To sign this statement, email againstfeesandcuts@gmail.com

At National Conference, students voted by a clear margin for a radical set of policies to put NUS at the centre of the fight for education and the welfare state. These included a national demonstration in the autumn term and a series of walkouts in FE. The political basis that conference gave this was clear: that education is a public good, and should be funded by taxing the rich; that FE should be free at every level; and that postgraduate education should be fully funded, with living grants open to all graduates.

Due to the extremely short length of conference, a large proportion of motions were not heard, and many were passed on to the National Executive Council (NEC). As a result, the NEC will technically have the ability to pass motion 306 unamended, effectively overruling NUS’s members and returning to a policy of campaigning for a graduate tax. This would be disgraceful, and would lead to division and turmoil within our national union at a time when we most need unity and trust.

As campaigners for public education, and as democrats, we urge the NUS NEC:

•       Not to reverse conference’s mandates on HE funding, either by passing the amendments to 306, or voting not to hear the motion.

•       To organise the wave  of protest in the autumn around the clear political mandate that it was given by conference: that further and higher education should be funded by taxing the rich.

Michael Chessum, NUS NEC

Vicki Baars, NUS LGBT Officer (Women’s Place) and VPUD-elect

Daniel Stevens, NUS NEC and International Students Officer-elect

Luke James, NUS PGT NEC-elect

Robin Burrett, NUS PGR NEC-elect

Gordon Maloney, NUS Scotland VP Communities-elect

Jamie Woodcock, NUS NEC-elect

Mark Bergfeld, NUS NEC

Sky Yarlett, NUS LGBT Officer (Open Place)-elect

Christina Yan-Zhang, NUS International Students Officer

Kanja Sesay, NUS Black Students Officer

Matt Bond, NUS Disabled Students Campaign NEC rep

Sean Rillo Razcka, ULU President-elect and Mature and Part-Time NEC-elect

Luke Durigan, NUS HE Zone Committee and UCL Union Education & Campaigns Officer

James Haywood, NUS Society and Citizenship Zone NEC rep

Anil Sachdeo, NUS NEC and Vice-Chair Birkbeck Students’ Union

Dennis Esch, NUS International Campaign NEC rep-elect

Mike Williamson, Edinburgh University Students’ Association Academic Affairs Officer and NUS NEC-elect

Aaron Kiely, NUS NEC

Charlotte Britton Welfare Officer Swansea SU, NUS Wales NEC

Matt Stanley, NUS NEC-elect

Roshni Joshi, NUS NEC

Mary Prescott, NUS NEC

Zahid Raja, NUS Wales NEC, Swansea University Education Officer-elect

Robert Foster, Education Campaign Convener on the NUS Scotland Executive Committee

Arianna Tassinari, NUS International and Postgraduate Committees and SOAS SU Education and Welfare Officer

Luke Frost, University of the Creative Arts Maidstone Campus Officer

Alex Peters Day, LSESU General Secretary

Claire Locke, London Met SU President

Maev McDaid, President, Liverpool Guild of Students

James McAsh, Edinburgh University Students’ Association President-elect

Fairooz Aniqa, Culture and Diversity Officer at University of the Arts London Students Union

Daf Adley, NCAFC LGBT Rep (Open Place)

Stef Newton, NCAFC LGBT Rep (Women’s Place)

Edward Maltby, NCAFC NC

Ben Towse, UCL Union Postgraduate Association President

Matthew Chadkirk, NCAFC Disabled Campaign Rep

Thomas Blake Johnson, UELSU Education Officer

Daniel Cooper, NCAFC NC, President of Royal Holloway SU and ULU VP-elect

Hanif Leylabi NUS LGBT Committee

Bob Sutton, Vice President, Liverpool Guild of Students

Lukas Slothuus, LSESU Community & Welfare Officer

Ruth Nicholson, Royal Holloway, NCAFC NC

Tom Harris, Academic Affairs Officer-Elect at Royal Holloway, University of London

Stuart Roney, President Stow College SA

Izzy John, Welfare Officer, Warwick SU

Natasha Gorodnitski, UCL Union Ethics, Environment and Operations Officer-elect

Edwin Clifford-Coupe, UCL Union Education and Campaigns Officer-elect

Hannah Webb, UCL Union Community Officer-elect

David Cichon, President, University of Sussex Students’ Union

Max Crema, Edinburgh University Students’ Association VP Services-elect

Steven Martin, University of the Creative Arts Farnham Campus Officer

Edmund Schluessel, International Committee

Kelly McBride, University of Sussex Students’ Union President-elect

Chris Page, Cambridge University Students Union Welfare Officer-elect

Edd Bauer, Birmingham University Guild of Students VP Education

Simon Furse, Birmingham University Guild of Students VP Education-elect

Sam Gaus, UCL Union Democracy and Communications Officer-elect

Jade Baker, NUS Women’s Committee

Jenifer Krase, NUS Women’s Committee

Emma Kerry, NUS LGBT Committee 2010-12, NUS Women’s Committee-elect

Alan Bailey, NUS LGBT Officer (Open Place)

Rustnam Majainah, Young Greens

Aurora Adams, NUS International Campaign Scotland rep-elect

Rob Henthorn, School of Divinity, History and Philosophy convener elect, AUSA

Daphne Heijdelberg, Vice-president Equal Opportunities elect and current Women’s Officer, AUSA

Megan Dunn, Vice-President Education elect and this year’s NUS delegation leader, AUSA

Hanna Moy, Faith Officer elect, AUSA

Kate Harris, LGBT+ Convener, Edinburgh University Students’ Association

Naomi Beecroft, Women’s Liberation Convenor, Edinburgh University Students’ Association, NCAFC National Committee and Women’s Committee.

Alice Swift University of Birmingham Ethical & Environmental Officer Elect

Nadia Mehdi, Mental Health and Well-being Convenor-elect, Edinburgh University Students’ Association

Lucy Eskell, External Campaigns Representative-elect, Edinburgh University Students’ Association, NCAFC National Committee

Abigail Rebekah Barr, ECA President, Edinburgh University Students’ Association

Liam O’Hare, External Campaigns Representative, Edinburgh University Students’ Association

Beti Scott, Equal Opps and Liberation Officer, Edinburgh University Students’ Association

Chara Charsou, Postgraduate Campaigns Representative, Edinburgh University Students’ Association

Lizi Gray, Newcastle College

Nick Hart, Birmingham City

Jack Poole, Brighton

Sam Garratt, Leeds Trinity

Ed Mason, Cardiff  Uni

Georgina Bavetta, Bristol Uni

Susan Cook, LGBT Society President, London Metropolitan university

Ben Beach, Bartlett School Faculty Rep, UCL Union

Charlie Hayes- Student Rep at Birmingham City University

Kiah Manning, Heriot-Watt University Union, Women’s Officer elect

Tom Prior, University of Liverpool, Merseyside Network Against Fees and Cuts

Kristofer Wright, Glasgow Caledonian University LGBT Pres

Ned Hercock, DPhil candidate & Associate Tutor, Sussex uni

Nathan Bolton, Essex Union President-elect

Lani Baird, President Aberdeen College Students’ Association, NUS Scotland & UK LGBT Committee

Lily Hendron, Heriot-Watt Woman’s Officer, SWC-elect

Fran Cowling, NUS LGBT committee elect, and University of Nottingham

Tom Burmeister, Student Support Officer, Aberystwyth Guild of Students

Paul Dunne – Universities at Medway Students’ Association officer

Leander Jones, Vice President of Democracy and Resources elect at Birmingham University Guild of Students

Jack Saffery-Rowe, Royal Holloway student and member of RHACA

Kelly Rogers – University of Birmingham Women’s Officer

Jess Bradley, Students for Sensible Drug Policy UK, Uni of Manchester

Yolly Chegwidden, LGBTUA+ Officer -elect (job share), Warwick SU

Gary Paterson, Student Officer, Angus College Students’ Association

Hannah Louise Wright, Vice-President for Welfare Elect at Aberdeen University Students’ Association

Simon Keble, Goldsmith’s

Krissie Pearse, City College, Coventry

John Bowden, Manchester Metropolitan University

Matt Jenkins, University of Warwick

Jasmine Chohan, Courtauld institute of art

Aadam Siciid-Muuse, Lay-member of Union Council-elect, University of Bradford Students’ Union

Tim Derbyshire, York St Johns University

Howard Littler, Goldsmiths campaigns co-ordinator elect and GMB students officer

Sean Farmelo CAO-elect University of Birmingham

Alex Dickson, UCA Maidstone, Student Experience Officer

Liam McNulty, Cambridge Defend Education.

Azfar Shafi, University of Birmingham

Annabel Jones, Chair and Womens’ Officer, Birkbeck Students’ Union

Dan Heley, Entertainment Officer Elect & President of Labour & Co-Operative Society, Royal Holloway UoL

Beccy Sawbridge, NUS Black Sudents Campaign FE Women’s rep

Joana Ramiro, NCAFC NC, School of Oriental and African Studies

Sophie Filar, UCA Rochester

Liat Norris, Staffordshire University Students Union

Beth Evans, NUS LGBT Committee

Luciana Blaha, International Officer- elect, Worcester University SU

Julian Goodman, NUS Scotland Executive Committee, 1990-91

Facebook event here

Workers at Central Foundation Girls’ School in East London are engaged in a battle against job losses, pay cuts and workload increases.

After a solid strike by both NUT and Unison on 24 April, management are shifting, and have backtracked from cutting support staff pay this year.

The CFGS workers are fighting to win, using tactics different from many strikes – cross-union solidarity, joint union meetings, a strike fund, a regular strike bulletin and decisions made by regular votes of members.

They are insisting that workers should not pay for the bosses’ crisis at any level, local or national.

The CFGS workers are going to strike again on 11 May, this Friday, if management do not back down before then.

What you can do:
1. Most importantly: send urgent messages of solidarity to Jean Lane jlane@central.towerhamlets.sch.uk (Unison) and copy to Sheila McGregor smcgregor@central.towerhamlets.sch.uk (NUT)
2. If you’re in London, invite a CFGS speaker to your union branch, student union or anti-cuts group – email jlane@central.towerhamlets.sch.uk
3. Come to the picket line on Friday (11 May) from 7.30am on Harley Grove, off Bow Road, very near Mile End and Bow Road stations – map here. For more info or if you’re lost call 07961 040 618.
4. If you’re involved in a dispute, learn from the CFGS example!

Some voices from CFGS strikers

“We forced management to listen to us when they just wanted to drive this thing through. You can see why academies want to get rid of the unions?.

“We are the best organised school in the Borough. They need to smash us up to do what they want elsewhere. We are the NUM.”

“I don?t know what we would have done without the reps. We would have been stuffed by now. They have been absolutely brilliant and so brave.”

Sign the online petition against police violence here

We send our solidarity to the students and education workers who of Quebec who are fighting against an unjust increase in tuition fees which the right-wing, anti-student, anti-worker Charest government is proposing.

Students in Quebec have been organising a strike movement since February 13. Currently 172,000 students are still on strike. Like the UK student movement, the movement in Quebec has suffered severe police repression. Students have been subjected to mass arrests and physical attacks. In particular we extend our solidarity to Maxence Valade, who lost an eye following police attacks on a demonstration at Victoriaville – and to all those who have been injured by the police.

The student movement in Quebec is currently debating an offer made by the government. Students are voting on the offer in general assemblies and we will know their decision by next week. We support the decision of these general assemblies.

We endorse the alternative proposal made by the Quebec student movement – for free education, funded by taxing the rich and big business, and capping management pay. We reject attempts to make students pay for education, because we consider that it is a social good and a right, not a privilege or a commodity.

Solidarity with the student movement in Quebec! No to police violence! Bloquons la hausse!

For more background on the strike see the campaign’s website, the website of ASSE, the largest left-wing Quebecois students’ union, or this article in English by a Quebecois activist

We don’t need the board of trustees.

I was elected to the Trustee Board on a clear platform of opposing the slippery slope this Board represents, and defending the grassroots democracy of the NUS. I will be an anti-trustee. I will do what any good democrat and activist should do – make sure that as soon as there is any discussion at all of moves to limit or subvert the democratic decisions of students, our whole movement hears about it fast, and is able to take action to stop it.

We need change in the NUS: a return to longer conferences, so debate isn’t cut short. We need to bring back bigger delegations so minority views can make it to conference, and the NUS can engage wider groups of students in activism. Ultimately we need a democratic NUS which I believe means the scrapping the Trustee Board.

For what is the point of the Trustee Board? Unlike our student unions the NUS is not required by law to have a Trustee Board, so why have it? “For the external expertise”, is often the answer. If, however, we want the benefits of the “expert advice” that some board members apparently have, then why don’t they sit on NUS National Executive Committee (NEC) in an advisory capacity? If their knowledge is so vital, why on earth doesn’t an organisation the size of the NUS not have this knowledge in-house full time? Even if you accept the need for trustees in your local Student Union (itself very doubtful); which may be small, underfunded and in need of free advice from externals; the NUS isn’t exactly in the same position.

We already have conference and then the National Executive council to make decisions while conference doesn’t meet. We have the legislative and executive bodies required for a democratic organisation so why create a second executive body to sit above the original one? Is this not overly bureaucratic? Doesn’t it just make the NUS less responsive and dynamic?

The board is further problematic as it has the powers to make decisions that fundamentally alter the union’s policy, strategy and actions with no democratic input. From the incredibly limited minutes, which are so brief they are essentially private, nobody outside the board has any idea what it does.

Even more worryingly, the board can override liberation campaign autonomy. The board not only has the power to reverse and overrule the decisions of conference and the NEC but also the autonomous liberation campaigns. For a board founded on the idea of knowing best and having expertise, this sounds contradictory, does the board have the expertise of knowing what it is like to be a black student or studying with a disability? Certainly not. Why give it the power to override bodies where it clearly lacks relevant expertise?

In the long term having the board is a slippery slope. All across the student movement there is a clear attrition on student control of our unions. If we don’t reverse this the unaccountable Trustee Board could be the founding blocks on which a far worse governing structure could be built.

For the student body the risks of the Trustee Board are many. It can make the NUS bureaucratic and unresponsive and it has huge potential to be undemocratic and override liberation campaigns. In the long term with slow governance changes the board could become something even worse. Yet the only real tangible gain, the expertise, could surely be gained without these risks.

From my involvement in student politics I think it is clear the NUS is not short on expertise, its grassroots activists are living the reality and full of energy and ideas to make it better. What the NUS are short on however the ability to be responsive and the mechanisms to engage with the raw talent of its grassroots members. We don’t need a trustee board, we need bigger conferences to engage a wider layer of student activists and longer conference so we actually have time to debate the issues, rather than skim the surface often sidling groups like international students, postgraduate or part time & mature students.

This is a brief report from NCAFC co-founder and NUS NEC member Michael Chessum. A fuller report will appear in due course.

“Education should be funded by taxing the rich and big business. Education is a social good and should be funded by progressive taxation – not by forcing students to take on massive private debts, or cutting university places. Postgraduate degrees should be fully funded, with living grants open to all graduates. Further education should be completely free at every level, with the abolition of all fees. Student unions should be run on the basis of regular, well-built general meetings, and important decisions should be made by students and their elected representatives. The best way to defend the right to protest is by protesting. Universities should be places of political asylum, and students should fight against the anti-trade union laws and other restrictions on workers’ rights, which are themselves an attack on the right to protest. Edd Bauer is to be congratulated on his reinstatement at Birmingham.”

All of this is an almost direct quote from policy passed at conference this week. Still more significantly, none of the above was consensual – all of it was passed in the teeth of opposition, often from the NUS leadership. In other words, this wasn’t a case of slipping free education in unnoticed; the political arguments were had, and we won them. The transformation in the political orientation of NUS over the past two years goes far beyond a matter of tactical commitments, which were:

• A national demonstration in the first term of 2012
• A national FE walkout

Perhaps just as significantly, the left won a fulltime election for the first time in many, many years, with Vicki Baars elected as VPUD.

After a year of relative stagnation, it looks like the student movement is back on. Without sounding too triumphalist about it, I think this does vindicate a couple of things:

1. The NCAFC’s ability to keep up an independent momentum, with our own demos and actions, has been effective in keeping the student movement ticking over in the past year.
2. The intervention of the left was, despite division, the biggest and ultimately the most effective that I’ve ever seen it.
3. The left and NCAFC’s politics – in particular democratisation of education, a national demo, and free education – came to dominate the narrative of conference, with many other groupings and candidates either mimicking our slogans or emphasising similar ones of their own.

The NCAFC will be taking an active part in this year’s NUS conference, which takes place in Sheffield 24-26 April – as part of a campaign for a national union that leads students’ fightback.

We will be promoting policy, standing candidates, distributing literature, organising meetings and caucusing regularly to organise our intervention.

If you are a delegate or observer and want to work with us at conference, or not but would like to come and help get in touch: ring Ed Maltby on 07775 763 750 or email againstfeesandcuts@gmail.com with the subject “NUS conference”.

CAUCUSES

Unlike many factions in NUS, NCAFC organises its interventions democratically. We will be hold regular caucuses to discuss and plan our activity at and intervention into the conference. These will take place by the NCAFC stall.

ELECTIONS

A majority of the NCAFC national committee has signed up to supporting the following candidates in the fulltime elections.

Full-time positions

President: Claire Locke (Facebook
VP Union Development: Vicki Baars (Facebook)
VP Higher Education: Michael Chessum (Facebook, video and website )
VP Welfare: Edd Bauer video
VP Society and Citizenship: Jamie Woodcock
VP Further Education: Jamil Keating

MOTIONS

NCAFC-supporting student unions have submitted a large number of motions and amendments to the conference, the most of any left faction. These are on issues ranging from a national demonstration, to demands for FE, to postgraduate funding, to the right to protest, to organising student workers, to anti-fascism.

For the full motions document for the conference, see here.

For our guide to the motions and the broad positions we will be taking (subject to discussion at our caucuses), see here.

MEETINGS

The NCAFC will be organising two formal meetings at the conference:

NCAFC social
(AWESOME) DETAILS TO BE CONFIRMED
A chance to meet other NCAFC activists, meet our candidates, discuss politics and socialise.

1.15pm, Wednesday 25 April
By the NCAFC stall @ City Hall, Sheffield
“FE students fight back!” – meeting organised by FE activists in NCAFC
(Facebook event)

8.45pm, Wednesday 25 April
The Circle, Conference Rooms 1 and 2 (next to the conference centre)
“Students as workers, students and workers – organising solidarity” – joint GMB Southern Region members/NCAFC fringe meeting on student workers
(Facebook event)

DAILY BULLETIN

The NCAFC will be producing a Minority Report magazine/publication for the conference. Watch this space.

The following is not a definitive statement of the views of the NCAFC, but it is a broad guide to the decisions that leftwing delegates will be taking in the motions debates at conference. For up-to-date info on all the political debates at NUS Conference, check out the NCAFC’s daily bulletin!

Guide to recommendations, motions and amendments at NUS conference 2012

This is not a list of all the motions, but of some of the most important (which is not to suggest everything not mentioned is unimportant). Much of what’s submitted to the conference by supporters of the leadership is not even actively right-wing/crap, but vague, largely meaningless, blah. In so far as it’s conscious and not just the vacuous management-speaking in which these people think, they do this in order to limit the amount of substantive debate – and thus chance for serious opposition – as much as possible. In contrast, well-written left-wing motions are concise, clear and to the point.

Text is divided into “Recommendations” (from the NUS Committee that oversees the Zone), “Motions” (separate bits of text”) and “Amendments” (to both Recommendations and Motions).

The order in which the Zones are taken will be decided by a priority ballot of delegates at the start of conference.

The motions described in this document and their position on the order paper are liable to change as the final motions document is not yet available. That said, the arguments and substantive text will remain the same.

Text we should oppose (mostly right-wing/leadership) in italics.

CONSTITUTIONAL RATIFICATIONS (100s)

In this section, after new student unions applying to affiliate are accepted or rejected, constitutional changes passed at a previous conference come back for ratification or rejection.

101: Incorporation. This motion, which passed last time, means NUS becoming an incorporated charity. The motion takes up pages and pages of complicated technical detail, but the gist is that it will further institutionalise NUS’s drift towards becoming a supposedly apolitical, definitely bureaucratic organisation with less internal democracy and campaigning. On the surface this doesn’t change much, incorporation will just ratifiy in law the changes that were made during the governance review three years ago, namely that the union will be subject to all the regulation of the 2006 Charities act. Passing this would not only limit the type of action the union could organise or support but would even limit the right of the union to take a stand on political issues. Because constitutional changes require 2/3 to pass, there is a chance of stopping this.

UNION DEVELOPMENT ZONE (500s)

Key issues: will NUS support the development of student unions as democratic, mass-mobilising, campaigning organisations?

Recommendation 503: Motion full of blah, which includes some dubious stuff about a focus on “employability” (not because we deny students need to get jobs, but because the emphasis is on producing fodder for employers).

Amendment 504b: SWP text on helping student unions becoming campaigning bodies which fight cuts and link up with trade unions.

Motion 507: SWP motion on fighting to make sure any new private universities created have to allow democratic student unions.

Amendment 507b and c: NCAFC amendments on student union democracy, including promoting regular general meetings, opposing the existence of Trustee Boards and fighting against non-students sitting on them.

Motion 510: Defending the right to protest on campus.

Amendment 511a: Moving towards election of the NEC by conference with election by the whole membership, proposed by lefties from UCL. The NCAFC does not have a position on this; our activists take different views.

EDUCATION ZONE (200s – FE mixed in with 300s – HE)

Key questions: will NUS demand free education and living EMA/grants for all FE students, and organise a campaign of direct action and walk outs next year?

Will NUS continue to support a graduate tax or will it start to demand free education? Will it make radical demands like nationalisation of the universities? Will it hold a national demonstration in the first term? Will it organise direct action and support strikes? The HE Zone is important because, rightly or wrongly, much of the debate about NUS’s general trajectory is included here.

Amendments 301d: Good left-wing text on postgraduate students from UCL and others, calling for fully funded postgraduate degrees.

Amendment 302a: A bland  amendment which says nothing particularly objectionable, but has the wrong approach (“fight to win public guarantees from all political parties to reinvest funding into HE”).

Recommendation 203: Soft leadership motion which sums up limitations of existing NUS demands and campaigns on FE. The NUS leadership is essentially trying to pretend FE is currently free, when it isn’t! It lacks even any strategy to fight off the government’s attacks.

Amendment 203a: NCAFC amendment calling for more radical demands for FE students. The leadership will oppose.

Amendment 203b: SWP amendment on how to mobilise FE students.

Amendment 303b and c: SWP / Counterfire amendments to boycott the National Student Survey, a bureaucratic tool to promote the marketisation of FE which NUS currently supports. This is also NCAFC policy.

Recommendation 305: bland leadership motion on the Tories’ now-abandoned HE Bill, ie its whole HE agenda.

Amendment 305a: NCAFC motion on what NUS should demand in HE. We will have at least one speech on this.

305b: United left call for a national NUS demonstration in the autumn.
305c: SWP text calling for direct action and support for strikes.
305d: NCAFC amendment calling for a “Take back your campus” campaign for rights and democracy in education.

Motion 306: Right-wing text in support of students paying for degrees through a graduate tax, ie against free education. NCAFC and other left-wingers have speeches against.

Amendment 306a: United left amendment to support free education.

Amendment 306b: Compromise free education motion from NUS LGBT Campaign and NCAFC. There is a serious chance that this could pass.

SOCIETY AND CITIZENSIHP ZONE (400s)

This is harder to summarise as it includes all kinds of political issues including ones the left is divided on. But key questions: will NUS defend the right to protest and support students repressed for protesting? Will it fight for a living wage and seriously seek to organise student workers? Will it support strikes and protests against the cuts? What will it say about war on Iran, and about Palestine, particularly the call for a boycott of Israel? What kind of anti-fascist campaigning will it support?

Amendment 402a: Left-wing additions to Recommendation on defending the right to protest, including our text on fighting the anti-trade union laws and congratulations to the NCAFC’s Edd Bauer on his release and reinstatement to SU office.

402b: Right-wing (but not necessarily leadership) amendment seeking to slightly tone down opposition to police brutality.

Amendment 403a: NCAFC amendment on fighting for a living wage and organising on student workers, building on the work down at Royal Holloway, Goldsmiths and other institutions.

404a: Motion from the left seeking to commit NUS to promoting an SU boycott of companies linked to Israel. The NCAFC does not have a positionon this; various NCAFC activists take different views.

Motion 406: NCAFC motion on how to fight the far right – arguing for a democratic anti-fascist movement, which mobilises direct action and raises social demands to undercut the social base of fascism.

Amendment 406a: Another anti-fascist motion, supporting UAF.

Motion 414: Left motion rightly opposing war on Iran. Unfortunately it says nothing about supporting Iranian students, workers and women against the Iranian regime.

Motion 415: Left-wing motion on defending the welfare state.

AGM (700s)

This is the section of the conference where many internal changes in NUS are discussed.

Motion 706: SOAS (left-wing) motion opposing non-students sitting on NUS’s Trustee Board – the body which is legally responsible for the national union and, outrageously, can overrule the NEC – having a vote. The leadership will probably oppose. Important this passes as in both NUS and SUs non-student trustees almost always act as a block to democracy and a brake on doing anything radical.

The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts has released a report on high executive pay in Britain’s universities. Check it out by clicking here.

We have found that:

• A total of £382 million is being spent on the highest paid members of staff in just 19 universities, roughly double what it was a decade ago.
• These universities are spending 2% more of their total income on high paid jobs than they were a decade ago, while cutting back on student support.
• At present nearly £4 in every £100 is going on paying those earning over £100,000.

By MICHAEL CHESSUM

It has been a year since the TUC national demonstration – under the banner of “Jobs, Growth, Justice” – brought nearly half a million trade unionists and supporters to the streets of London. For the student activists present, who had been mobilising since November 2010, the demonstration marked a high point. Despite having lost the parliamentary vote on tuition fees in December, we felt like our fight had kickstarted the trade union movement into action, and that we had made other reforms – on pensions and the NHS – harder for the coalition to carry out.

With the health and social care bill having just squeezed through parliament, in a morally bankrupt state, the alliance of students, unions and anti-cuts activists that has been fighting the government needs to reflect on what this defeat means, and on what can now be done to rescue what is left of the British welfare state.

Looking beyond the legislative shambles and moral disaster of the coalition’s health bill, the politics surrounding it is characteristic of a new landscape of dissent since 2010, and a sign of things to come. In the aftermath of the passing of tripled tuition fees in December 2010, education activists constantly cited the poll tax as an example of a mass movement overturning unpopular Tory policies after they had become law.

What the health bill illustrates, along with attacks on benefits and pensions, is that the next few years will be a constant and escalating succession of such moments. “What parliament does, the streets can undo” is a slogan that is becoming ubiquitous, but also increasingly doubted. This apparent barrier to effective dissent could have explosive results: if a poll tax moment does eventually emerge from the litany of cuts, privatisations and pay and pensions freezes instituted by the coalition, there is a very real possibility that it will be so generalised and ferocious that it will threaten the basis of the present political order.

Given the pace and scale of the attack we face, holding one’s breath and waiting for an election is a process that, for this generation, seems both politically alien and practically unworkable. It was New Labour that began the processes now under way, with tuition fees, private finance initiatives (PFI) and foundation hospitals. With a leadership that refuses to back even the most ceremonial resistance from its own unions, Labour seems an unlikely solution.

The challenge facing the collection of campaigns and movements opposing the government’s agenda for society is therefore primarily how to make itself a credible extra-parliamentary opposition, with a rhythm of mobilisation independent of parliamentary votes. Much of this work must be done by unions. The biggest strike in decades, on 30 November 2011, was a popular and effective gesture, but none of the anticipated further action over pensions has materialised. Every month that the major unions delay serious co-ordinated strike action is time that will be used to divide workers sector by sector, and to build a political consensus that will make it harder to take the public with us when major action does occur.

Meanwhile, the unofficial actors within the anti-austerity movement have taken on a vast proportion of the burden of actually fighting the government. If the mainstream public presence of Occupy‘s largely anti-capitalist message reflected a shift in the public mood, it also illustrates the failure of leftwing institutions to capitalise on such a shift since Occupy began on 15 October last year.

In the same autumn, students marched on the City against a white paper on privatising higher education – but under the banner of the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts, not the NUS. Had the NUS put its weight and resources into building it, turnout could have been closer to 100,000 than to the 10,000 who eventually came.

Similarly, the fight against the health bill was often led by grassroots networks such as Keep Our NHS Public and UK Uncut. Despite many months of preparation time, neither the official trade unions nor the Labour party called a national demonstration in defence of the NHS. Only Unite, to its credit, looks like it might now do so.

The need to get the official trade and student union movements to take the need for grassroots mobilisation seriously is not the only challenge facing the anti-austerity movement. One of the key problems that we face is primarily one of ideological renewal. We must overcome the idea, too often internalised by Labour party and trade union leaderships, that the legacy of Thatcher and Blair has left the political mainstream devoid of sympathy for industrial action, direct action or meaningful political alternatives.

One thing is clear, however. The present state of affairs, in which the job of mobilising to save the welfare state – an idea for which generations of people fought – is left primarily to unofficial networks of activists with finite energy and inadequate resources, cannot continue indefinitely. If we are serious about preventing the moral and social catastrophe that the government is threatening, we must build a movement capable of returning to the streets repeatedly, independent of the parliamentary schedule – and our own institutions must take responsibility for leading the fight.