Max Crema, Vice-President Services of Edinburgh University Students’ Association and NCAFC secretariat 

This article was originally posted to Scotspolitics.com and cross-posted with the author’s consent.

In the tightly controlled and pre-tested world of politics it’s not often that an event occurs which doesn’t fit into a narrative. A company will go bust and left-leaning papers will decry deregulation while their counterparts demand more. A speech will occur, a bill will be passed, a by-election will be won and you can easily predict the media packaging and allegiance for each event.

However, sometimes the narrative doesn’t fit.

After countless stories claiming a swelling rise in the popularity of UKIP, London’s fourth estate received a shock yesterday when suddenly the politics of the rest of the UK were forced onto their radar. While UKIP may well be the talk of the table at many home county dinner parties, the press suddenly found themselves confronted with a spectacle (and let’s be honest – a damn fine piece of political theatre at that) which didn’t match the UKIP triumphalism being trumpeted in my morning paper.

In the initial hours following the protest news reports were couched in uncertain and guarded terms. Reports almost appeared to be a fair reflection of the events which took place. However, it wasn’t long before sides were picked and narratives were found to explain this spectacle. Websites were updated and the protest became a mob, anti-racism protesters became Scottish nationalists, and cheerful jeering became violence while on the opposite side of the spectrum reports were produced which romanticised the protest to such a point that I wondered if it was the same protest I had attended only a few hours before.

The story is actually quite simple.

It was a group of (maybe 20) students who started it. We had been tipped off that Nigel had flown up for a press conference in a pub and decided to go down and see what all the fuss was about. We entered the press conference in a pub and began politely asking Nigel questions about his party’s racist history and policies. The Bar staff offered us chips. After roughly 20 minutes of Nigel ignoring our questions and speaking only to reporters frustration grew and some chanting and or heckling may have started.

Eventually, all of us get asked to leave the pub by the staff, “you too Mr. Farage”, (apparently he didn’t bother asking the pub’s staff for permission to use their pub for a press conference) and so Nigel goes outside to be greeted by an angry protest against UKIP and their policies.

This is where it gets good.

Nigel then attempted to hold another press conference across from the pub in which he faced a similar level of disruption. Realising that the conference was a lost cause he then attempted to hail a cab. The first’s driver slowed down, but upon recognising him refused to unlock his doors and drove off again. The second allowed Nigel into the cab but upon realising his identity refused to accept Nigel’s fare and wouldn’t move until he had left the cab.

At this point the police escorting Nigel decided to return to the pub they had just been kicked out of. Finally, Nigel had to wait for the police to bring a van up alongside the pub for him to be driven away in in what must have been the most ignominious end to a political visit to Scotland in living memory.

I’m proud of the folks who came out today to protest against UKIP’s xenophobic, racist, and homophobic views. I think we made it pretty clear that he’s not welcome in Scotland, not welcome anywhere!

The National Union of Students has voted to demand expropriation of the banks, but won’t fight fees, cuts and student debt. What’s going on?

Rosie Huzzard, NUS national executive-elect

The National Union of Students national executive council meeting on 9 May unanimously passed policy from the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts to demand expropriation of the banks to tackle poverty and create jobs. (I’ll publish a full report of the NEC meeting soon.)

The meeting was discussing motions remitted from NUS conference to the NEC due to lack of time (more and more of a problem, as NUS conference has been repeatedly cut back). The “expropriate the banks” demand was part of an NCAFC amendment to a motion on child poverty, which can be read below – adding some teeth to a worthwhile but pretty vague piece of text.

Ever since it was founded in 2010, the NCAFC has made “Tax the rich” a central slogan. In the last year, it has also demanded expropriation of the banks – full, permanent nationalisation, under democratic and not bosses’ control, to create a public banking service and provide resources to stop cuts and rebuild public services. The December 2012 NCAFC conference explicitly voted to use the word “expropriation”, rejecting arguments to use softer formula.

It is very good that NUS NEC has passed this policy, but there is more to say.

Firstly, there must be a possibility that some or all of the NUS leadership would have opposed the amendment if it had been debated at conference. Certainly it is unlikely they would have defended it against right-wing opposition.

Secondly, there is an irony in NUS passing radical demands of this kind while it refuses to campaign for free education or adopt a serious strategy for fighting cuts, fees and student debt (or fighting for anything). If the NUS leadership really wants to expropriate the banks and tax the rich, then its stance that free education and so on is “unrealistic” makes no sense at all. Of course, it’s easier to vote for something radical you think no one will hold you to than a more basic demand you think you’ll be challenged to fight for!

So we need to ask whether NUS will do anything about this policy at all. Last year, NUS conference voted to use “Tax the rich” as a major slogan, but that policy ended up in the bin. Similarly, last September’s TUC congress voted for an FBU motion for public ownership of the banks – but the TUC has ignored its policy.

Student activists should demand NUS speaks up for its policy and use the NEC vote as a lever to spread the demand as widely as possible. And we should explain that it logically implies opposing all cuts and demanding free education too.

Policy passed by NUS National Executive Council on 9 May 2013

Amendment No: 405a
Submitted by: Birmingham University, Royal Holloway

1. To demand
- a minimum wage, without exemptions, at the London Living Wage rate, £8.55.
- benefits you can live on, rising with inflation or earnings, whichever is higher.
- taxing the rich and expropriation of the banks to create decent jobs in the public sector.
- the scrapping of the anti-union laws, so workers can organise effectively to defend and improve pay, conditions and rights.

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.

by Tim, Bristol

1) Two issues are at stake here: how the more “militant” students unions can work together, outside of the NUS, and how/if militant student activists should work together nationally
1.1) Second point could also be divided into the different things we struggle over: it might well be that the fight against education cuts should happen outside the NUS, but that liberation campaigns should stay inside it. (I’m not going to discuss liberation campaigns here – these issues need to be decided by people in the liberation groups themselves)
1.2) The fight against education cuts and privatisation clearly needs to move outside of the NUS

2) I am sceptical about the role that local students unions, or a formal federation of militant students, can really play at this stage – I favour local grassroots action, and a loose network of student groups/activists. However, if these things are needed then:
2.1) A “one-size-fits-all” alternative NUS (ie that incorporates the more militant students unions, and individual student activists/anti-cuts groups) is not practical. These organisations need to be separate.
2.2) The move to create an association of more militant student unions should come from within these unions – so people in them should propose motions at their AGMs mandating their unions to begin dialogue with one another, with the aim of creating a democratic, militant association of students unions.
2.3) There are two roughly federal unions in the UK that already exist – the IWW and the Solidarity Federation – both of which have active networks of education workers. Students who want to be part of a federation of militant students should join either of these and build a student’s section. A joint decision on which one to join may be a good idea. (note – the main difference between the two, is that the IWW is an “a-politcal” and “syndicalist” union, whereas the Solidarity Federation is a “revolutionary” and “anarcho-syndicalist” union)
2.4) There are movement support organisations that already try to provide training, trauma support, legal support, etc in the UK. (see http://ismuk.wordpress.com/links/movement-support-organisations/ ) We should use, join, and expand these, rather than trying to organise our own movement support “in-house”

3) Locally, we should aim for the following strategy:
3.1) Organise and build up groups of anti-cuts activists on campus
3.2) Once these groups have the necessary critical mass, experience, and cohesion, they should aim to start organising “people’s assemblies”, preferably at the departmental level (but if the issues that are easiest to organise around don’t fit – for instance, housing – then this should be adapted accordingly)
3.3) We should argue for these people’s assemblies to be directly democratic, to actively challenge informal hierarchies and privilege, and that they should federate with each other – first locally, and then nationally. We should argue against their bureaucratisation, and against them being co-opted by SU and management hierarchies

4) Nationally, we should:
4.1) Allow a formal, democratic, federal students union to emerge from local departmental assemblies, rather than doing things the other way around
4.2) Co-operate nationally between militant anti-cuts groups, sharing ideas, tactics, and resources
4.3) All we need for this is a way of communicating (such as a mailing list), and a place to post news and resources (such as a blog). We should either create these as soon as possible, use the ones that already exist (ie the International Students Movement, Independent Student Left, Organise2013), or make the campaigns that already exist (ie NCAFC) more like this. (at present, the UK branch of the International Students Movement is probably the closest thing to what I’m getting at here – http://ismuk.wordpress.com/about/ )

5) In addition, as a movement of students we should try harder to use and support the movement support groups outside of the universities – such as GBC, LDMG, Seeds for Change, Activist Trauma support, etc.

by Simon Furse, VP Education at Birmingham Guild of Students, NCAFC National Committee

While the NUS is a bureaucratic, energy-sapping, depressing nightmare, clearly unfit to do anything about the onslaught being unleashed on Higher Education; the solution of what to do about this is not clear. Before we can talk about practical ways forward we need to think a bit about the structures we currently have in the student movement and the issues in creating better ones. Any national organisation necessarily has to be made up of local organisations; and so to create an alternative to the NUS, we need to look at its own structures, local students unions, and what kind of organisations could form the basis for something different.

Students’ Unions

The situation for students at the moment is clearly a disaster that needs fundamentally changing. However the organisations that you might expect to take the lead in this are set up in a way that makes them really terrible at causing any real change. Students’ unions effectively function as outsourced providers of student services. Universities get a number of advantages from having certain services provided at arm’s length, and so give students’ unions a building and a block grant to spend on their activities. This is the major activity of students’ unions, and is carried out by a staffing structure. Democracy and campaigns are usually tacked on to the side as a kind of afterthought.

This leads to a number of factors that stop students’ unions from campaigning and really changing things. They are dependent on the University for funding, and run by well-paid senior staff along a model from the third sector. This means that senior staff see the university as their ‘funder’ and concentrate on demonstrating their ‘impact’ to them. Senior staff have far more experience than Sabbs and have a period in between Sabb teams when they can re-arrange the way they treat them (a common tactic in SUs), this means that senior staff tend to dominate.

SUs are integrated into the structures of the university meaning that a Sabb has pre-set load of meetings they are supposed to go to, and things they are supposed to do, to ‘influence’ the university and ‘improve the student experience’. It is necessary for Sabbs to upset the norm and break expectations to go against this, something that is more difficult than you might think for those who have just taken up the post.

SUs are also hampered by a number of legal obligations, they are subject to charity law, and universities have widespread powers to intervene in SUs and change them given by the education act. All these things can be countered and worker against by the people in students’ unions but the presence of senior staff and university managers means that reforms and gains can be cancelled the second that the wrong Sabbs are elected. In Birmingham a set of Sabbs that entirely caved in to the wishes of university management towards the guild, brought in a set of undemocratic changes that haven’t all been overturned in three years of agitation and partial victories.

Finally what the SU currently does has a huge effect on the kind of people who get involved in it. If the main function of the SU is banter and a cheap night out then inevitably the students who get involved in it are more likely to be concerned about this. The lack of politics in SUs means that political people are less likely to get involved in them.

All this means that student unions are organisations that are integrated in to the structures of management at their universities. Sabbs can get in, who go against this, but they are largely rejected as a kind of foreign agent by SU staff and normal processes. There is little evidence that Left-wing Sabbs can ever transform SUs into properly active campaigning institutions even when the left loses elections.  It is worth mentioning that even if students’ unions are organisations that are impotent to the attacks that we are facing and unable to fundamentally change, that does not mean we should never work in them[1].

NUS

Contrary to its rhetoric of being a ‘union of 7 million students’ the NUS is really a union of students’ unions, and in many ways a union of staff in students’ unions. Just like SUs there is a huge bureaucracy of full time experienced staff who see SUs and the NUS as stale third sector lobbying organisations, and work against the NUS trying to fundamentally change things. The people who come to NUS conference and other NUS events are mostly Sabbs, people who want to be Sabbs, or people who are influenced by Sabbs. This means that those entering the stale and ineffective bureaucracy of the NUS have probably been schooled in a stale and ineffective bureaucracy in their students’ union.

This is the crux for me of why the NUS will never be good, because its constituent parts (SUs) channel people into the movement who are just interested in place holding for something to put on their CV.  However at the same time it shows why calls for SUs to simply disaffiliate and form something new have limited value. The problem is, to a great degree, with the SUs themselves.

What is to be done?

If we are going to create an alternative to the NUS it cannot come from the structures that exist at the moment. What we need to create are stable permanent organisations at as many campuses as possible, that are designed and oriented towards fundamentally changing the situation of students in the UK. The biggest problem for our movement is that these do not yet exist.

These organisations could come in a variety of different forms, from anti-cuts groups to departmental assemblies, to coalitions of radical student societies but they should be united by a common belief in principles of fundamentally changing the education system toward being more free, more of a public good etc. Without a decent number of these organisations I cannot see much hope for a credible national organisation that can organise what we want to see.

In Quebec you have campus wide unions that are affiliated to the moderate national student organisations. All the organising for the strike however, came from unions at a departmental level, many of whom are affiliated to ASSE. Crude comparisons between the UK and Quebec, saying that we should get SUs to disaffiliate and set up something like ASSE do not work because we do not have the overtly political, activist organisations that they have in the departmental unions. It would be impossible to build something like ASSE from campus wide unions, either here or in Quebec.

Proposals

So concretely there are a number of things I would like to see NCAFC and the student movement doing to try and bring about a higher level of national organisation and the kind of organisations we want to see.

1. There should be recognition that the absolute priority for the student movement, and NCAFC at the moment, should be the setting up of vibrant functioning organisations on every campus, with the object of fundamentally changing higher education and the student movement. These organisations do not exist nearly enough at the moment, and without them, any attempt to create a good national organisation is bound to fail. There is plenty of work that can be done on this, quite easily. I think we should be assembling materials on setting up different kinds of groups, look for places that anti-cuts groups, departmental organising, or coalitions of radical societies, or other forms of organisation have worked; and spread their successes and organisational style around the movement.

2. I think that we should change the structure of NCAFC to make it more responsive to this sort of a priority. I don’t believe in the structure of block elections that we have now because it means that those elected from a block vote are not really held accountable. I think the committee should be made up, initially, from every anticuts group with a certain number of NCAFC members (say 10 for HE and 5 for FE) sending a delegate; a number (say 6) of secretaries- elected by conference for specific administrative roles (eg membership, publicity, etc.)-; and reps from liberation and nations that we have at the moment. Later on when we would have too many anti-cuts groups for this to work, there could be regional committees of delegates that elect people on to the national committee.

The delegate system should be more effective, accountable and responsive. There is a better, systemised connection between local groups and the NC, hopefully meaning that there is better transmission of information between the NC and the grassroots of the campaign. The delegates are held accountable by their local groups, meaning that a wider layer of people are involved in decision making than those that are on the NC and members have more investment and connection to decision making.

It allows the campaign to grow in a way that is quicker and more organic. If half way between conferences an anti-cuts group starts becoming really organised, and signs up a load of members, they can send a representative to the NC. I think this would help the campaign break out of the problem of only being represented at a certain few campuses, and help us to grow. Some people will object to the proposal on the grounds that it excludes smaller groups of activists, however if you look at the way block elections work this is what happens already. Only those with a big group backing them, get enough votes to be elected to block. I think the existing system adds the problem that the people, and campus groups, that have been represented in the campaign for a long time, continue to be the ones represented, and there is little room for others to come in.

3. I think that we should be promoting an organisation that left-wing Students’ Unions can affiliate to, recognizing that this is not the real alternative, and should not be our priority. At the moment Students’ Unions resources and ability to mobilize are unmatched, as the NUS becomes even more right wing and unwilling to mobilize even a to b marches, we need something to fill this void now. I think this grouping would have to be independent of NCAFC to actually work, though hopefully it would work closely with us.  I don’t think that there is much chance of signing anything more than a handful of SUs up to this, though I would be interested in hearing people’s ideas for how we could.

In any discussion of structures we shouldn’t lose sight of people or the situation at the moment. Structures are very important but no structure is ever better than the people working within it. What will make the student movement win in the end, is more people, in more places, doing more work; and there is not a single structure anywhere that can create this.

Aisling has been banned from attending all NUS events, including NUS-USI (Union of Students Ireland) and NUS liberation events as a QUBSU delegate for voting pro-choice on a motion at USI national conference, when ordered by her union to remain ‘neutral’.

Aisling’s ban is unconstitutional; it contradicts NUS electoral policy which states that all elections must be fair and open to students regardless of politics. QUBSU has no formal punishment outlined for delegates who contradict union policy, and we believe that the punishment is disproportionately severe.

The top-down nature of the ban, instigated by the President is oppressive. Jason O’Neill is responsible for the silencing of political dissent, he is explicitly exercising his power to stop women like Aisling fighting for their right to choose what happens with their bodies.

We believe that the right to choose is not up for negotiation, and we reject any attempt to silence a woman as she fights for her right to a free, legal and safe abortion. No student should be banned from democratic participation for exercising their democratic rights.

You can help Aisling in the following ways:

Send solidarity to Aisling who can be contacted on Agallagher896@qub.ac.uk and @twoshadesofhope. We also urge you to contact QUBSU’s President Jason O’Neill and tell him that his sexist actions will not be tolerated.

Jason O’Neill:

Tel: 02890973106

Email: su.president@qub.ac.uk

Twitter: @JasonONeill1

You can also pass this motion (written by students at Warwick University) through your student union.

The Union Notes:

1. That on Monday, 25th March 2013, at the Annual Congress of the Union of Students’ In Ireland, Aisling Gallagher, voted for the motion “Engaging with the Abortion Rights Campaign”.
2. That on Tuesday 26th March 2013, at the Annual Congress of the Union of Students’ In Ireland, Aisling Gallagher, voted for the motion “Crisis Pregnancy Agencies”.
3. That Gallagher’s delegate status at the Congress was subsequently removed.
4. That Aisling Gallagher was a delegate of Queen’s University Belfast Students’ Union (QUBSU).
5. That QUBSU has policy to remain neutral on the subject of abortion.
6. That on Tuesday 7th May 2013 the Annual Business Meeting (ABM) of QUBSU voted to “debar Ms Gallagher from attending any conference organised by a national union as a QUB SU delegate for the 2013-14 Academic Year.”
7. The constitution of QUBSU, and in particular: The combination of Rule 2 10.8 (which says that delegate elections will held in the same manner as elections for the Executive Management Committee); Rule 2 10.4 (which says that nominations for delegate elections are like those for EMC); and Rule 2 9.6.1 (which says that anyone can run in an election for EMC) Chapter 1 8.2 (which says the government of the Union shall be based on the democratic principle that every ordinary member shall have the fullest opportunity to participate in Union affairs) Rule 10 2.2.4 which says that political belief is a protected characteristic under their Equality and Diversity Policy. Chapter 1 3.2, 3.9.3 and 3.9.4 which states the Aims of QUBSU as supporting equality of opportunity; freedom to participate in Union Elections; and the freedom of expression.

The Union Believes:

1. That the vote at the ABM was illegitimate, since it goes against the Rules, Aims, Government and Structure of QUBSU.
2. That every member of a Students’ Union should be able to stand in an election they are eligible for.
3. That removing the ability to stand in an election is not an appropriate or democratic way to discipline someone for voting against SU policy.

The Union Resolves:

1. To mandate the President and the Democracy and Development Officer to write an open letter to President and Director of QUBSU expressing our concern about the legitimacy of this decision and our support for Aisling Gallagher in this matter.
2. To support Aisling Gallagher in the appeals process where appropriate.

Signed,

• Naomi Beecroft, NCAFC women’s committee and national committee.
• Edmund Schluessel, NUS NEC-elect & NCAFC NC
• Ben Towse, UCLU Postgraduate Students’ Officer-elect & UCL UCU Exec Ctte
• Lucy Jane Drummond – Women’s Officer, University of Stirling SU – NCAFC Scotland NEC – NUS National Women’s Committee & NUS Scotland Women’s Committee
• Chris Walter, NCAFC Alba LGBTQ+ Rep (Trans* Place)
• Richard Gough
• Rob Abrams, Part-time Ethics Officer, Swansea University Students’ Union
• Michael Chessum, NUS NEC
• Arianna Tassinari, NUS International Students Campaign 2nd place NEC-elect
• Nadia – Disabled Students Officer/ VP Societies and Activities at EUSA
• Andy Irwin (Keele Postgraduate Association President, Keele University)
• Sam Morecroft – NUS PG Committee Elect
• Vijay Jackson, Vice President – Welfare, Sussex Coast College Hastings
• Beti Scott, Equal Opportunities and Liberation Officer EUSA
• Flora Cantacuzino Levy  / Vice President Edinburgh Jewish Society
• Audrey Jordan, University of the Arts SU
• Kara Stubbs Kent Union LGBT officer (women’s place)
• Jack McGinn – Postgraduate External Affairs, EUSA
• Tim Rouse
• Hattie Craig VP Education (Elect) Birmingham Guild of Students
• Miguel Costa Matos – UG Social Sciences Faculty Rep Elect, Warwick SU
• Adam McGibbon, QUBSU Vice President Welfare and NUS-USI Regional Council, 2010-12
• Barbara Muldoon QUB & P Drinan Solicitors
• Jaime Starr NUS Disabled Students Committee LGBT Place
• Hannah Webb – External Affairs and Campaigns elect UCLU, ULU Community and Housing
• Shelly Asquith, President-Elect, University of the Arts SU
• Conor Ryan – Policy and Democracy officer, University of Strathclyde Student Association
• Joe Kelly
• Yolly Chegwidden, co-LGBTUA+ Officer, Warwick SU and NUS LGBT Committee elect
• Chris Geddis, Former NUS USI LGBT Officer
• Chris Page, Welfare & Rights Officer (Cambridge University Students Union)
• Kylie Noble, QUBSU student
• Danielle Roberts, QUB alumnus, UUJ post graduate student
• Emma Toner, SDLP Youth & QUBSU student
• Ioana Cerasella Chis, University of Birmingham student
• Tyler McNally, QUBSU Campaigns & Communications committee (Personal capacity)
• Simon Furse NCAFC NC Birmingham Guild Vice President Education
• Liam McNulty, Unison
• Max Crema, Edinburgh University Students’ Association Vice President Services
• Martin Nickolay-Blake, Unite Rep, IWW
•  James McAsh, Edinburgh University Students’ Association President and NUS National Executive Council elect
• Maham Hashmi, SOAS SU International Student Officer
• Jack Saffery-Rowe, Royal Holloway LGBT+ officer-elect, NCAFC LGBTQ rep (open place)
• Luke Frost, UCA Students’ Union, Maidstone Campus Officer
• Rosie Huzzard NCAFC NC and NUS NEC Elect
• Andrew Tindall, NCAFC NC (Wales)
• Max Crema,  Vice-President Edinburgh University Students Association
• Susuana Antubam, ULU Women’s Officer – elect, NUS Women’s Commitee – elect.
• Sarah Moffat, Edinburgh University Students’ Association Women’s Liberation Convener, NUS Scotland Women’s Committee
• Hannah Louise Wright, NCAFC SC Women’s Ctte, Shared Disabled place.
• Daniel Cooper Vice President University of London Union
• Sean Farmelo Community Action Officer, Birmingham
• Roshni Joshi NCAFC NC, NUS NEC
• Lucy Eskell – Edinburgh external campaigns rep
• Matthew Reuben, NCAFC NC (disabled rep)
• Tom Meadowcroft, Councillor Staffordshire SU
• Mae Rohani – Women’s Officer elect University of Birmingham
• Roz Burgin CAO-elect University of Birmingham
• Matthew Smith, President, Ruskin College Students’
  Union.
• Steven Pettitt – Student, Royal Holloway University of London
• Paul Smyth LLM QUB (1998)
• Alice Swift Ethical and Environmental Officer Birmingham Guild
• Tom Wragg Vice President Democracy and Resources (elect) Birmingham Guild
• Rosie Booth Women’s Officer University of Birmingham Guild of Students
• Beth Redmond NCAFC NC
• Ed Maltby NCAFC NC
• Luke Durigan NCAFC NC
• Aidan Turner, Secretary, Glasgow University Labour Club
• Annabel Jones, NUS Women’s Committee, Birkbeck Students’ Union Chair
• Shauneen Conlon – President of QUB FemSoc
• Chris Murray – NUSUSI Disabled Students Officer 2013-2014
• Hamish Yewdall Lay Student Councillor (elect) Nortumbria Students Union
• Kelly McBride, President. University of Sussex Students’ Union
• Alannah Ainslie, Aberdeen University, Working Class Officer
• Chloe Minish, QUBSU Student Council 2010 – 2013
• Roisin Jackman, QUBSU
• Niamh Devereux, President-Elect, IADT SU, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin

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 the second time York University Students’ Union has refused to ratify a Feminist Society. The union claims that the rejection was made as “the proposed society was not ‘exclusive from other areas of the Union,’ in this case the Women’s Network, which is active and holds very similar aims and objectives.”

It shouldn’t be the right of student union officers to interpret the similarities or otherwise of autonomous student groups’ aims and objectives and legislate for or against their existence accordingly. Plurality of ideas and activism is an important part of student democracy.

Indeed, in addition to what looks like an anti-feminist agenda, this is part of a broader issue of SU bureaucrats deciding on a whim what societies are and aren’t allowed on campus. Last year at Royal Holloway, for instance, activists setting up a socialist society were told by one bureaucrat that politics was already covered!

Even a quick glance at YUSU societies shows what a sham their excuse is. There are, for example, two student union newspapers – surely they both can’t be “exclusive”. There’s a politics society as well as societies representing individual political parties and groups. Why on earth can’t their be a women’s Network and a Feminist Society?

With the revival of rampant sexism both on our campuses, and unfortunately also within the student movement, this step undermines the discussion of women’s liberation and will only serve to hurt women. York SU should be in no doubt that this is the consequence of their actions. It depresses me that this still has to be spelled-out.

As a proud socialist feminist on the incoming NUS National Executive, I will be fighting for the NUS leadership to take these arguments to the leadership of YUSU and to publicly support feminist activists at York. For sure that’s what the NCAFC will be doing.

Get in touch:
rosiescomputer@yahoo.com
07810 632 653

by Roshni Joshi, NCAFC National Committee and NUS National Executive Council

As a member of all four Liberation campaigns and an advocate of intersectionality, I would say this event hit the mark in terms of providing a safe learning and organising space in which anyone could come together to discuss Liberation and share ideas.

Having attended several NUS/ NCAFC/ student political conferences, I can honestly say that the first NCAFC Liberation Conference was the only one where I have felt intersectionality has truly been prioritised. I ran two sessions on the first day; the Stephen Simpson and Boniface Umale campaign planning workshop and the Hidden Black* identities discussion group. Both workshops had a fair to excellent turnout, especially of members who didn’t define as Black* themselves. The discussions had in the sessions were genuine and interested- it was a very good opportunity for people to air questions and learn about Liberation issues with which they has very little personal investment.

I think the caucus and ally sessions, which allowed self-defining Black*/ LGBT/ Women/ Disabled people to come together and organise and then for our allies to join us in discussion afterwards, were too short for proper discussion to be had; but I think the tone of discussion within them was positive, progressive and constructive, and a solid base for liberation led anticuts campaigning.

NUS Sections Conferences – for International, Postgraduate and Mature & Part Time students – took place in a training centre in Milton Keynes from the 24th to 27th of April. The key theme emerging from all three is the differences between the three Sections and how NUS’s one-size-fits-all approach to the campaigns is growing less appropriate every year.

International Students Conference was the best-attended ever, with 55 voting delegates and over 80 participants. International Students Campaign won extra staff support off NUS this year and the contrast with last year’s conference showed clearly, as the event presented slick, high-level workshops and discussions. Missing, though, was the practical aspect of building campaigning on the ground. While the mainstream of political thought in the UK is increasingly anti-migrant, NUS has won some victories against government policy, especially around the issue of attendance monitoring as well as the fight in Autumn 2012 around London Metropolitan. The incoming generation of international students’ officers needs the knowledge base of this past year in order to keep the fight going.

Where the campaign around London Met did make itself most known was in the International Campaign elections. London Met SU president Syed Rumman, who had the support of Student Broad Left, challenged incumbent Daniel Corradi Stevens in a campaign that, sadly, saw Rumman’s team make use of smears & re-writing of history to attempt to undercut Stevens’, and NUS International Students Committe’s, contributions to the UK-wide campaign to save the university’s international students. Particularly worrying was the willingness of NUS UK’s non-international full time officers to intervene in the election to give weight to their preferred candidate. After a poor showing by Rumman in the pre-election hustings, Stevens was handily re-elected with 43 out of 55 votes.

Left candidates performed exceptionally well in the International Students Committee elections. NCAFC activists Arianna Tassinari of Oxford University and Aurora Adams of Edinburgh University were elected to fill the Comimittee’s 2nd NUS NEC seat and Scotland seats respectively, with No Borders campaigner Shrouk el-Attar of Cardiff and Vale College taking over from Edmund Schluessel in the Wales seat. NCAFC members also supported Shreya Paudel of Middlesex University, Jovanna Yiouselli of Essex University and Chidinma Nwokoro of Liverpool University, who were all successful.

Policy debate was focused around technical concerns with delegates contributing alerts to the Committee regarding issues like overseas recruiting fares and a fundamentally broken visa system. The only controversial motions were two from Belfast Metropolitan College, one calling for solidarity with the Tamil people facing genocide in Sri Lanka and partnering International Students Campaign with the Tamil Solidarity Campaign, which passed; and the other which would have linked ISC in with trade union solidarity group Campaign Kazakhstan, which failed. The Committee received a mandate to continue pushing forward for more political independence for ISC, after NUS Scotland president Robin Parker shamefully dismissed ISC’s bid for more freedom to stand up for itself as “political point scoring” at NUS UK conference earlier in April.

Postgraduate Conference was a more relaxed, less formal event. Under the surface of the conference, though, was a deep political tension between left members of the Postgraduate committee and the NUS establishment, who have pulled opposite ways with regard to a plan on postgraduate funding. While left members stood in the elections, candidates failed to organise into a coherent list so while Socialist Party & NCAFC member Edmund Schluessel, SP member Sam Morecroft and SWP member Amy Gilligan were elected to the committee, with Gilligan representing research students on the NUS NEC over the coming year, the committee has no dominant political direction, with independent Anna Chowcat taking the Postgraduate Taught NEC seat. An open question is how left activists should engage with the SWP following the Party leadership’s attempts to cover up rape accusations toward Martin “Comrade Delta” Smith.

The level of discussion at Postgraduate Conference was very high and far in advance of the anodyne, boilerplate grandstanding which has come to typify NUS UK conference. One workshop took up a discussion around educational theory which delved into comparisons between fundamentally different models of education, even invoking Soviet attitudes toward vocational training and the work of socialist educationalist Lev Vygotsky.

Mature & Part Time Conference has traditionally been the thin end of NUS, with the campaign poorly supported and ill-publicised. Hurting it further, for nearly two years now the campaign has been short an officer due to absences and, infamously, a 2011 corruption scandal. In a one-day conference, students elected former Block of 15 member Josh Rowlands and newcomer Emma Barnes to represent them nationally, with Matthew Smith of Ruskin College the only radical leftist joining the committee. The conference was marred by misogynistic and otherwise confused comments by keynote speaker John Field of Stirling University.

Both Postgraduate and Mature & Part Time conferences voted unanimously to establish representation structures for Wales, Scotland and the north of Ireland within the campaigns, recognising the increasing divergence among the UK’s four constitutent nations on education support. Sections were established by NUS only five years ago and are still finding their place in NUS. With better organisation, the prospects of a left takeover of student sections – speaking up for the huge numbers of non-traditional students in the UK – are strong for 2014, but this will mean making best use of the resources we have now to ensure NUS is no longer the bastion of middle-class undergraduate students in well-off English universities.