities to charge higher and higher top-up fees as this will no longer be a drain on the assembly budget. This clearly shows the need to take action now before it is too late!

The role of the NUS in all off this seems to be silence. There is absolutely no mention of this on the NUS website. Once again the NUS leadership has shown their inability to be a campaigning organisation leaving Socialist Students to take up issues without their backing.

Socialists demand

• A fighting campaign led by NUS Wales to defeat these proposals.
• For an NUS organised demonstration in Cardiff with all Welsh universities students unions’ to provide transport to the demonstration.
• For the NUS nationally to back to campaign and extend the campaign to the rest of Britain by supporting the Campaign to defeat fees and the national demonstration on February 25th

NUS leadership severs links with students

Socialist Students statement on the passing of the NUS Governance Review. I've been writing an essay for the last week so it'll be business as usual once that's finished.

Build a mass movement for free education

The NUS extraordinary conference on January 20 in Wolverhampton saw the culmination of a campaign by the NUS (National Union of Students) right wing leadership, many of whom are Labour party members, to remove democratic structures in the national student body. This is taking place at a time when students are being threatened with a big increase in tuition fees, but the priority of the NUS leadership is to destroy their own union's democracy, rather than to fight in students' interests.
In order to force through these changes, the student union bureaucracy was mobilised to ensure debate was kept to an absolute minimum. Officers against the removal of democracy were locked out of emails, whilst the NUS leadership 'accidentally' sent emails to all the delegates. Without going through annual conference, these changes have been put through by two extraordinary conferences, one called at such short notice that many delegates were not elected, the most recent in the university and college exam period.
The new NUS constitution will mean that it is virtually impossible for students to propose motions to conference that will then get discussed on conference floor, that the final say on all national campaigns is in the hands of self-selecting bureaucrats, and the obligation to elect delegates to conferences is open to removal for some students unions. NUS is now far more akin to a charity that lobbies for students interests than a trade union, a body that has the potential to carry out mass action through the involvement of its members.
As Socialist Students have pointed out many times, this process has happened above the heads of the vast majority of students. The NUS leadership has rendered itself increasingly irrelevant to students' lives by refusing to take any large-scale action for over two years, and downplaying action that has taken place in order to misrepresent the real feelings of students over issues like university fees and student debt.
But the British government is in the midst of an economic crisis, and is imposing draconian attacks on people claiming benefits; it will also seek to make big attacks on students and young people in the future in order to cover the costs of bailing out the rich bankers and the capitalist system. Already graduates are being asked to work below the minimum wage for wealthy multinationals, as part of the governments National Internship Scheme (see here). A report for the government, quietly published over the Christmas holiday period, recommends big increases in the amount universities can charge students. These attacks will provoke huge opposition and mass movements from young people and students. The NUS will not be in a position to effectively lead these struggles, with new generations of activists looking mostly elsewhere. It will be out of these struggles, and mass action, that a genuine new student movement will be built.
Socialist Students has initiated the Campaign to Defeat Fees, which has won broad support from those beyond Socialist Students ranks. It has led the way in terms of national action against fees, organising days of action over the course of the last two academic years which have involved hundreds of students in over 50 universities and colleges around the country. It has also won support from students in Bangor University in a referendum, against the arguments of the leadership of NUS. In addition to campaigning on fees and debt, Socialist Students have also organised many protests over the recent destruction in Gaza in places like Keele and Bangor, campaigned against privatisation in Sussex, Exeter and Northumbria, and much more. Socialist Students, and the Campaign to Defeat Fees, have an important role to play in building campaigns against raising the cap on university fees and in building a national fightback against attacks.
Unfortunately, there is currently no mass force amongst students that is capable of giving effective leadership to the student struggle and of starting a discussion about building a new national body with serious weight behind it. Socialist Students argues for a broad left to bring together all genuine activists to be built in the coming period.
In the absence of such a broad left the NUS will remain, in the eyes of the government, the media etc, the established voice of students for now. Many students unions view their relationship with the national body as a means of getting discounted beer and other goods, through NUSSL, rather than primarily as a political one. Large numbers of College and FE students unions, largely without the same resources for full time staff as university HE students unions, will not have been aware of the undemocratic changes to NUS. Changes in voting for NUS conference delegates will happen on a student's union-by-students union basis, and will be a gradual process. Without mass developments outside NUS, it is possible that a layer of activists could still even be attracted to the NUS, only to be sorely disappointed once reaching national events. Although extremely unlikely, it is also not impossible that the NUS could still play a role in campaigning for student rights, even organising demonstrations if it feels under pressure and is worried about losing its dominant position as 'the' voice for students. Therefore it is unlikely that these fundamental changes to the NUS will be fully felt immediately. Only as a result of mass action led by activists outside the NUS will the domination of NUS be undermined.
This will not necessarily be a lengthy process however. A march has been called through London on February 25, actively involving a modest number of students unions and campaigning student groups, including Socialist Students. This has been organised outside of the NUS structures, in opposition to the NUS leadership's inactive strategy, although supported by NUS-affiliated students unions. Socialist Students put a motion to the body that is organising this action, calling for it to take on more flesh and become the embryo of a new national campaigning centre. This is opposed by Socialist Workers Student Societies (SWSS) and the Alliance for Workers Liberty (AWL) because of fears they will not be able to dominate it. The AWL state, in a document they distributed at a Socialist Students national council,

"We should use Sussex [Students Union] as a starting base of the new centre [to replace NUS] – Sussex could provide a fraction of its current NUS affiliation fee...
"The Open Planning Meetings for the demonstration should continue after the demonstration... but it is unlikely that they will 'morph' into a new organising centre. They are too loose to form a nucleus or a base, and an attempt to 'firm them up' would be fraught with difficulty. Separate meetings and conferences should be held to create the new body – and when Sussex constitutes it, the new organising centre should be presented to the Open Planning Meetings as a fait accompli"

Amongst student activists, Sussex has an important reputation as a campaigning students union. Activists within the union, who have been involved in organising the march on February 25, will have an important part to play in building a new body. But we do not agree that one union can substitute itself for the whole student body, much less establish a new centre and present itself as a fait accompli to other groups of students entering activity. Because of the methods of the SWP and the AWL, the march on February 25 has been organised in a nebulous manner, one that is open to undemocratic manoeuvres and does not carry as much weight as it could do. A march, even a smaller one, will be a positive step forwards, and a national body that has led this and organised this could be in a significant position. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the open planning meetings will be transformed in order to take full advantage of this. Any steps towards forming new national bodies need to be based on mass action, on a genuinely democratic approach involving new layers of activists as well as bringing together student activist groups and students unions. That may come through local students unions, but many of these bodies have also attacked internal democracy.
New bodies may also develop around and without these local structures as well.
If the loose grouping that has called the February 25 march does not take on flesh, it will be a missed opportunity. Socialist Students will strive to ensure that that does not happen, but it is clear that the end of NUS has opened up a period where there may well be a series of false starts and missed opportunities. We will attempt to ensure that we discuss the situation regularly within our ranks, whilst prioritising campaigning against attacks on students and workers conditions and rights.
We will continue to play a role in the NUS structures, and not abandon any activists that are attracted to it by false hopes, or any possibility of gaining a wider audience of students for our ideas of struggle and socialism. Whilst there is no new national body, we do not call for students unions to disaffiliate from the NUS. But as part of our campaigning, we will raise the idea of building genuinely representative bodies for students, that fight against attacks and for improvements, and endeavour to build the fight back alongside students with the strategy of building mass movements.

For a genuine fightback against fees, cuts and privatisation

Socialist Students statement on national protest on February 25. Anyways, must dash as i'm off to speak at a meeting in Manchester later on.

With the review of funding for higher education taking place next year, it is urgent that a campaign is built mobilising students to defend their rights. Already Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have introduced university tuition and top-up fees, and they currently stand at up to £3,000 a year. University vice-chancellors, through their organisation Universities UK (UUK), are keen to see this raised in the 2009 review, and are attempting to push the government to allow universities to charge up to £6,000 or maybe even more. Students need to build a fightback against this possibility, which would have devastating effects for tens of thousands of young people. But we also need to fight against the idea that education is a commodity and should be paid for. Socialist Students has initiated the Campaign to Defeat Fees, which has organised the most successful action on campuses against fees recently, coordinating action in over 50 universities and colleges in highly successful days of action. The Campaign to Defeat Fees has a wide range of support, including leading figures from the trade union movement including John McDonnell and Tommy Sheridan, students unions and over 5,000 individuals.

Unfortunately, the National Union of Students (NUS) leadership has so far not been prepared to launch a serious challenge to the demands of UUK. The leadership of the NUS are politically at one with the government of Brown, and in reality wish to allow the New Labour government free reign, with as little trouble from angry students as possible. They have had a conscious policy of constantly downplaying any action, and of promoting the idea that students cannot win against fees, but should restrain themselves to asking for slight improvements. Instead of battling against fees and for students, the policy of the NUS leadership has been to concentrate on destroying democracy in the NUS in order to insulate themselves from the demands of students.

This raises the question of how can a fight against fees be built on a national level. Socialist Students, as well as being involved in the Campaign to Defeat Fees, has argued for an organisation that brings together those who are opposed to the attacks of the government and the strategy of defeat from the NUS leadership. This should aim to involve as many students as possible, and bring together those students unions involved in fighting back and campaigning, alongside activist groups and individuals. This organisation would have to be based on building coordinated action, of aiming to involve and convince as many students as possible to get involved in campaigning, and on general demands of opposition to fees, cuts and closures and for a better education system for all.

To ensure that this works, it would also have to be organised along democratic lines, guaranteeing representation for those involved and allowing individuals and groups to put forwards different ideas and different strategies. No group should be allowed to dominate and there must be democratic accountability of the steering committee.

Socialist Students is in favour of a serious strategy in the campaign against fees, which should definitely involve national mobilisations and demonstrations. However, a serious strategy should be based on an assessment of a number of factors at every stage. What is the mood amongst students? What level of support could be gained for a national demonstration? What forces are involved in building for the demonstration? What is students' perception and awareness of those forces? How widely can we publicise our action? How many do we estimate that we will be able to mobilise? Will it be seen to represent a step forwards for students in our battles?

Socialist Students has called for and raised the idea with thousands of students of a national demonstration against fees called by the National Union of Students. Given the wide recognition of the NUS, the huge resources that are available to it, the big potential for media coverage etc, this would be the best situation. It would also open the door for genuine anti-fees activists to campaign and build as big a mobilisation as possible. This is comparable, although on a smaller scale, to the NUS 'students in the red' day of action earlier this term, which although organised around very limited slogans, presented an opportunity for activists to build action and gain broader support for those protests. This was an opportunity seized by Socialist Students, although unfortunately ignored by the Socialist Worker Student Societies (SWSS).

However, given the failure of NUS to call action and the urgency of the issues, it is correct that activists do not just give up, and that we take initiatives of our own. The Campaign to Defeat Fees has organised several days of action to mobilise students, building from below rather than waiting for the 'official' structures. However, where we have called protests and initiatives we have ensured that they are properly planned and built for. SWSS has so far called three national demonstrations this term, none of which have had more than a few hundred in attendance. To call a 'national' initiative without the means to mobilise on a national scale can give the impression that there is less of a mood to fight than is the case. Such unilateral action does not strengthen the movement.

Socialist Students want the event on 25 February to be as strong and positive as possible. We think that the best way for this to happen is for activists and activist groups to build support and to mobilise for this protest. But with the limited resources of those involved so far, this protest may not fully show the extent of students' opposition to the raising of the cap and education commercialisation. Nevertheless, it could be a step towards the national mobilisation necessary for a truly national demonstration. Therefore Socialist Students proposes that the main slogan of the protest should be 'for a national demonstration against fees, cuts and privatisation'.

This protest should also be organised along democratic lines. The most democratic way to do this is to allow everyone to have their say and to contribute to discussions, but to prevent any one group taking over. The planning meeting that has been called on 14 December should elect a committee to organise the protest, based on guaranteeing representation for students unions, strands of opinion and campaigning groups relative to their size and weight in the student movement. Unfortunately so far this has not been the case, primarily through the approach of SWSS who have attempted to impose their will on others, firstly at the Another Education is Possible conference, and now more recently in unilaterally naming a date for a national demonstration against fees, on the 25 February. In fact, there is an argument that a date later in the spring may give more time to mobilise support. But debates and discussions like this show precisely why there needs to be a more democratic structure than is in operation at present. A more democratic structure would also aid the protest in ensuring the best balance of speakers at the protest and different views and ideas being heard and ensure that the follow up to a spring protest is properly prepared.

For this campaign to be successful, it cannot just be limited to one action. The best way to ensure that effective opposition to fees is built for an alliance to be built that offers a fighting strategy that will bring together student activists, and inspire others that they can play a role in the fight for free education.

Why say NO to disaffiliation?

This is an article written for the weekly paper of Sussex Students Union, the Badger, by Lee Vernon, Finance Officer at that Student Union and also a member of Socialist Students. I think it raises some interesting questions as to how to approach NUS if the governance review passes.

November 17, 2008 by Lee Vernon

I just wish to start by saying how much I hate NUS. Words can hardly do my bitterness justice, but saying I despise it with every ounce of my being is a pretty good description. I’m kinda the NUS expert around the Union and I challenge anyone to take that honour (god, please do).I attend just about any NUS event going only to sidelined, write numerous policy submissions that get ignored and speak at conferences only to be shouted down. Yep, I really hate NUS and yet, I say no to disaffiliation.
Yes the NUS is run by a bunch of bureaucrats and New Labour stooges who are hell bent on wrecking democracy and stand opposed to a lot of what Sussex stands for.
As a committed socialist and a member of Socialist Students, the NUS leadership is the evil doppelganger of all my beliefs. But this isn’t enough to warrant disaffiliation. Why? Because us leaving it would only disadvantage and isolate us whilst the NUS leadership would be overjoyed and the left wing weakened. Sussex remains one of the NUS’s biggest critics, and you can guarantee at every meeting, conference and event we’re there pushing for a strong democratic NUS that fights against marketisation and for free education.
Thanks to Sussex’s role in Save NUS Democracy, the first constitution got voted down, embarrassing the NUS leadership and forcing them to back down on and give us concessions.
We raise the political debate and show that a Union that engages it students and fights for them goes out and wins. We inspire other smaller Unions to campaign in the same way and are one of the few that hold the NUS to account at every corner.
Without us, I guarantee the NUS bureaucrats will sleep safer at night, knowing that it will be twice as easy to get its motions rubber stamped without so much as a peep. But we’ll be making a political statement I hear you say, I mean, really?
Sussex, with its reputation as the most left wing union in the country, leaving will hardly cause a ripple as one Union leaves and NUS continues as usual. And what happens to us? We become one Union against the world, with no national or regional representation.
Though we will save the £36,000 we give in affiliation fees. And then lose between £50,000-60,000 in savings in beer and shop goods we get through NUSSL (the NUS’s purchasing consortium). Not to mention all the training, connections, networking and resources we also get from NUS, along with the 10% student discount.
So to conclude disaffiliation gives us :

• A 30k budget deficit
• No representation nationally
• No say in policy debates
• No arena for networking
• And of course, no discount card….

It is vital that Sussex stays in NUS, not just for the resources it gives us, but to continue to fight and hold it to account, networking and uniting with other activist unions and showing them that the way forward is genuine democracy, engagement and resistance.
The student movement needs an organisation to bring together all the Unions to fight nationally whilst supporting locally, and the NUS for all its faults is that organisation. Say No to disaffiliation, so we can continue to both fight and inspire on a national level .

A Necessary Hell? NUS Extraordinary Conference

A short interlude from reports back from Socialism 2008 - yes, I was unfortunate enough to get elected to NUS Extraordinary Conference yesterday.
Just for people's information we don't actually have cross campus ballot elections for NUS Conference anyway - we have elections at our Student Union general meetings. For this conference however, we elected delegates at our student senate (last year we didn't have any elections - they just delegated the same people as for National Conference). I managed to get 7 first preference votes, which isn't bad when you consider that other people who were elected got none (they beat RON on second preference). We really should have got someone else to stand but pretty much everyone was off home during reading week.
So I got the 7 o'clock train from Bangor with the rest of the Bangor delegation (all pro-governance review) and got to Wolverhampton and eventually found the conference. Socialist Students nationally didn't have a huge delegation, which was hampered somewhat by our members from Northumbria not being able to come to the conference because their student union couldn't afford it.
Anyway - I eventually got seated and we heard NUS President (and apparently not Labour Students chair), Wes Streeting speak (for the first of many times) saying that the NUS leadership had compromised with this new version of the constitution (yes, on secondary issues though!) and that people needed to vote for the governance review because NUS needs change (yes, NUS needs change, but not the kind of change that Wes is proposing).
And then we got to what was perhaps the most surreal bit - we had NUS Australia President Angus MacFarlane speaking - he didn't seem particularly left wing but what he described had happened in Australia seemed like a vision for NUS UK's future. He described how tuition fees had been brought in 20 or so years ago by the then Labor government in Australia and how the Howard government had increased fees by 25%, and had brought in variable fees for different courses as well as slashing government grants. In 2000 they brought in legislation that allowed universities to charge whatever they liked if they waived entry tests.
The Howard governments also introduced voluntary student unionism in 2005. This made union membership opt-in, banned collections of fees and banned contributions from Universities such as block grants. You'd be suprised to hear that 1/3 of all SU's in Australia collapsed as a result of this. The only bright thing he pointed out was that Labor had abolished some full fee places since it had got back in and that we should all vote against neo-liberalism.
Anyway - after that was lunch and a chance to catch up with some comrades from elsewhere in the country before back into the furnace. What I thought were some good motions from Sussex in particular got voted down and basically their premises trampled on by conference - the motions from Sussex advocated:
1) That the more representative annual conference (with at least 500-650 more delegates present) should have the deciding say on the constitution - basically stopping them calling more extraordinary conferences
2) That we should bring back a properly organised winter conference instead of continually not getting enough stuff passed through annual conference and instead of the ever continuing extraordinary conferences
3) That there should not be external trustees on the board of NUS as they are unnecessary

There were some truly weird moments - like the conference documents containing the word 'udders' instead of 'used' (I reckon whoever typed the document up was having a laugh) or the person from Warwick SU who in the debate on cross-campus votes for NUS delegates argued against it likening this to voting for the Home Secretary or other government figures (well some of them are elected MP's but it's not really such a bad thing going the whole hog either).

There were some good speeches from the no campaign - Lee Vernon's (Sussex SU Finance Officer and Socialist Students) speech (his second) on the Winter Conference motion was really good and I thought Daniel Randall's closing speech against the new constitution was very good too. I thought Rob Owen varied a hell of a lot and most of his weren't so good (there was a really good one at one point though) - but I wasn't impressed with the amount of times people waved his speech to him - if it would have been possible for this conference to have a close vote then this wouldn't be such a good tactic when the NUS leadership is trying to portray the new constitution as being of the students rather than their little baby. Indeed rather than saying we only need a 1/3 surely it would have been better to talk more like Lee Vernon and Daniel Randall did about the need for a campaigning strategy. Of course - it was never going to be close and that was the whole point of rushing the thing through an extraordinary conference at very short notice - to completely shut out as best as possible real ordinary students in favour of what NUS refer to as ordinary students (namely SU sabbatical officers, trustees or people who have been one or the other).
For those who don't already know the NUS leaderhsip got a big majority 614 YES, 142 No and 8 abstentions - hardly suprising. Despite Wes Streeting trying to distance himself from calling another extraordinary conference - I think he wants this as he doesn't want to chance the far more representative annual conference - but its so undemocratic that he doesn't want to associate itself with himself so he can say that 'ordinary students' called for it.

PS. - On the way back I heard some news to do with the SU at Glyndwr Uni in Wrexham is not getting some or all of it's block grant because Glyndwr Uni had lots of money invested in Icelandic banks - not sure how accurate that is, it needs checking, but Universities will feel able to do this with impunity becuase of the toothlessness of many Student Unions.

New Labour caps new university places at 10,000 for next year

Socialist Students statement on today's government announcement.

When Gordon Brown took over as prime minister in July 2007 part of his fanfare was that he increased the grants available for students.
Now the government has capped university places to 10,000, due to a budgeting crisis and the cost of borrowing to bail out the banks.
An expansion of grants came into effect with this year's intake of students. Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 are supposed to be entitled to the maximum grant of £2,825 a year (in reality bureaucratic, unfair means testing means many students miss out on money they are entitled to). The previous threshold was a family income of £17,500.
This year a third of students (showing what a low wage economy we live in) were entitled to the full grant. A further third of students with family incomes up to £60,000 a year receive a partial grant on a sliding scale, although this is has been cut to £50,020.
It appears New Labour have drastically underestimated the amount of poorer students who need to claim grants.
The money made available for these grants isn't enough to meet the demand of by rising admissions which were up by 9.7% this year (for the first time this year UCAS figures included nursing students).
The government claims it is short of £100 million and that with a national debt piled up to £685 billion it can't borrow anymore for public spending.
John Denham the Universities minister has devoted whole sections of his department's website to lecturing students about managing their finances, perhaps some of his minions should take a look.
The admissions rise clearly reflects the aspirations of young people from poorer backgrounds to have the benefits of higher education. Many of whom will have had their fears about the cost of university and debt eased this year by New Labour's promises of grants that may now prove to be empty.
Socialist Students has consistently warned that while we supported any increase in grants for students that these limited reforms would not be enough to meet the demand that exists, and that what New Labour promise or give to gain popularity for election purposes they soon try to take away.
If the number of university places is cut, or students find out they can't get the money they were promised they were entitled to the government can expect huge anger.
Students will be asking what right the government has to take away the money that it promised them or stop them going to a university they want to go to because the government has bailed out rich bankers?
The NUS has stated its opposition to any cuts in grants or university places.
Good, but lets have some action! The NUS should follow the example of the USI (students union in Ireland) and the pensioners in Dublin who met the Irish governments budget cuts with a national demonstration.
Socialist Students says No to cuts in student grants and university places, For an immediate increase in public spending to meet levels of demand, Scrap all university fees and write off all student debt, for the introduction of a living grant for all and for a free, publicly funded good quality education system.

Socialist Students beat NUS leadership!!!

In Bangor Student Union referendum!

After a hard week of campaigning by Socialist Students and other supporters of the Camapign to Defeat Fees, our hard work clearly paid off when 271 students voted YES to supporting the Campaign to Defeat Fees, whilst the no campaign only received a 104 votes, a clear majority supporting our clear policies of opposing ever increasing stduent debt and fees as well as our strategy of the need for a mass camapign to be built. A longer report will follow...

So if anyone's wondered why i've not posted not for the last week, as you can see I was otherwise occupied - and I certainly think I spent my time profitably.

Scrap This Broken Fees System

A discussion document for Bangor University Socialist Students.

At the beginning of September NUS launched their latest report into higher education funding, entitled ‘Broke and Broken’. Inside it sets out a quite damning critique of the top-up fees system that was created by the 2004 Higher Education Act and of the governments plans to lift the cap they set on top-up fees.

The document starts out by noting that by lifting the cap would raise student debts to unprecedented levels – a student paying £7000 a year in fees and claiming maximum living expenses in London would owe about £37,000 by the time they graduated (and some universities are pushing for the new cap to be higher than that!). They also point out that students would need to be earning over £25,000 to begin paying off just the annual interest of a debt of £25,000 – they note that an Association of Graduate Recruiters survey found that £24,500 was the average starting salary for a graduate position, but the report points out “many graduates do not take jobs designated as ‘graduate’ jobs, so the true average of all post-graduation salaries is likely to lower than this figure.”(pg.6)

Top-up fees were also supposed to widen access to universities, but the report shows that students going to the prestigious Russell Group universities are more likely to be from higher socio-economic groups and have gone to private schools. Furthermore, there is also an inequality in the bursaries that universities can provide to poorer students (another key plank of the 2004 reforms). As the report points out, “institutions at the top end of the market of prestige are able to give large needs-based bursaries to their relatively sparse population of students from low income backgrounds…The low end of the market of prestige has far more students from low income backgrounds, and these institutions cannot afford to provide as much support to individuals.”(pg.4)

The report in conclusion comes out with no clear recommendations, with instead NUS President, Wes Streeting’s introduction to the report saying “our next duty is to produce a rigorous alternative policy, and we will do so in the coming months.”(pg.1) and also uses his introduction to take a swipe at campaigning for free education, arguing “…I know the debate has moved on and we won’t tin by dredging up the old arguments.”(pg1)

In truth, Streeting and the NUS leadership have already made up their minds as to what they want. As Streeting details in the debate between himself and Matt Dobson in the latest issue of the Student Socialist, NUS are arguing for a graduate tax to fund higher education. But such a tax will mean a similar drain on graduate students resources as paying off a student debt, with the added problem that it won’t be written off after 25 years. How will low paid graduates (for example those who go into some public or voluntary sector work) be able to buy a house and afford increased living costs as the coming recession hits? It doesn’t really solve the problem at all.

The Broke and Broken document also makes a big play of the fact that the businesses that benefit from the education students get hardly contribute anything to it, they simply reap the rewards. But a graduate tax proposal doesn’t change any of this, instead, as Socialist Students argue, the cuts in corporation tax should be reversed, tax loopholes should be closed to bring in more revenue and fundamentally the biggest companies in the economy should be taken into public ownership so their wealth can be used for public need rather than private profit.
NUS also has announced that they will be holding local days of action on student debt. About time too! Socialist Students organised the first Campaign to Defeat Fees (CDF) day of action over a year and a half ago and have been calling on NUS to organise action even before then. Whilst we will support NUS’s ‘Students in the Red’ day on November 5th, we will use that and the CDF day of action on the 16th October to call for the NUS to also organise National Action that goes further than the mere lobbying of parliament NUS proposes. Socialist Students will also continue calling for local Students Unions to back the CDF, including at the referendum being held in October at Bangor University.

Bangor University students union fees referendum

From this weeks Socialist. An Article and a letter.

Over the last year Socialist Students and the Campaign to Defeat Fees (CDF) have been tirelessly campaigning for our students union to take a campaigning approach to the question of tuition fees.
April last year saw us hold a small protest to accompany the handing in of a 250+ strong petition calling on the students union to organise a referendum on whether the union should adopt the CDF demands on free education as its own. In the last few weeks the students union have finally got back to us with a proposed date for the referendum - Thursday 16 October, which coincidentally is the same date as the next CDF day of action.
In addition to this we have been informed that the national NUS leadership would like to come down and take part in the referendum. It has even been suggested that they would form the main opposition to our proposals. Although, based on their failure to campaign effectively against fees, we find it unsurprising that the current leadership of the National Union of Students is opposed to the CDF.
Surely the NUS's resources would be better spent on doing something about the ridiculous amount of debt just about every student gets into (of which fees are one part of), rather than using bully-boy tactics against students who don't want to accept the poverty we have to endure.

Letter: New broom needed

Increasing evidence of the growing levels of student debt has evoked an interesting response from Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students (NUS). In an NUS survey he describes students as “sleepwalking” into financial crises. But as the official leader of those ‘sleepwalkers’ shouldn’t he be doing something to rouse them?
His answer is to provide more information and advice to students about coping with debt. But students would probably not be in such a predicament if the NUS leadership didn’t keep squandering opportunities to build a mass campaign against fees and for the replacement of loans with a living grant. The Campaign to Defeat Fees was set up because of the failures of those like Streeting in the leadership of NUS. Part of the fight for a free education must be to sweep our student unions and NUS clear of these miserable creatures.

Socialist Students supports London wide FE staff strike - Monday June 9

For a united struggle of workers and young people for a decent education system for all

If your college lecturers are on strike and you want to support them get in touch!

Members of the University and College Union (UCU) who work in London FE colleges are taking strike action on Monday 9. They are not coming into work in protest at the government’ attacks on the education system, and against wage cuts in real terms. Socialist Students supports this action, sends our solidarity, and gives our active support to all workers taking industrial action.

The New Labour government has attacked our right to a decent education with fees, cuts and privatisation. While college students are suffering huge cuts in courses, unaffordable privatised college services and the prospect if they choose to go to university of fees and debt, college lecturers are being forced to work longer hours, on lower pay and on more insecure contracts. College lecturers are taking action to fight against this neo liberal model for education and attacks on their pay and conditions which also results in worse conditions for students.

Their fight with the government is our fight, students need to unite in struggle with workers for a decent education system for all.



The government is demanding that public sector workers including college lecturers have only a 2.5% increase in wages this year.

This is despite public sector workers bearing the brunt of rising inflation mortgage interest payments are up 8%, food costs are up 6% and transport costs are up by 7%. Why, when big business fat cats are making huge profits, splashing cash on yachts and gulf stream jets for their summer holidays and MP’s are allowed to get away with fiddling expenses, should public sector workers have to accept a drop in living standards?



College lecturers have had below inflation pay increases every year since 2004 and have suffered a sustained loss in income. This has gone hand in hand with redundancies due to the slashing of college funding and massive cuts in areas like ESOL and Adult Education, increased workload and for new starter’s attacks on conditions with “term time only” contracts.

The employers, the Association of Colleges have made an insulting offer of a 2.5% pay increase for 2008-9. The trade unions in FE colleges have rejected this offer and have jointly demanded a catch-up pay claim for 6% or £1,500, whichever is the greater. This would establish a minimum wage level of £7.38 for workers in FE and would go some way to meet the actual cost of living. The employers have refused to back down and so college lecturers have been forced to take strike action.

On the 24 April , UCU members were part of the 400,000 public sector workers including teachers and civil servants who took strike action against the below inflation pay freeze. The UCU has continued its campaign with lunchtime protests on June 4 which took place in colleges across England with other trade unions and students participating. If the employers and the government refuse to come back with a better pay offer the UCU and other unions may take further strike action in the summer and into the autumn. You can find out more about the UCU’s campaign here http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=3032 .



Socialist Students calls for the college lecturers reasonable demands to be met by the government and the employers and supports all public sector workers taking strike action against the government’s attacks. Socialist Students activists will be attending the picket lines across London offering our support and building links with education workers so we can fight back together against fees, cuts and privatisation.

Unfortunately this is not the attitude of the National Union of Students leadership. The two NUS vice presidents of FE and HE, Beth Walker and Wes Streeting have made a statement calling on the government to increase funding for colleges and to end the pay disparity between college lecturers and school teachers. However disgracefully, nowhere in the statement is there explicit support for this specific strike action calling for active support from students and student unions for this strike. The only action that this statement advocates is that students complain to college management about the effects of the strike. This will only play into the hands of management and will not help the situation of lecturers or students. The emphasis of this statement is that this industrial action will have negative consequences for students. You can read the statement here www.nusonline.co.uk.

Socialist Students condemns this statement. The NUS leadership have a responsibility to explain clearly to students and student unions why this strike is taking place and have deliberately failed to do so. The NUS leadership because of its links to the New Labour government is worried about more instability and a fight back against Brown’s government that will affect their future careers not the conditions of college students and the future of education.

Why doesn’t the NUS statement make the following points?

College lecturers have democratically taken the decision (through a unanimous vote at the UCU conference) to take this action after trying many other options.

The government and the employers have refused to listen to public sector workers despite many discussions, lobbying of MP’s and public rallies.

This strike will mean the closure of many colleges and courses not being run for one day, students may have genuine concerns about their exams and coursework. However if the government are not forced by workers to stop these attacks it will affect our ability to access free , good quality , publicly funded education.

By taking this action, college lecturers are losing a days pay, but they have decided its worth it in the struggle against the governments attacks.



The NUS leadership should also have taken the following steps to support the lecturers.

Released press releases in support of the strike action, produced posters and leaflets in support of the action and distributed them to students.

Produced posters and leaflets in support of the action and distributed them to students, emailed all students and students unions encouraging them to visit local picket lines and organise demonstrations in support of the lecturers.

Through local students unions organised meetings on campuses with speakers from the UCU, NUS and local activists groups to explain why the strike should be supported.

The NUS needs to link up with the trade unions to build a mass campaign against attacks on education. This means actively supporting workers taking strike action and mobilising students and student unions to co-ordinate action on the same day. When the UCU and other unions take action in the autumn the NUS should organise a national demonstration against fees, cuts and privatisation and use its resources to mobilise the mass of students.

NUS conference report: Struggle still essential

This is a full report of NUS conference taken from this weeks The Socialist and a piece about the activist academy happening at Portsmouth Uni today.

Newly elected National Union of Students (NUS) president Wes Streeting, claims students will lose influence on the government if they protest and demand free education. Apparently students only have to ask for the £3,000 cap on fees to be maintained and the government will listen.

Disgracefully Labour Students and the rest of the right wing leadership opposed a call for a national demonstration to put pressure on the government and spoke against organising a mass campaign against fees and for free education in the run up to the review of the cap on top-up fees in 2009.

But Wes's tactic is not having much 'influence' as vice chancellors and universities are already budgeting for the increased income from higher fees.

This ludicrous argument was answered during the conference debate by Mia Hollsing from Cardiff Socialist Students. Mia argued that the most effective way of defeating fees and forcing the government to properly fund education is by "mobilising students into action and linking up with workers who are fighting attacks on their pay and conditions in a mass campaign".

Arran Cottam, from University of the West of England Socialist Students, received enthusiastic applause when he proposed NUS support for the teachers' industrial action on 24 April. He called on students to support picket lines and demonstrations but the NUS bureaucracy would not allow Socialist Students to propose an emergency motion.

But students also won a victory at the NUS conference. A proposed new constitution, which would have removed any potential for the NUS to represent and fight for ordinary students, was defeated.

The New Labour-backed NUS leadership attempted to force through undemocratic structural changes such as allowing student unions to opt out of mandatory cross-campus elections for delegates to NUS conference and replacing the current national executive (NEC) with a senate and board that would have allowed unelected 'experts' to veto any campaigns or actions proposed by elected student representatives.

The constitution was rejected on the basis of a higher turnout of students to NUS conference than in previous years. Despite attempts to pressurise delegates to vote in favour, Labour Students and others on the right narrowly failed to get the two-thirds majority they constitutionally needed to push through the attacks.

Socialist Students members contributed to the defeat of the right wing by organising opposition to the review in many student unions and mobilising ordinary students (ie those who are not seeking to carve out a career in politics seeing NUS as the first step!) to the conference.

The NUS leadership are already contemplating organising undemocratic extraordinary conferences (possibly in the summer when students are not on campus!) to push through their unwanted constitution.

Socialist Students explained that a democratic and campaigning NUS can only be defended by involving the mass of students in campaigning against fees, cuts, privatisation and other New Labour attacks.

There was a significant minority of activists at the conference, particularly from Further Education colleges who responded positively towards Socialist Students with many delegates buying copies of The Socialist and signing up to find out more.

However, because of the grip of the New Labour right-wing clique that runs NUS conference, the majority of ordinary students on campuses across the country are not involved in the structures and events of the NUS. This means that the majority of delegates to conference are not fighters or campaigners, but people looking to build political careers.

Fightback needed
Arran Cottam, Socialist Students candidate for the NEC, put forward a socialist fighting strategy for building links with workers and fighting back against New Labour during the hustings but missed out on a position on the NEC.

The right wing have a majority on the NEC (as well as New Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were elected) and will continue to use the bureaucratic structures against campaigns.

The left are in a minority on the NEC with Student Respect having two representatives on the part time 'block of 12'. The most effective use of their positions will be to go out to ordinary students and other activists and campaigners to democratically build effective mass action against fees.

Socialist Students and the Campaign to Defeat Fees has shown what is possible by organising a wide range of action against university fees, including days of action with over 50 coordinated protests around the UK.

This gives a glimpse of the anger that exists on campuses and in the colleges, and shows the potential for campaigning against fees and privatisation. It also shows the potential support for a genuine left campaigning alternative to the current NUS leadership.



Portsmouth Activists Academy - Get active and fight back!

This academic year has seen students protesting against fees around the country on 21 February, against anti-democratic attacks on students in Nottingham and Sussex, against privatisation of services in Exeter, saying no to military recruitment in universities in UCL.

Students are also involved in wider campaigning on national and international issues, such as climate change, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other issues. The Portsmouth Activists Academy aims to involve these activists in discussions around how to campaign, what is possible through campaigning and discussions on the different issues that face student activists.

There will be speakers on events in Venezuela, recent youth struggles in France and Greece, issues that students face such as the fight for free education, the future of the NUS, as well as workshops to share campaigning ideas. Virginie Prégny, French activist and trade unionist and member of the Committee for a Workers' International, will speak on May 1968, and whether it can happen again.

The Academy takes place on Saturday 12 April, starting at 10am.

If you are interested in coming along or building a fight back against fees, cuts, closures and privatisation, contact Socialist Students at www.socialiststudents.org.uk, socialiststudents@hotmail.com, 020 8558 7947 or at Socialist Students PO Box 858 London E11 1YG or visit http://www.upsu.net/diary/event/714.htm for Portsmouth Students Union.

NUS Reforms Fall

If you're looking for todays actual post on female prisoners - and a very interesting one too - please look before. This piece here is breaking news!

Yes, the proposed NUS reforms that NUS has been pushing all year round have failed to get the required 2/3 majority for them to pass.

What does this mean?

As one Socialist Student member at the conference told me 'NUS is likely to implode'. Several student unions that had previously attempted to disaffiliate and had been stopped, or had been considering it have leant their weight to the governance review process. The process was being pushed mostly by 'independents' a combination or right-wingers and local student union bureaucrats (by bureaucrat i mean those whose main concern is the smooth functioning of a student union, rather than it's use as a campaigning body). Given that this project has now failed it is possible that many of these will try to disaffiliate from NUS.
The other problem is the nature of the vote - despite it falling a majority of votes cast were on the side of the current NUS ruling clique. This means that despite the apparent 'victory' this does not signify a turn towards the left of NUS, rather a defeat of the right (in a kind of opposite way to Chavez in last years December referendum). The left in NUS is currently divided, this vote doesn't change that either. The only way to build a viable left is to build it on the campuses in a campaigning manner, not through voting pacts at NUS Conference. This is why the conference called by Portsmouth Students Union for April 12th will be crucial.

NUS conference - a look two years ago

Given that this next week sees this years NUS UK conference, I thought i'd post up two articles that I wrote about NUS Conference two years ago when I was a delegate from the University of Huddersfield - as I think you can see not much has changed for this years conference apart from the governance review, which would mean a quantitatively different NUS to the one that currently exists - unfortunately not in the direction of creating a representative fighting body, but one cowering behind whatever excuses they can find for challenging the curretn government in a serious manner.

Leaders' timewasting tactics

YET AGAIN, delegates to National Union of Students (NUS) conference were treated to round after round of discussion on essentially meaningless motions. Those motions representing campaigns by grassroots student activists were pushed down the order paper by motions from the NUS executive such as re-introducing the call for means-testing to NUS policy.

On the controversial NUS Extra card the right-wing leaders threatened that if that motion wasn't passed the NUS would cease to exist. They claimed there was no alternative to solving the union's financial problems. But if the NUS put forward a fighting strategy against the many attacks on our education they would not be facing a shortfall caused by disaffiliation of colleges and universities.

Over 80% of delegates were sabbaticals of various universities. NUS elections are poorly advertised or sometimes not even held, so there is a bias towards people already involved in NUS and against students who just want to fight back. These officials also often submit the, often meaningless, motions that stop grassroots student motions being passed.

On top of this they submitted numerous procedural motions to stop debate on important issues and wasted hours of conference time, even asking for a quorum count when conference was full!

Socialist Students campaigns for a fully democratic NUS, organised from the bottom up and not dictated to by the current Blairite leadership. Such a union would be able to organise a national demonstration against top-up fees which the conference has called for repeatedly over the years, as part of a campaign to get a free, public, properly funded education system, with living grants for all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A voice for angry, debt-ridden students

SOCIALIST STUDENTS took an 18-member strong delegation to NUS conference, and actively campaigned for socialist ideas, including spreading the successful Lambeth college canteens campaign.

Over 40 students were interested in spreading the campaign countrywide to replace private canteens with quality student union-run canteens. We stood Socialist Student and Lambeth College student union president Rob MacDonald in the block of twelve part-time NEC members election and are still awaiting the results.

It was difficult to get in to speak on the conference floor, but Socialist Students made several speeches, explaining our position in a way that connected with ordinary students.

For example we explained our opposition to the motion that said "faith schools are uniquely able to provide support for children from minority backgrounds". While other groups got bogged down in provocative debate, insisting that faith schools were either very good or very bad, we stressed that faith schools were part of the government's strategy to take our schools out of public and accountable hands.

Alongside city academies, they were an attempt to privatise every aspect of our education. As the only group linking the arguments on the conference floor to students' day to day experience we gained some authority.

Socialist Students also counter-demonstrated against Labour Students who condemned the Tories for their right-wing views, by pointing out that they too shared those views, and offered no answers for ordinary students. After all it was Blair's continuation of Thatcher's policies that led to the introduction of top-up fees!

Overall Socialist Students made a big impact at conference, making all delegates take notice of our principled views. Five people filled in joining cards and 17 copies of the socialist were sold. We will keep building Socialist Students and raising a campaigning voice in the campuses and workplaces to reach students who are angry and fed-up with debt, fees and poverty and want to fight back!

NUS Wales Conference- old pals beanfeast.

Please note - i didn't write that title, but i've stuck with it as this is a report from the Socialist Party Wales website of a report from NUS Wales Conference which was last weekend.

Having been to NUS UK Conference a few years back, NUS Wales Conference was completely different experience.
For a start, there were only about 30 delegates, with no-one from Cardiff and Swansea Universities. Ten of these were the Welsh national executive, and many of the others were Student Union sabbatical officers. It was more like a friendly meet up to pat each other on the back for doing such a ‘great’ job.
Much was made of NUS being able to win certain reforms in areas with devolved government, for example fees scrapped in Scotland and free prescriptions for students in Wales. Policies were passed arguing for the vote at sixteen and against a graduate tax with reference to the real fight being to abolish fees altogether. However, the conference also voted for NUS Wales having its own 'governance review' We were bombarded with propaganda favouring the NUS UK Governance review.
Despite this, several FE delegates were interested in building the Campaign to Defeat Fees at their colleges across Wales. Three copies of the Socialist were sold, one student magazine and one copy of Socialism Today.

More debt woes

This was published as a letter in last weeks issue of The Socialist.

The Education Guardian (19/02/08) reported that this year a greater proportion of universities are in debt than at any point in the last decade. The report also said that many were banking on the lifting of the £3,145 cap on top-up fees to get themselves out of this debt. University vice chancellors have been aiming to get the cap lifted ever since top-up fees were introduced.

The thing that disgusted me most however, was the comments in an article by NUS president Gemma Tumelty. She rejects raising the cap on fees but says: "Universities should be working within the financial constraints they have and engaging in this debate, rather than surreptitiously counting up student money which is not theirs." No Gemma. Instead of the government wasting £75 billion on Trident nuclear missiles, we should be demanding that money is spent on public services. We should demand that the money is provided to pay for free education, with living grants for all. And rather than letting the current university heads mismanage these funds, universities should be democratically run by students, staff and the community.

Student Union Funding

This was a short piece that I wrote for last weeks feature article on universities in the Socialist but didn't get published. I published it here, as it discusses issues quite pertinent to the role of students unions.

Over the last few years many Student Unions have held disaffiliation ballots with the argument that the affiliation fees better spent on NUS could be better used on other things, in particular Student Union Sports Clubs and Societies. Most Unions get their money through a block grant usually paid termly from the University to which it represents Students in. As NUS’ own briefing on block grants explains, block grants were introduced in 1981 “to give colleges more control over the affairs of students’ unions”. Prior to this students unions had been given payments directly by the Local Education Authority (who most students get their loans from today) of their student members.
The block grant system gives a university or college a large amount of influence over how a Student Union operates by holding the control over its funding. In addition to this several Student Unions staff (including sabbaticals) are employed directly by the University rather than the Student Union, similarly many Student Union buildings are owned by the University and then leased back to the Union.
All of this means there are a million ties between Student Union officials and University chiefs, which explains many a union bureaucrats run in fear of militant campaigning, especially ones over issues like course cuts which will ruin their cosy relationship with the University.

Socialist Students Statement on Student Union Reform

Reform, What Reform?

Currently, Bangor University Students Union is in the process of conducting a consultation period on a review of the Student Union’s Constitution. This is being done, we are told, because we haven’t had a thorough revision for a while and because of changes to charity law. We are also told that it is necessary to make it easier for ordinary students to get things done. Socialist Students supports the idea of involving more students in the activities of the Students Union, and recognise the need to revise constitutions to enable this as well as revisions caused by legal changes.
However, such important decisions deserve an ample amount of time whereby as many students as possible can input into the process. Furthermore, we should have full proposals for any consultation and the right to put forward amendments or alternatives to be voted on by a full general meeting. We do not believe the current consultation exercise (during an exam period) meets this criteria.

Lessons of NUS Reform

At the present time the National Union of Students (NUS) is undergoing its own governance review. Similarly to Bangor, the review is being rushed through by NUS. Last month, an emergency conference was held to pass the changes before ratification at NUS national conference later this year. Its proponents argue that it will be more accessible to students and will be able to campaign better, but amongst its proposals includes the option for student unions to drop elections to NUS conference, as well as creating a new board to govern NUS including unelected persons who could veto any campaigns (due to ‘lack of funds’ etc.). Many students do not even know about this (although a pro-reform report was published in the last issue of Seren), and even less actually had any input into the process, particularly as most of the consultation for this was carried out during the summer, so much for involving more students!

For A Campaigning, Democratic Student Union

In a circular posted to the intranet, three ways are suggested of how students can use the union. Two of them are “starting a campaign” and “tackling a problem with your accommodation or course”. We agree that the way the student union is currently operating means it hasn’t been able to do either of these successfully, however, the failure is not to be found in the unions structures, rather in the political leadership of the students union.
As we have commented before in relation to the cuts in ocean sciences, students looked to the union for a campaigning leadership to oppose cuts and did not receive this. The effects of these cuts are still being felt (again see the last issue of Seren), and the question of how a more effective campaign could have been organised needs to be addressed.
This will be further compounded by the suggestion to enshrine ‘core campaigns’, a way of deciding a priori what issues will be most important to students during years ahead, decisions that should be made by the democratic bodies of the union.
The organisation of a campaigns collective, to promote activities of the various campaigning societies within the Students Union, as well as organising campaigning on issues that affect students, we think would be a massive step towards a Student Union that can campaign effectively on issues affecting students, as well as a means by which the student unions own campaigns committee could be rejuvenated. Of course, the mass of students should be involved in deciding the campaigning priorities of the students union. This is why Socialist Students is calling on the Students Union to organise a general meeting that is well publicised and built for across campus, that any student or group can make proposals in the form of motions for campaigns to this meeting with are then voted on mandating the student union to run those campaigns.


Stop the current review! For any consultation to feature a series of well publicised, built for meetings around all structures of the student union and allow a period when proposals can be made from any student or group. For all proposals to be democratically discussed and voted on at a general meeting
For a general meeting to be organised which is well publicised and built for across campus, that any student or group can make proposals in the form of motions for campaigns to this meeting with are then voted on mandating the student union to run those campaigns.
No attacks on democratic structures of the Students Union
For a campaigning fighting democratic students union that campaigns against fees, cuts and privatisation and for free publicly funded education as well as on other issues affecting students.

Open Letter from Bangor University Socialist Students

Dear Sam & Carolan, (SU President and SU Communications and Societies Officer)

We write in response to your blogs (www.samburnett.blogspot.com) and (www.carolangoggin.blogspot.com) dated 25th October 2007 in which you object to being called ‘right-wing’ in the Student Socialist issue 5. We stand by what we said. The record of SU officials at Bangor Uni is unfortunately right-wing – here we outline also an alternative socialist strategy to defend the interests of students.

Disaffiliation from NUS
The SU claimed affiliation fees would be better spent on student societies, in effect forcing students to choose either NUS affiliation or better-funded societies. Students should have both. Unions get funding from the institutions they organise. If they are short of funding they should campaign for an increase.

NUS needs to be campaigning and democratic. Among other problems, students face fees, debt, poor accommodation and low paid jobs. Yet NUS is failing to seriously campaign on these issues – looking instead to small national demonstrations on a Sunday, small lobbies of parliament and ‘wining and dining’ various New Labour ministers.

Socialist Students argue for a mass movement to defeat these attacks, built through a national body with a real base among students and pupils, linked to trade unions and with a democratically accountable leadership. Currently we argue that campaigners should link up within NUS to fight for students’ rights. We put forward a concrete alternative to the leadership, and campaign for NUS to become a democratic, campaigning organisation. We contest elections for NUS conference delegates and local union positions, as well as being involved in local campaigns.

When did you or the student union as a whole attempt to argue along these lines?

Cuts to the School of Ocean Sciences
In the Student Socialist we said the union failed to fight this. This is true.

Students looked to the Union for leadership. Union representatives could only manage passive support and verbal protests, when students wanted to know “what can we do?” A Socialist-led Union would have made suggestions to students of how to oppose cuts, including holding a protest on an Ocean Sciences open day or outside the Vice-Chancellor’s Office, as well as getting press coverage and supplementary tactics such as protest letters. Mass action requires wide support, but despite exams a two hour protest organised by the union would have found an echo. Such a campaign would at least warn the university off making further cuts.

Campaigns like this have been launched elsewhere. At Lambeth College, where Socialist Students was in the leadership of the union, we organised a campaign against extortionate canteen prices. This organised demonstrations of hundreds of people. We are happy to discuss the lessons of this and other campaigns.

Right-wing or not?
“Right-wing” is not “an insult” if it’s an accurate description of those concerned, especially when they admit it themselves! Sam’s blog says “I would describe myself as centre-right…” We never described either you or Carolan as “fascist,” it is not us who use this word lightly. We have consistently combated the far right, through organizing many student actions and supporting wider campaigns to undermine the BNP’s vote and lies. When did the student union effectively campaign on this issue?

Sam tells us Carolan was “indignant,” and she says “In all my born days, I have never ever been accused of being right-wing.” Carolan attacks “people who want to campaign against whatever the status quo is.” Surely anyone who is not right-wing wants to, and does, campaign against a status quo of Africa languishing in poverty, of Asia as a sweatshop, or in Britain of child poverty, low wages, students forced into part-time work and huge debts. This is not a status quo worth defending!

“Reform of NUS”
You describe NUS as “flawed, but which has now thankfully taken big steps towards reform”. Indeed, you were part of the steering group for the NUS Governance Review (also noted in Executive Council minutes for 05/10/07). These “reforms” mean destroying democracy within NUS, by scrapping the ‘Block of twelve’ part time elected NUS officers, restricting delegation sizes and transferring the running of NUS to a board of trustees. How can these reforms be left-wing?! Unfortunately it remains the case that, as we said, “NUS is trying to become a more bureaucratic organisation…”

Sam decries “little armchair sabbaticals who couldn’t get elected.” Far from reclining in armchairs, Socialist Students is actively campaigning, and winning elections! In Bangor recently we launched a widely-supported solidarity campaign with Nigerian students arrested for standing up for their rights. We have already contacted you about this – will you support the campaign? As for winning elections, three of us have recently been elected to the student council, Sam should know as he was there when we were elected!

If you still regard yourselves as left wing you should campaign with us, in support of the Nigerian students or perhaps on other campus issues which we could all support. If you still disagree with us we would be happy to debate these matters with you.

Yours Sincerely,

Bangor University Socialist Students