The National Union of Students was dealt a blow last week when an extraordinary conference voted for the leaderships ‘Governance Review’ – a constitutional reform of the national union with some very dangerous implications.
The conference itself was an undemocratic stitch-up from the very beginning: Many students unions did not hold elections for the conference with lots of delegations being hand-picked by leadership-loyal sabbatical officers. The majority of affiliated Further Education institutions could not send anyone at all(!) due to the cost of attending more than one conference in the year. All of this was a deliberate attempt to sideline opposition.
The leadership was unable to get the necessary votes at last year’s Annual Conference to pass the review, and are trying to push it through 2 of these unrepresentative extraordinary conferences this year – this is being supported uncritically by Hull University Union.
There are a myriad of things wrong with the proposal and contrary to Labour Students’ rhetoric there is nothing substantially different to the one voted down by last year’s annual conference:
1. Trustee Board – The most contentious part of the review. The trustee board would give power to non-student ‘professionals’ that would ‘advise’ the union on legal and financial matters. The only difference between these people and actual ‘advisors’ would be that they could vote down and effectively veto any action they liked on legal and financial grounds.
2. Liberation Spaces – there would be no liberation spaces on this board – as if financial and legal matters are not liberation issues!
3. Zone Conferences – Hailed by people in the leadership as an extension of democracy by devolving policy making is nothing of the sort. Zone conferences would decide what would be discussed at National Conference. BUT, each affiliate union can send only one delegate. One delegate per union to decide on the policy that is debated at conference? Undemocratic.
4. The National Ballot – Not a bad idea in itself. However, as in many students unions, right-wing leaderships can always wreck any decent ballot (for arguments sake, one demanding a free-education demo) by setting the quota unreasonably high.
5. New National Executive Council – In one respect the proposals are good – an increase in positions and 7 spaces exclusively for FE representatives. However, this is entirely undermined by the fact that these are now ‘volunteer’ positions and consequently unpaid. The NEC is already drastically underpaid and many members have to take up extra work to supplement their income. In between studying and working, when do we expect these students to campaign? Contrary to NUS’s claim this will empower ordinary students – it will necessarily exclude them. In addition to this the review proposes they only meet 5 times a year. Certainly not enough to debate policy properly.
The rightwing leadership of the union does not care about student involvement. If they did, why would they replace students with trustees on national bodies? Why would it try and push this through small, undemocratic extraordinary conferences? And why is the first time you read about the review on THIS blog?
The student movement is at a crossroads, and the NUS leadership would have us believe there are only 2 ways to go – to reform or not to reform. This is obviously not true. We’ve been fighting for radical reform for decades AND we’ve proposed alternatives to the leadership but they’re not discussed. We need to fight for OUR change, and against theirs. So on to our proposals…
More time for motions at conference, so students have the time to debate the issues, more spaces and greater remuneration on the National Executive for greater representation. BUT it’s not simply about changing the structures! The endemic problem in the union is the leadership’s inability – or more likely unwanting – to see the real problems.
We cannot achieve anything by getting pally with Blairite ministers, if they agree with us then we aren’t demanding enough! Nor can we achieve anything if we are constantly fighting a rear-guard action against attack after attack from governments who ironically some of these NUS leaders represent! But more importantly we need to look abroad at the places like France and Greece that have mass student participation, AND win.
Accountability:
It’s important for all delegates elected to account for their actions to the student body.
Hull-Left and Education Not for Sale activists Chris Marks and Stephen Wood’s NUS delegate manifesto’s can be found here (http://www.hullstudent.com/elections/content/index.php?page=63615). As can the manifesto’s for the 9 candidates that attended last week’s Extraordinary Conference. Here they are along with the factions they voted with or supported.
Tom Digby (Labour Students)Emma Kinloch (Labour Students)
Iain Keers (Labour Students)
Helen Gibson (President HUU/Labour Students)
Chris Marks (Hull-Left/Education not for Sale)
Uslaan Khan (Federation of Student Islamic Societies)
Richard Jackson (VP Academic Representation/Independent)
Mark Alcorn (VP Scarborough/Independent)
Irving Anderson (Independent)
Ben Wilcox (Independent)
For other reports of the conference:
http://www.free-education.org.uk/?p=570 (ENS website)
Let’s have it out!
Chris Marks (HUU NUS delegate 08/09)
2 comments:
I'm hardly part of the Labour Students faction! I don't think they cnsider me a safe vote. I haven't even signed up to them yet this year! Except for the actaul motion, when did I ever vote with Labour Students?
Tom
I remember this from being a delegate from my FE college last year. The problem seemed that the only thing the left could unite on was the fact that the review was a bad idea. We need to create a coherent alternative to the review if we are to have any chance of beating it.
Also, I was under the impression that Wes Streeting was only planning one extrodinary conference before annual conference. Has this changed? We need to set up a meeting for the left at hull uni. we need to sort out some form of opposition to this review.
Post a Comment