Report from London NCAFC’s event with David Florez, 26/04/13, by Edwin Clifford-Coupe, UCLU Education and Campaigns Officer

Over the last couple of weeks, members of the Colombian Patriotic March movement have been touring the UK and Ireland. David Florez, a student from the National University of Bogota and General Secretary of the Federation of Students joined London NCAFC to talk to us about the Colombian student movement and how they toppled the neoliberal education reforms of the Santos government in 2011.

The Colombian context
Florez began by outlining the social and economic context in Colombia and how this has moulded the student movement. Colombia has the third highest inequality in the world: 1% of the population own 59% of the fertile land; 8 million people live in misery. Since previous neoliberal reforms, healthcare is not free. The ongoing civil war has left 5 million people internally displaced and a further 5 million in exile. The brutal regime keeps over 9,500 political prisoners, including over 50 student leaders. Assassinations of social leaders are common: 8 leading members of the Patriotic March movement have been killed.

Annually, the government invests $9000 in each soldier, compared to $1500 in each student. In 2011, the Santos government attempted to introduce neoliberal education reforms through Congress which would benefit the finance sector. Public universities would be forced to compete for funding from the private sector, and students to take high interest bank loans, replacing the state subsidy. This would create so-called ‘mixed-universities’, which banks would have a role in administrating, in effect the end of the public universities.

The student movement unites
The first objective of the movement against the reforms was to unite the students across public and private institutions, who were traditionally not organised together. % national student organisations represent the public university students; however, the private university students had little organisation, despite that they were often the most highly indebted.

In order to do this, emergency student assemblies were organised in every university to discuss three elements of the campaign:

Organisation
Each assembly sent delegates to a 10,000 student Congress, which formed the National Comprehensive Student Table (MANE). The 5 national organisations agreed to unite to follow the policy set by the MANE Congress, which was determined by the delegates from faculty and university assemblies. The MANE also elected spokespeople, with reserved regional and indigenous positions. It strove to work on consensus decision-making; on some issues, however, votes were necessary.

Politics
Within the student movement there was an internal debate: should the MANE oppose all or merely some of the reforms? This question almost broke the unity of the MANE; however, in the end the MANE voted for full opposition, so as to not give legitimacy to any of the reforms.

Externally, the MANE created a ‘Minimum Student Programme’, an expression of its 5 core policies:

• Free education
• Quality education
• Welfare support
• Respect and autonomy from private interests for universities
• Peace in Colombia and national sovereignty: the government should fund education not war, and academic work should not be used to support the war.

Tactics
Having united, it was essential to gain public opinion. To do this, the MANE adopted diverse tactics to support the normal practice of demonstrations. Cultural events were organised, attempts were made to bridge the generational divide and to unite with the trade union movement, and most importantly links were made with wider social issues.

The MANE drew comparisons between the proposed education reforms and the previous privatisation of the healthcare system, which provides very poor service and is almost universally disliked in Colombia. Having done so, they ran a campaign on were the resources for education could be found, linking to discontent over government failure to collect corporation tax, and suggesting a new levy on the banking system.

Shutting down universities
In autumn 2011, the demonstrations began. For over 2 months, the MANE organised weekly, escalating protests, including a joint demonstration with the student movement in Chile on 24 October. This international solidarity was important; in October 2011 a meeting of the Latin American student federation took place which cemented links between the Chilean and Colombian struggles, and both movements now symbolically march under each others’ flags at protests.

The demonstrations entailed an absolute halt to academic work (a student strike) and activists organised alternative academic activities, as well as fora to divise an alternative education bill to go to Congress.

In an attempt to co opt the movement, the government invited MANE spokespeople to join the Colombian Congressional debate on the education bill, leading to a second internal debate: should the MANe engage in negotiation with the government? Again, it was decided that the MANE student movement should not pass legitimacy to a Congress which is composed of 85% government party representatives, and the least trusted institution in Colombia.

The government waivers

With the demonstrations continuing and the students refusing to negotiate, President Santos began to be pressured by his allies to withdraw the bill, as the students had public support. When word of this was passed to the MANE, they organised to put maximum pressure on the government: a national demonstration was organised in the capital Bogota to bring the whole student movement together in one city.

By this point, the government were on the back foot. President Santos attempted to negotiate with the MANE spokespeople, who refused until after the demonstration had taken place. With the ‘Bogota Take Over’ planned to begin at 10am, the President went on national television at 9am and withdrew the reforms. Victory in hand, the demonstration became a party and memorial to honour one assassinated student leader and 5 currently imprisoned.

Having defeated the reforms, the student movement is putting the finishing touches to its alternative education bill, along the lines of the ‘Minimum Student Programme’. They have not won completely however; the current government-controlled Congress would never approve their bill. They therefore hope for a National Constituent Assembly. Meanwhile, Colombian students have become hugely politicised; the mobilisation is spilling into wider social movements such as the Patriotic March, which aims to unite workers, farmers, students and others into a popular front for peace and social justice in Colombia.

Personal Reflections

I was struck by the similarities with the ongoing Quebecois student movement. Despite knowing little about the struggle in Quebec, the Colombian student movement displayed many overlaps in tactics and organisation with the Quebecois: the implementation of a student strike that halted academic activity; regular, escalating street protests; a national coalition of student groups (MANE in Colombia, CLASSE in Quebec) which was based on local departmental or faculty assemblies which operated directly democratically. Further, in both Colombia and Quebec, a variety of student organisations exist, which creates the space for radical politics to appear and to win.

To me, this should be counterposed to the situation in the UK, where the NUS presents a monolithic, hegemonic organisation which is unable and unwilling to build the kind of struggle seen in Colombia. Clearly, the contexts are very different; however, I found it interesting to see that students had reacted in similar ways based on direct democracy and direct action to different situations. Florez and the Patriotic March representatives invited a delegation from NCAFC to visit Colombia this year; I would suggest we eagerly take this opportunity to learn more, bearing in mind NCAFC’s summer conference, which is mandated to consider a new form of organising within NCAFC and a challenge to the NUS’s hegemony of defeat.

On the 22nd May the University of London’s Trustee Board is meeting to decide on the future of ULU. This will be the last point at which the University can voluntarily reverse its decision to get rid of ULU; whatever the outcome, we will refuse to be abolished.

ULU has called a demonstration to fight for the future of ULU and defend student unionism on that date.

We invite students, staff and alumni from London and across the country to come to ULU, and take the fight to the University.

We will assemble at 2pm outside ULU on Malet Street

In the meantime, sign and share the petition to save the University of London Union:https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-university-of-london-save-the-university-of-london-union-3

Below is the letter which we have sent to student unions across the country.

–

Dear student activists, officers and education staff,

We write to you for support. The University of London is threatening to close its students union, ULU, which represents more than 120,000 students across the city and been at the heart of student life in London for many decades. In the recent period it has revived as a focus for pan – London campaigning. This proposal is to close ULU from summer 2014 and replace it with a management-run student services centre.

The proposal is the culmination of a review, on which no student sat. Students’ union responses to the Review were largely positive. ULU submitted a wide-ranging response to the Review to increase its representative capacity (which was cut almost entirely in 2007) and form the nucleus of a pan-London union.

ULU has made progress in the last year. It has transformed and opened up its democracy; more than tripled the number of officers; introduced a full-time Women’s Officer and autonomous Liberation Campaigns; and put in place measures that could increase its elections turnout tenfold in the coming year. This year alone it has been central to defending international students, set up a London-wide tenants union to fight astronomical rents and dodgy landlords, overhauled its clubs and societies work, been key to the fight of university cleaners campaigning for better rights, called major anti-fees demonstrations, and developed lobbying channels and relationships with the Greater London Authority (GLA) and Major’s office.

We believe the attack on ULU is important for the whole of the student movement. ULU’s federal position is unique amongst students’ unions but that if a precedent is set that university management can unilaterally shut down a union and remove its sole building this could have very serious consequences in the medium- to long-term. We believe student activities, representation and services are best when they are run by students’ unions, under democratic student leadership.

There are many reasons why ULU is an easier target than most but we believe that the situation here today could be the situation tomorrow for many. We can see some key trends:

1. The marketization of education is leading some universities to try to expand their student numbers rapidly. This requires additional space. We do not want to create a precedent where institutions can expand into valuable student union space.

2. Some universities are not expanding but are trying desperately to cut costs. Again, the student union is an easy target for this – particularly services considered ‘non-essential’ like bars, gig venues, and society and activity space.

3. Students’ unions can provide commercial services for cheaper through NUSSL. Universities increasingly run their own commercial services which compete with the students’ union, but without this cost advantage. Senior managers may struggle to understand or why the University should encourage or allow competing commercial ventures.

4. University management may think that university-run services are necessarily better than those run by the students’ union. This completely ignores the important benefits that SU-run services provide: generating turnover for the union, creating goodwill towards the union, providing a safe democratically-run space, pushing the campaigns and messages of the union.

Across the board the marketization of education poses risks to students’ unions. Principals and Vice-Chancellors are increasingly coming from the private sector where the principles of student unionism are not so well understood or valued. Private providers coming into the higher education sector are creating weaker shallow unions with no commercial services, little autonomy and far poorer funding. Marketisation Moreover, a marketised higher education system lleads to considerations of cost and price over value: the undermining of students’ ability to decide on their own Union’s affairs could be a green light to other Universities – in your college or in your university – that want to either reduce spending on the SU, regain control of services or take back buildings.

The combined salaries of the Vice Chancellors of the University of London – the people who have the power to attack ULU and take away its resources – is £4.1m. ULU’s block grant is under £800k, most of which goes back to the University in rent.

We believe that what is happening at ULU right now could be used as a blueprint for the future elsewhere in the country: removal of democratic student oversight of services, curtailing of student autonomy, massive funding cuts.

On the 22nd May the University of London’s Trustee Board is meeting to decide on the future of ULU. We are calling a national mobilisation to fight for the future of ULU – but also to defend students’ unionism – on that date. We invite students, staff and alumni from London and across the country to come to ULU, and take the fight to the University.

In the meantime, sign the petition to save ULU: https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-university-of-london-save-the-university-of-london-union-3

For Press contact, call 07761767875 or 07964791663

For the statement by Birmingham Defend Education see: http://www.defendeducationbrum.org/management-gives-in-to-pressure/

Management at the University of Birmingham have withdrawn plans for a large scale restructuring of support staff, after students threatened to call a national demonstration on their open day. The plans, abandoned under pressure, would have attacked the job security and conditions of the University’s most underpaid staff.

Birmingham Defend Education, a student group at the university, sent a letter to Birmingham Vice Chancellor David Eastwood on April the 5th, stating “You have until Wednesday the 15th of May to guarantee: no compulsory redundancies, no forced shift work, and no loss of pay for the 114 workers under threat. Otherwise we will call for, and mobilise, a national demonstration and days of action at your open days on the 20th, 21st and 22nd of June.”

Yesterday the group released another statement saying that “the University have, at the time of writing, made substantial concessions. The staff union will now be taking the dispute forward through negotiations and, recognising this, we are not going to call action on the university’s open days.”

For many it is seen as a victory for militant tactics in the student movement. Hattie Craig Vice President Education elect at the University of Birmingham has said: “this victory would not have happened without three years of student mobilisation and protest at Birmingham and nationally. The recent national demonstration at Sussex has shown university managers that when the student movement mobilizes it will really harm them.”

The victory comes not long after University College London abandoned plans to demolish and redevelop Carpenters’, an estate in East London, in order to make way for a new campus. Across the country, we are seeing management plans shelved: the fight against marketisation and corporatisation on our campuses is winnable if we fight hard enough. That collective campaign is what NCAFC exists to build.

To the members of BAE, Córdoba, and the Spanish student movement

This is a message of solidarity from the members of NCAFC in the UK to yourselves.

The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts – NCAFC was founded in 2010, at the height of this wave of student struggles in the UK. Since then, it has fought on the streets, in our Students’ Unions, and in the national student union for the right to free education for all students. We have found that the more radical our actions, the more successful they are. We have organised demonstrations, protests, strikes, and occupations, much like yourselves, but across the UK.

We believe strongly in a national movement, one that unites students from different institutions and in different levels of education against the cuts to our resources, funding, and teaching staff (as well as wider cuts), and fights for free education, believing that to be something that is a right for everyone.

This is in line with your demand that students should not be expelled from university if they cannot afford to pay for their course, and that money should not be a factor in accessing education.

The Wert reforms are a regressive set of reforms that aim to take Spain back to a Francoist political era, by forcing teaching in Castellano, rather than regional languages. They also support gender segregation, put students through more external tests which they must pass to progress to the next educational level, reduce optional subjects, and entire syllabi, such as the Bachelor of Arts (BA), and move towards an increase in tuition fees.

In NCAFC we fight against anything that might damage equal access to education, for example the requirement to sit these tests, and a reduction in humanities subjects, and recognise that people should have the right to study what they wish. We were founded in the fight against a rise in tuition fees and support you strongly in that.

The cuts are hitting hard across Europe, not simply in the UK and not simply in Spain, and the fight against austerity is everyone’s fight, because united we stand, but divided we fall.

Solidarity

The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts

Estimados MEMBERS de BAE Córdoba y el movimiento estudiantil de España,

Eso es un mensaje de solidaridad de la NCAFC en el Reino Unido en Inglaterra, a vosotros.

NCAFC – La campaña nacional contra de las tasas y los recortes (Un movimiento estudiantil de todo el Reino Unido contra los recortes) fue fundado en 2010 a la altura de esta ola de luchas estudiantil en el Reino Unido. Después de ese tiempo, se ha luchado en las calles, en nuestros sindicatos de estudiantes y en nuestro sindicato nacional de estudiantes por el derecho a la educación libre para todos. Hemos encontrado que el más radical que sea, más éxito tiene. Hemos organizado manifestaciones, protestas, huelgas y ocupaciones, como ustedes, pero a través del reino unido.

Creemos en un movimiento nacional, uno que unen a los estudiantes de instituciones diferentes, y de niveles diferentes de educación, contra de los recortes de nuestros recursos, la financiación y el personal docente (así como recortes más generales), y un movimiento que lucha por la educación libre, con la creencia que eso es un derecho para todos.
Esto está en consonancia con vuestra exigencia que estudiantes no deberían ser expulsado de universidad si no pueden pagar por sus cursos, y que el dinero no deberían ser un factor en el acceso a la educación.

Los reformes de Wert son unos reformes regresivas que prueban a llevar a España a una época de las políticas franquistas, forzando a la enseñanza en Castellano, antes que lenguas regionales. También ellos apoyan segregación por género, poner a los estudiantes a través de más exámenes extérnales, que tienen que aprobar antes de progresar a la próxima nivel de educación, reducen a sujetos opcionales, y sílaba entera como el licenciado en letras, y avanzar hacia hasta una ampliación en las tasas de matrícula.

En la NCAFC, luchamos contra de algo que pueden dañar al acceso igual a la educación, como el requisito para sentarse estos exámenes, y la reducción en los humanidades, y reconocen que la gente debería que tener la derecha a estudiar lo que quieren. Fuimos fundados en la lucha contra de la ampliación de tasas de matrícula y vos apoyamos mucho en esto.
Los recortes están golpeando fuerte sobre todo Europa, no solo en el Reino Unido, y no solo en España, y la lucha contra de austeridad es la lucha de todo porque Unión hace la fuerza divididos caemos.

Solidaridad

National Campaign Against Fees and CUts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

London’s only city-wide union will fight closure

On Friday morning, the University of London Council will decide whether or not to abolish its students union, the University of London Union (ULU). ULU represents more than 120,000 students across London, and is currently the only union which represents students across the city.

ULU has played a high profile role in recent years as a hub of campaigning activity and mobilisation against tuition fees and for workers’ rights. It also hosts a large array of societies and activites, and has recently begun work on establishing a London-wide tenants’ union. Over the past year, the ULU has gone through a radical review of its structures, opening up its democracy and introducing a full-time women’s officer.

The move to shut down ULU comes after the report of a Review panel, which had no student members. Despite positive reports from local student unions and a clear plan of action for expanding ULU into a pan-London union, the Review recommends the abolition of ULU from summer 2014. Under the plans, ULU would be stripped of its building, services and resources, and its representational wing would be farmed out to an as yet undefined and unresourced future.

Students, staff and alumni have opposed the plans and urged the University Council to reconsider.

Val Shawcross, London Assembly Member for Lambeth and Southwark, said: ”As a former ULU member and Student Unionist I believe that independent self-managing student unions are an important part of our political democratic culture in the UK. Times are hard for students at the moment so it’s even more important that they can run their own services and represent the interests of students to the University and to the Government.”

Michael Chessum, ULU President, said: “Any move to abolish ULU on Friday would be totally illegitimate and hugely negative for the students in London. It would also set a dangerous precedent for University managements to move in with no mandate and shut down democratically run unions. Universities and colleges need vibrant, democratic organisation and debate as part of their academic culture. If the University goes ahead with this on Friday, they will be saying far more about their own mortality as an institution than they are about us. And the battle won’t end there.”

For inquiries, call 07964791663

BY AISLING GALLGHER

A few years ago, a decision was made in Queen’s University Belfast Students’ Union (due to ‘efficiency savings’ required by the university) to outsource some of the security staff positions to G4S. Currently, the students’ union employs 18 security staff, half of whom are current students and half of whom are graduates.

Earlier this month, our security staff were told that their contracts will be terminated at the end of the month. They have two choices- take a job offered with G4S (on a zero-hour contract, without the support and protection that comes with being an employee of the university/union), or lose their job.

The ratified strategic plan (2012-2015) for QUBSU states that “the students’ union… places a key priority on ‘putting money in your pocket’” and that they “will do this by promoting and offering-part time job opportunities”. Our incoming president has placed student employment at the top of his agenda for the coming year.

In a single day, almost 1200 students signed a petition calling for a referendum on the issue, which will be held on 9th May.

We are calling for QUBSU Management Board to reverse this decision to outsource our students’ union jobs (which was decided behind closed doors, with no consultation whatsoever from the students’ union council, nor the wider study body), and reaffirm their support for protecting and enhancing job opportunities for students at the university.

Our students’ union is not a commercial union; it is and should be a union run by and for students. Protecting the few jobs that students have within the union/university is a top priority.

Stand in solidarity with students from Queen’s University Belfast Students’ Union over the next few weeks as they prepare to take on their union management in defence of student jobs and against the creeping commercialisation that is becoming so common within students’ unions throughout the UK and Ireland.

Tweet support (@QUBSU, #savestudentjobs) in the form of videos, posters and statements, and show that we will stand united in the face of attacks on our students’ unions.

Activists at Birkbeck College, University of London, have set up a campaign to fight for decent pay and conditions for cleaners at the College. Sign their petition here. NCAFC has a long and proud history of fighting for justice for workers on campuses, and we are fully endorsing the campaign.

We believe that the cleaners of our university are a vital part of this community. Birkbeck relies on the good functioning of offices and a clean environment in order to continue our research and education.

For this reason, we are deeply concerned by the current proposal for offices to be cleaned every other day, instead of on a daily basis. This change would be of serious detriment to the lives of the cleaners, and also to the working conditions of staff and students.

The cleaners already work without proper pensions, sick pay or holiday pay and, while the college pays the London Living Wage, this is still a low wage, at £8.55/hour. The contractor, Ocean, have proposed to cut 15 minutes from the working day of every cleaner. As most of the cleaners work at Birkbeck for 2 hours/day (while holding down 2 or 3 other jobs), this amounts to a 12.5% wage cut.

Furthermore, Birkbeck have attempted to implement this change without staff or students having been consulted about its effects. If Birkbeck is to attain its mission of being a world-class research and teaching institution, then it is imperative that we have the best environment in which to work and study.

For this reason, we call on Birkbeck management to show that everyone in the university is a respected part of the community here, and to either direct Ocean not to cut the hours, or to make up the difference in pay themselves.

Every day at NUS conference, NCAFC produces a bulletin as a digest of policy, humour and whatever has happened in the previous 24 hours.

To see our day 2 bulletin, see here: NCAFC#nusnc13-BULLETIN

BY AISLING GALLAGHER, NUS-USI WOMEN’S OFFICER and QUBSU DELEGATE.

First published here

(For another report, by NUS executive member-elect Rosie Huzzard, see here.)

Trigger warning for frank discussion of rape apologists and mental health.

This year was my first NUS Conference. I was a QUBSU delegate, along with five other people- four students and two sabbatical officers. NUS wasn’t what I thought it would be. At all. In some ways in was better and it some ways worse.

I’ll begin by talking about one of the things I was most proud of. A mass walkout occurred twice, when a known rape apologist and SWP member took to the stage (first for an election speech for one of the FTO positions, and then for Block). Obviously some people could not walk out due to access issues/the fact they were candidates, but I was immensely proud of the fact that we did this. It was cross-party, cross-faction, cross-political persuasion, but I am very proud that one thing we could agree on. NUS made it pretty clear- we don’t have time, nor do we have respect, for those who are rape apologists. They have no place in our organisation, and rightly so. I am proud of us.

Another thing I was immensely proud of was the vigil that was held for Steven Simpson. Organised at the last minute by Rosie Huzzard, Sky Yarlett and Finn McGoldrick (the NUS LGBT Officers) spoke at the vigil, as did two members of the Disabled Students’ Committee. There was a lot of anger, and there were a lot of tears. It was incredibly moving, incredibly emotional and I’m very proud that it was held.

Now, unfortunately, to talk about the things that disappointed me during conference.

First off, accessibility. My first NUS conference was NUS Women’s Conference 2013, and at it, though I found some problems with accessibility, a few members of Women’s Committee worked really hard to draft and propose a motion on improving accessibility, and I definitely think that next year Women’s Conference will be even more accessible. But NUS Conference was not, in any sense of the word. There were access breaks, thankfully, but the days were very long. I missed debates on motions that I really wanted to be at, simply because I just couldn’t do it. The unavailability of water, the fact that there were no reserved seats at the end of rows to facilitate those who feel they will probably have to run in and out for whatever reason, the endless,endless whooping and cheering, even though this was rightly called out by chairs numerous times, was so disappointing. It was also very disappointing to see the leadership actively do this numerous times. I understand people make mistakes, but at Women’s Conference, it was noticeable that any time someone whooped, they usually ended up covering their mouth and you could see them telling themselves to try not to do it- at least people were trying. I’m not entirely innocent on this either, and I’m annoyed at myself. A conscious effort by all is definitely needed if we are to improve on this- and not improving on this would be a disgrace.

Secondly, the conscious and visible control that the leadership tried to have over the conference as a whole was not a secret. There were numerous attempts to stifle debate, and specific members of the leadership got up to publicly insult individuals, which I feel is an abuse of the platform. I’m not saying that I necessarily agree or disagree with the specific views that were expressed, just that I think it was an abuse of the platform and was extremely disappointing as a first time delegate to see, especially because it was people who I have had a lot of respect for doing so.

The control shown by the leadership translated into policy debates that resulted in policy being voted/agreed on that I was surprised by. I thought NUS Conference would be considerably more left wing. I would say that for the most part (at least, this is what I thought), within NUS it is an argument between the centre, the left, and the further left, but when a Tory is cheered and whooped at, repeatedly, it begs the question as to what our common aims are. We might not as a conference agree on free education (which frankly makes me shudder), we might not agree on gender balancing, we may not agree on a lot of things, but I thought the one thing we did agree on is that the current coalition is systemically destroying the UK as we know it. But we cheered and clapped for a candidate getting up and insulting other members, and seemed to forget that he is a member of the party who is taking down everything we stand for. Just an observation- though I feel it is an important one.

Another thing is that I didn’t necessarily agree with everything ‘the left’ did, either. I don’t think it was conducive to anyone to stand up and call all of NUS ‘scabs’. That said, as a whole I think this person made a great speech and I was very proud of her- but I wouldn’t be being honest, which is what I’m trying to do here, if I pretended I was comfortable with that word being used. Similarly, I thought the Carbon Rod stuff was funny- but there were a few things in the speech that made me feel uncomfortable, specifically the bit about access [editor's note: it has since been clarified that 'access' in the Rod's campaign referred to widening participation, not to accessibility]

I’ve always thought that within NUS we respected difference, to an extent. The people I have worked with (generally) respect when we differ on things- whether it be policy or campaigns or whatever. We disagree and we put it behind us- in terms of those who are my friends, our friendship is not changed, and in terms of those who are primarily my colleagues, our professional relationship is not changed. But this wasn’t the case at this years conference. Insults were thrown about, publicly, on the platform, and that was horrendous to see. I do understand that people will not respect those who do not respect them- I used to be like that. Now, for the most part, I feel sorry for those people (as in, those who do not feel that I am owed respect). I am angry initially, of course, but thankfully I have learnt to let go of the anger because I know that the only person it’s hurting is myself. I think that learning to do this is vital if you’re going to survive in the NUS/student politics environment, simply because if you didn’t, you would have a breakdown- keeping hold of that much anger is too much for any person to do. I feel sorry for people who do not respect things that are fundamental to my existence in that they cannot extend the courtesy to others that others extend to them, I feel sorry that they are so caught up in their own lives that they feel their homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist (or whatever the disagreement may be on) views are fine, even though they compromise and insult the very core of the people they are disagreeing with. I have learnt to let go of the anger, for the most part, I hold towards people like this because if I didn’t, I couldn’t survive.

Thankfully, I’ll end on a positive note. I met a lot of incredible people at this conference, people I would not have met otherwise. Sometimes we met because we were both furious at something that had just been said or passed, sometimes we met because we just happened to be in the same place at the same time. But there were so many people in that room who are fucking incredible, so many people who work incredibly hard in their students’ unions and who I would give anything to have working within my own students’ union. Vonnie’s speech about remembering most of our members are FE and that any attempt for our leadership to push through policy without debate being unacceptable, Stacey and Naomi’s speeches about our utter commitment to giving rape apologists the back door, Thais constantly reminding us about accessibility and how important it was, Rosie’s speech about remembering our trade union links, Vicki’s leaving speech- her unapologetic honesty, her passion and her drive, constantly reminding us that underneath each set of political views is a person, and that no person deserves to be treated the way many people within the leadership were treated this year.

I wouldn’t have gotten through the past few days if it weren’t for people like Sky and Rosie and Rebecca. They were extremely tough, both in terms of my drive to keep fighting and my own mental and physical health. I want to come back, though. I want to keep working and keep fighting and keep debating and disagreeing and I want other people to want to do the same. But I don’t want to see the lack of basic respect again. I’m a member of political parties and anti-cuts groups, but the most important thing in writing this, for me, is my honesty- I am proud of and disappointed in different ‘sides’ in equal measure, and whilst people may disagree (and they have the right to do so, and I respect that), the least we can do is respect the fact that we have differing opinions. We’re not going to get anything done if we don’t accept the fact we disagree on some things, and work positively to try and change the minds of others. We bloody love democracy, we do- but I also bloody love respect and common courtesy, of which this conference was lacking entirely.

I am hoping that next year will be better, I am. At the end of the day, I am hopelessly optimistic, and probably have a little too much faith in people. But it is who I am, and I’m unapologetic for that. We need an NUS Conference that is accessible, welcoming, inclusive, and respectful. The vigil on Tuesday night definitely put everything into perspective- and I think many would agree with me on that. At the end of the day, we are all human. And I hope we can respect that. You don’t convince anyone you’re right when you’re spending your time yelling down other people, and you don’t make yourself or your opinions look great when you spend most of your time throwing insults.

I am a first time delegate, and this was my experience. By all means, leave comments- but if you disagree, please be respectful. The last thing we need is for the poisonous atmosphere within conference to extend any further.

NCAFC will be publishing fuller write-ups of NUS conference in due course. This article appeared on the front page of our conference bulletin on Tuesday 9th April.

BY LIAM MCNULTY

Conference was rocked yesterday by the news of the death of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Yet, despite her passing, Thatcher’s ideas live on, continuing to dominate in our society, and forming the ideological commonsense not only of the Coalition but of the right-wing of the Labour Party too.

As Prime Minister for three consecutive terms from 1979 until 1990, Thatcher was responsible for deliberately engineered mass unemployment, social misery and the crushing of the once extremely powerful British labour movement. Her term in office saw the embrace of murderous dictators such as her friend and ally Augusto Pinochet, as well as the privatisation of social housing, and the promotion a cut-throat individualism encapsulated by the notion that there is ‘no such thing as society.’

Thatcher was the political figurehead of a determined ruling-class strategy to fundamentally shift the balance of power away from the working-class, by eradicating many of the social gains made after the Second World War. It is the mark of the success of this project that she could boast of New Labour as her’greatest achievement’, as it refused to renationalise the industries flogged to private shareholders or unshackle the trade unions from crippling legislation.

Instead, after the 1997 election we were greeted with the pathetic sight of Tony Blair boasting that his government would “leave British law the most restrictive on trade unions in the Western world” and refusing to break with Thatcher’s demonisation of immigrants, tough talk on welfare and embrace of stark social inequalities.

This spirit of capitulation to the ideas dominant in society, rather than working as a collective agency to change them, is present on the floor of our conference. Thatcher was able to impose her designs on us not only because she wielded immense state violence, such as was on display against the miners in 1984-5. Her power lay in the ability of the Tories to convince large sections of society that their interests would be best served by elbowing out their neighbours and crossing the picket lines of their colleagues.

New Labour’s failure to challenge these ideas has allowed the Coalition to work with lightning speed to finish Thatcher’s work, on welfare, employment rights and the NHS. Never was a coherent alternative presented by the Labour Party or, for that matter, by the NUS.

Far from challenging the government’s for-profit narrative, we are told to make our arguments based on the needs of the ‘economy’. Instead of insisting that education is a social good, from which society as a whole benefits through the enriching of culture and the development of critically-aware citizens, the NUS leadership tell us that it is an individual benefit, for which individual graduates should assume the burden of debt.

It was once said that ‘it is no measure of health to be adjusted to a profoundly sick society.’ Our movement must radically change course to even start resisting, never mind reversing, the Coalition’s agenda. So profound has been the victory of Thatcherism that the craven attitude of our leaders appears woefully inadequate at best and positively criminal at worst.