Summer Conference 2015

NCAFC Summer Conference 2015: Motions Passed

At the Summer Conference, there were two separate motions debates. The first, Motions Debate A, centred around the strategy of the free education movement. The second, Motions Debate B, covered everything else. The motions which were passed by conference are below, and where conference voted to amend the motions these changes have been made.


Motions Debate A
Free Education Movement Strategy – Introduction
Motion A1: A Big Demo!
Motion A2: Date of “the” National Demo
Motion A3: NCAFC & The Demo
Motion A4: Political message and slogan of the national demo in the Autumn
Motion A5: The Demonstration and the NUS
Motion A6a: More local education marches
Motion A6b: A Radical Movement
Motion A6c: After the general election – our outlook and priorities going forward
Motion A6e: The Return of Armchair Activism
Motion A7

Motions Debate B
Motion B1: Appointing a paid organiser from September to December
Motion B2: Fight for free speech and free organisation!
Motion B3: NCAFC needs to become more about its members and activists groups, less about the NC
Motion B4: NCAFC and NUS
Motion B5: Strategy to Smash the National Student Survey
Motion B6: Childcare
Motion B7: Europe and the Referendum
Motion B8: Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS)
Motion B9: Oppose the Counter-terrorism and Security Act
Motion B10: National Gallery Struggle
Motion B11: Protest Privacy
Motion B12: The Fight in Labour Students
Motion B13: Free Public Transport
Motion B14: Decriminalisation of Sex Work
Motion B15: Social Housing not Social Cleansing
Motion B16: Demonstrations and their Uses

Free Education Movement Strategy – Introduction

1. We know that we will not win free, democratised, liberated education with the same one national demonstration every year, or by thinking only a few months ahead. At the same time, we need to understand that we need to persevere, and be willing to march, occupy and do the groundwork again and again even if at times this feels repetitive to those of us who have been involved a while. It is our task to convince society of the need for free education. Across the world, free education campaigns have only ever been successful after a long period of continual struggle following a long term strategy. This is why we need a strategy that is at once long-term and continuously reviewed and renewed.
2. We need a strategy built from the bottom up – owned, devised and enacted collectively and democratically by activists and students all over the country. Activists, students and workers in struggle are the people who run and own NCAFC, and we are the people with the know-how and legitimacy to build a serious free education movement – not celebrities or big bureaucracies.
3. This is obviously not the first time that the student movement has sat down to think about a strategy. NCAFC has existed since early 2010 in order to do precisely this, and last year we pursued the beginnings of a new strategy: with a 10,000-strong national demo for free education; a series of local marches; and the calling of a broad free education movement conference, targeted at bringing trade unions and community groups into the campaign, on 17th October 2015. We also put forward a long-term call for a ‘student strike’ at some point in the calendar year of 2016.
4. In reaction to NUS’s refusal to call a free education demonstration in autumn, we have now put out a call for one ourselves. This is the place to debate the finer points of that demonstration – its aims, route, date, slogan, organising model etc.

What we do next is up to you. We invite calls for actions, strategies and proposals. These should be actions, things that NCAFC and wider layers of activists should do in the upcoming academic year as part of our free education strategy – not long statements of principles.

Motion A1: A Big Demo!

1. The NUS NEC did not vote to hold a National Demo this Autumn
2. The NCAFC NC did
3. That the National Demo currently has no slogan, and that should be decided at this conference

NCAFC Believes
1. That as a democratic organisation, we should be discussing actions and strategies with as many people as possible, and debating as many
2. That we will need an absolutely ginormous fight to win free education from the current government
3. That actions, especially national calls for action, should be called by democratic groups and grassroots activists
4. That we will need to use a wide variety of actions and tactics to win free education
5. That it would be good if NCAFC Conference called the demo properly

NCAFC Resolves
1. That this conference calls a national demonstration

Motion A2: Date of “the” National Demo

NCAFC notes:
1. That the 11th of November is Remembrance Day.
2. Last year there was only a very short time frame between the national demo and the Christmas holidays and for many campuses there was not enough time to get together and get organised.
3. Last year very few actions happened before the national demo.

NCAFC believes:
1. That a national demonstration should take place in the autumn (see the rest of the discussion and other amendments) but that this demonstration should only happen as part of a wider strategy of escalation.
2. That it is very important to give the movement enough time to properly develop and escalate before students go home for Christmas.

NCAFC further believes:
1. That with the experience of last year it will be possible to organise the demo with two weeks’ less time, but that this will require people to start organising almost immediately.

NCAFC resolves:
1. To call this autumn’s national demonstration for Wednesday 4th November.

Motion A3: NCAFC & The Demo

NCAFC Believes

1. That the majority of the main co-ordinating and logistics work of organising and building the upcoming demonstration will fall on NCAFC activists
2. That local activists join the NCAFC because it is a democratic organisation
3. That organising groups and committees made up of people from different and probably anti-democratic organisations are not accountable to activist bases on campuses
4. We should make a national demo happen regardless of whatever excuses the NUS bureaucracy comes up with for refusing to call one.
5. We want this demonstration to be big, and, just as importantly, to bring in support from across society – in particular organised workers.
6. Trade union bureaucracies as they exist are not perfect, and many have internal politics, on which we should explicitly support the left and activist currents and factions in pushing their unions to fight more effectively and for more radical demands.
7. Major trade unions, regardless of their internal politics, represent large numbers of organised workers, and should be natural allies of the fight for free education, just as we should be natural and active allies of workers’ struggles. They are also a source of (sometimes limited, sometimes large) resources, which we lack.

NCAFC Further Believes:
1. The NECs of the UCU and NUT have voted in principle to support the idea of a national education sector demo this autumn

NCAFC Resolves
1. To organise the upcoming demonstration proudly and independently as the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts
2. Primarily, this will mean the National Committee members responding to decisions that need to be made quickly and doing the large amount of “legwork” a national demonstration involves
3. We would welcome support and resources from other organisations, however the primary organising must be done within the NCAFC.
4. To write to the UCU and NUT asking them to support and co-organise the demo, and open discussions with them.
5. To publish this correspondence in a positive, comradely spirit on our website.
6. To approach the education sector unions (NUT, UCU) for support nationally and reach out to local branches to submit support to their conference (where possible)

Motion A4: Political message and slogan of the national demo in the Autumn

NCAFC Resolves
1. That a national demonstration should raise these as its key, headline slogans:
a. Free Education
i. Living grants for all
ii. Tax the rich
iii. Expropriate the banks
b. Education not for Profit
i. Democratic universities
ii. Cops off campus
iii. Living wage now
c. Defend migrants
i. Education for everyone
ii. End deportations
iii. Shutdown detention centres

Motion A5: The Demonstration and the NUS

NCAFC Believes:
1. Had NUS National Conference reached the national free education/end student poverty motion it would have passed with a massive majority. Whilst the vote for a national demo was lost by one vote at the NUS National Executive last week, the majority of the new incoming leadership of NUS supports a national demo and it will be having its first NUS National Executive meeting on 20 July where the issue can be discussed again.

NCAFC Resolves:
1. Call on NUS to support this demo on the basis it is inevitably going to happen and is supported by activist groups across the country

Motion A6a: More local education marches

NCAFC believes:
1. To completely change our education system we need to build an alliance across society and not just on university campuses.
2. Last academic year we made the start for this when we organised the first two rounds of local marches. These were very successful in some places and brought students, workers and the community together under the banner of “Free Education”.
3. However, this was not enough and we need to continue this strategy on a long-term and very regular basis.

NCAFC further believes:
1. Students in Leeds have already called a local march on the 24th of October.

NCAFC resolves
1. To call a day of local marches across the country to take place on the 24th October.
2. To instruct the NC to call local marches on a monthly basis following the 24th October if it seems feasible and fruitful.

Motion A6b: A Radical Movement

NCAFC Believes:
1. That a National Demonstration will take place.

NCAFC Further Believes:
1. 1. That in our fight for Free Education we need more than a National Demonstration through London.
2. A number of political organisations have used different forms of to get media attention and deliver their message:
a. Green Peace climbed the London Shard in 2013 to hang a banner and protest drilling in the Artic for gas and oil.
b. The Palestinian Solidarity Campaign projected the Palestinian flag onto the Houses of Parliament with the slogan “Free Palestine, Sanctions Now, End the Massacre” in August 2014,
c. The Occupy Wall Street movement 2011 occupied the financial district in NYC and disrupted banks, board meetings, universities and colleges.

NCAFC Resolves:
1. To organise a number of creative and radical stunts to create media attention and deliver our message.
2. To organise an occupation an important political location that symbolises our fight for Free Education.
3. To put a focus on campuses occupying straight after the demo

Motion A6c: After the general election – our outlook and priorities going forward

NCAFC Believes:
1. The Tories’ election victory reflects low working-class confidence, shaped by years of defeats and missed opportunities by the labour movement (most recently the failure to fight austerity, particularly following the demobilisation of the 2011-12 pensions dispute).
2. In this context , by being bold, the Tories, UKIP, etc have been able to push politics to the right.
3. The Labour Party and trade union leaderships bear a large share of the responsibility, both in terms of demobilising struggles and endorsing many Tory policies.
4. While the situation is daunting, we need to remind ourselves that the Tories and the rich and powerful are not invincible. After the surprise 1992 Conservative election victory, they were quickly hit by mass protests over pit closures and the “Black Wednesday” currency crisis, and could not add much to the Thatcherite offensive. What was in a way more damaging was the demoralisation of the left, leading to the rise of Blairism, etc.
5. With a degree of economic recovery we are already starting to see more workers’ struggles over pay and conditions, and there is a chance of this growing. And in response to the election result there has been a surge of protest action.
6. Like in 2010-11 and many times before, student struggles can play an important role both in pushing back the government and in catalysing workers’ action.
7. The defeat of TeachHigher at Warwick, and of the forced academisation of schools in Lewisham, show that battles can be won. We can play a role in increasing the number of victories in order to hasten a wider turning of the tide.
8. Even though the Tories’ ability to form a majority government with 37% of the vote is undemocratic, and Parliamentary politics overall are very limiting, we have to be honest: between them, right-wing parties won a majority of votes cast. The left and centre-left both failed to win the argument with enough people. Our movement needs to win these people over – that means presenting clear demands, a positive and convincing vision for society, and being willing to argue and discuss with ordinary people who hold reactionary views.
9. We should use clear slogans that raise demands and goals, show that our actions have direction and purpose, and educate and radicalise people around us (e.g. “Stop austerity – tax the rich and seize the banks”, not just purely negative ones like “Fuck the Tories”).
10. NCAFC has finite (though hopefully growing!) capacity. We can’t do everything, so we should set ourselves some priority areas of work, in order to give ourselves some strategic focus and make sure in particular that our National Committee is accountable. This doesn’t mean we can’t campaign on other things too, or offer material support to like-minded organisations that are leading other campaigns, but these should define our *core* work and the NC’s priorities for the next period.

NCAFC Resolves:
1. To set ourselves the following priority areas of work (we hope others will submit amendments to add detail to these priority campaigns with particular demands, slogans, strategies and actions):
a. Building the national push for free, funded education – including in the context of a likely attempt to raise undergrad fees again and impose further marketization, and the ongoing brutal cuts to further education. (We understand there will be a separate debate to set our free education strategy).
b. Coordinating mobilisation around individual education struggles on campuses (course cuts, department closures, privatisations etc.)
c. Building struggles around rents and housing – first among student tenants but also in solidarity, and coordinating, with wider housing campaigns.
d. Supporting local and national workers’ struggles – first in education but also beyond – including demanding the repeal of anti-union laws in response to the proposals to tighten them, and supporting the possible upcoming pay dispute across higher education. We should find our allies among the more militant left trade unionists attempting to put pressure on their unions to fight harder, and support them in that.
e. Standing up for migrant rights and campaigning for open borders against a reactionary tide of xenophobia and tightening restrictions.
2. To:
a. Link up with the organisers of March for Homes and propose another for early 2016.
b. Organise direct action on letting agents whom we know to be particularly exploiting student & migrant tenants.
3. To consider an action in response to the £12bn cuts to the welfare budget, approaching NUS disabled students campaign, DPAC and other relevant campaign orgs on collaboration.

Motion A6e: The Return of Armchair Activism
NCAFC Notes:
1. On Saturday the 9th of May thousands of protesters descended upon Parliament, Tory HQ, Whitehall, and Downing Street to protest the newly elected Tory Government.
NCAFC Believes:
1. A number of people cannot take part in or attend demonstrations, marches or direct actions due to various reasons such as (but not limited to) – lack of accessibility, illness and / or racial profiling.
NCAFC Further Believes:
1. Attending demonstrations or marches or being part of direct actions is often considered a ‘badge of honour’ by many and directly and/or indirectly used as a method of hierarchy to decide who is more ‘dedicated’ to the cause. Or as a means to make others feel guilty, less dedicated and their contributions less valued.
2. Cis, white, male, middle class, and university and college students experience a large amount of privilege during demonstrations, marches and / or direct actions at the hands of the police, security, and the UK law when it comes to being arrested, treatment in custody, and conviction rates.
3. Black, international and migrant students are more likely to experience racial profiling, be arrested and convicted of a crime, and die in police custody than their white, British, and middle class peers.
4. Disabled people will see some of the worst attacks upon their support services in the next five years but are often silenced in their fight to stop the cuts to the welfare state. Lack of accessibility and precautions at demonstrations, marches and/or direct action (whilst not always easy to ensure for impromptu actions) can make these forms of protest unsafe and dangerous for disabled people to take part and thus further silencing them and compounding society’s structural and institutionalised ableism. This was highlighted during the demonstration on the 9th of May via the #WeCantMarch hashtag.
NCAFC Resolves:
1. That demonstrations, marches and direct action are not the only form of legitimate protest, sit-ins, letter writing campaigns, social media campaigns, and hacktivism are legitimate forms of protest with high success rates.
2. That in the fight for Free Education we should be utilising as many tactics as possible in order to have the greatest impact and make sure our message is heard.
3. To work with disabled activists’ groups to ensure that the National Demonstration is as accessible as possible and that other forms of direct action are available before, on the day and after the demonstration to keep momentum going.
4. That in addition to the National Demonstration in November NCAFC will also plan alternative forms of protest so that all members of NCAFC can take part and play their part in the fight for Free Education.
5. That everyone does their bit to fight for Free Education and no matter how big or small that may be it is still a legitimate form of protest and contribution to the cause. No one should ever be made to feel like their contribution is not valued or that they are not dedicated to the cause.
6. That the UK Police Force and UK Law is institutionally racist and xenophobic.
To work with Black, international, and migrant organisations in order to support those who attend NCAFC demonstrations, marches and direct action and protect them from racial profiling and police brutality.
Motion A7

NCAFC Believes
1. While we should not make a fetish of “unity”, it is generally good to push for less organisational division and more cooperation (and more debate) on the student left.
2. There are a number of possible barriers to or difficulties in the way of unity with the SAAA:
a. The question of genuinely democratic structures – like those of the NCAFC, and not the fake democracy of tightly controlled fronts which always characterised the SWP’s student fronts and seems at least in the past to have characterised the SAAA.
b. The need for genuine, honest cooperation between different forces – despite open differences, disagreements and even dislike – not disruptive sectarian control by a single small political group or clique.
c. Differences over political orientation, with regards to grassroots organising vs reliance on the left of the NUS bureaucracy.
3. That despite these problems, in the interests of the movement and the struggle, is it well worth us trying to get greater unity. At the very least, discussions could produce more extensive and fruitful collaboration.
4. That the majority of SAAA supporters genuinely want greater unity and honest, comradely relations – even if the political group that has dominated it up till now (Socialist Action/Student Broad Left) do not.

NCAFC Resolves
1. To approach the SAAA on the basis set out above, publishing the letter on our website.
2. To issue a broader call to student left, anti-cuts, feminist, etc, groups to discuss with us about creating a more united, effective student left.


Motion B1: Appointing a paid organiser from September to December

NCAFC believes:
1. NCAFC is a volunteer-run organisation, and this fact plays a vital part in our ability to articulate grassroots activism on a national level. However, there are some projects (such as national demos), and (now that we’ve grown a bit) large chunks of our day-to-day operation which requires an in-depth dedication of people’s time and mental energy.
2. Sabbs who are in NCAFC have historically played a key role in giving their work time over to national organising, and should continue to do so.
3. Since we were founded, we have at most points informally had full time organisers who are not sabbs – this is partly because the right people aren’t always sabbs (obviously), and because it is necessary to have people who are centrally involved who do not have constant commitments on their own campus and union. Sometimes, these organisers have been paid a few hundred quid for the year, though mostly they have been paid nothing – and they have lived in poverty working 50-hour weeks.

NCAFC further believes:
1. An organisation with the membership and scope that NCAFC currently has would ordinarily have a number of full time organisers. At conference in December, we voted in general for having paid organisers, and we should get one if we can.
2. Any paid organiser must not become anyone’s boss – they should be appointed by NCAFC to do the work democratically agreed by its members. The position should come without bureaucratic power, and it should rotate relatively regularly.
3. We need to appoint an organiser who is ready and willing to go – and not one that would need to be trained in how to run NCAFC.
4. This is the first time that we are having a proper paid organiser and there is a limit to how much money we can expect to raise for now. This is why we should try it out for a four months period for now and then assess later on whether it is feasible to have a paid organiser all year round and how often that organiser should be selected.
5. September to December is the busiest time of the year for NCAFC and the student movement, and having a paid organiser during this time will be most beneficial.
6. Our organiser should be able to eat and have a roof over their head.

NCAFC resolves:
1. To mandate the finance committee to make it a priority to find the necessary funds for this position until September through a variety of methods (i.e. applying for grants, online crowd-sourcing, organising fundraisers, membership fees) and publish a full finance plan for the four months period.
2. If the NC (Finance committee) see it feasible by the beginning of September, the NC will appoint a paid organiser for the period between mid-September and mid-December. The organiser’s job description is as follows: see end of motion
3. The paid organiser will be paid a stipend of at least £ 778 per month inside London and £ 667 per month outside London. However, if possible this should be significantly higher.
4. The finance committee will administer a pot of travel money available to the organiser of a maximum of 150 Pounds a month in addition to the stipend.
5. The paid organiser will be selected by the NC at a physical meeting around Summer training (August/September).
6. The position will be advertised well in advance on the NCAFC members’ loomio and the member’s mail out, and not to non-members.
7. The organiser must be: an activist experienced in both local and national student organising; an active and dedicated member of NCAFC. They do not have to be a current or past member of the NC.
8. Once appointed, if they are not an NC member, the organiser will be included in all NC communications, but will not be given additional voting rights.
9. The organiser will report fortnightly to both the membership and the NC.
10. Both the paid organiser and the NC will report to winter conference on the success of the project. It will be decided there whether NCAFC is able to and whether it should appoint a paid organiser on a more long-term basis

Job description:
a) Assisting with and ensuring the execution of NCAFC’s major projects, in particular:
1. any national demo
2. national days of action
3. major direct action
4. co-ordinations with other groups
b) Assisting with and ensuring the day-to-day operation of the NCAFC, in particular:
1. its communications (email, social media, website, press)
2. the coordination of the NC and its sub-committees (though not attempting to be anyone’s boss)
3. traveling across the UK in order to meet activists, help build activist groups and support their actions
4. the convening of regular regional NCAFC meet-ups
c) The organiser will not be responsible for:
1. The organisation of winter conference (this is because of work load and issues experienced by the previous organiser)
2. Being the only major public face of the campaign (this should not become centralised to one person)
3. Taking on pet projects and constant random tasks from members of the NC

Motion B2: Fight for free speech and free organisation!

NCAFC notes:
1. That students’ and workers’ freedom of speech and organisation on campuses face ongoing erosion from numerous directions – from the government’s “counter-terrorism and security” agenda, from the police, from immigration authorities, from university managements, from the increasing corporatisation of university/college facilities and spaces, from student union bureaucracies and even from some on the student left.

NCAFC believes:
1. That while “freedom of speech” and “freedom of organisation” are not self-sufficient answers to any and every problem we face, they are of vital importance to any movement which seeks to challenge oppression and transform society. The oppressed and exploited have the most to lose from attacks on such democratic rights.
2. That it is vital that we take up this struggle and do not allow right-wing organisations such as Spiked to exploit it to promote their anti-equality, pro-corporate “free speech” agenda.
3. That while it is legitimate and right for student unions to have equal opportunities policies, codes of conduct, etc, they should also set themselves the goal of preserving and expanding student freedom of expression and freedom of organisation. “No platform” type policies should generally be limited to fascist groups such as the BNP and the EDL, not because their views are upsetting, but because of the threats they pose to the left, the labour movement and oppressed groups.
4. In general, reactionary views should be fought politically, not through bans.
5. That the right to the freedoms of organisation, speech and expression face ongoing attacks from the state and its agents – from the government’s ‘counter terrorism’ agenda, to police repression, to the brutality of immigration policy, and from the increasing corporatisation of university/college facilities and spaces to stifling bureaucracy.
6. That these freedoms and civil liberties ensure the right to speak truth to power – to challenge the state, its institutions, and those whom it vests power in.
7. It is vital to defend this right to enable common people to organise against oppression.
8. Within the context of interpersonal or intergroup relations in society, free speech can take on a different character – power relations and dynamics of oppression and privilege are entrenched and reproduced in expression.
9. Freedom of speech is still expression that is embedded within structures of an oppressive society, and comes with responsibility.
10. Therefore ‘free speech’ can become a construct of the powerful instead of the powerless in this context, and used to incite or manipulate against oppressed people

NCAFC further believes:
1. That we must also promote a culture of free speech and debate in the NCAFC.
2. That it should be normal “custom and practice” for differing views in the campaign to be expressed freely, published on the website, etc. – even or rather particularly if they represent minority dissent from an agreed majority position. The publication of several two-sided debate pieces in this year’s conference bulletin was a good step.
3. It is entirely legitimate for oppressed groups to organise amongst one another on their own terms within safe spaces. This may extend to them deciding which individuals or groups they permit access to these spaces to, and which speakers they choose to platform within such spaces.
4. NCAFC currently operates a Safer Spaces Policy which seeks to create broader organising spaces which are, as far as is reasonable and possible, free of oppressive dynamics that can manifest in such spaces.
5. NCAFC should encourage healthy debates and for ideas to be challenged politically, but should also acknowledge that freedom of speech is not an unlimited concept, and should not come at the expense of marginalised groups.

NCAFC resolves:
1. To campaign to defend and extend freedom of speech and organisation on campuses and in the student movement on the lines set out above.
2. To campaign against moves by the state and its institutions to curtail our right to free expression and organisation – including the Counter Terrorism and Security Act and ‘anti-extremism’ measures, dispersal orders and raising the threshold of strike ballots for Trade Unions.
3. To encourage all members to respect and reaffirm our existing Safer Spaces Policy.

Motion B3: NCAFC needs to become more about its members and activists groups, less about the NC

NCAFC believes:
1. We pride ourselves on being a democratic membership organisation, and one of our main reasons for existing is as a network of activists and activist groups. However, very often it is only really the NC that has decision-making power.

NCAFC further believes:
1. You should not have to be on the national committee in order to organise NCAFC stuff.

NCAFC resolves:
1. To mandate the NC to have its discussions in the open members’ loomio where possible and to actively get non-NC members involved in projects.
2. To mandate the membership committee to make sure that more members are actually in the members’ loomio. This will require moving beyond the MailChimp updates and Loomio invites, and towards other methods, such as emailing members manually.
3. To make the establishment of regional structures across the country and the holding of regular regional meet-ups a priority of NCAFC over the coming months.
4. To encourage members, and especially NC members, to focus their work on establishing a functioning activist group in their local areas, where there is not one already.
To encourage more non-NC members to attend meetings of the NC, and to publicise NC webchats more widely.
Motion B4: NCAFC and NUS

NCAFC notes:
1. The victories won by the left at this year’s NUS conference.

NCAFC believes:
1. That these victories are both very positive – the result of five years of important student struggles and determined organising by grassroots activists – and limited – in terms of the positions won, the program they were won on, NUS policy, and the record of many left-wingers in NUS so far (e.g. on last year’s national demo).
2. That it is important that we respond positively but soberly and critically.
3. That we should continue to organise both outside/independently of and inside NUS, not relying on the newly elected left-wing NUS officers but working with them while seeking to put them under pressure.
4. That we need to fight any tendencies on the left towards careerism and, perhaps more importantly, a culture of avoiding important political issues and arguments in order to court popularity or stay in with a clique. We need to fight to build up a culture of using NUS to promote student struggles and politically educate and develop the movement, whether it offends some people or not.

NCAFC further believes:
1. That NUS is preparing a governance review over the next year. The right-wing of the NUS leadership will attempt to use this to attack democracy and grassroots control of the union, while pretending that they are making NUS more accessible.
2. This is part of a long-term eroding of NUS democracy begun by Blairites in the 1990s in an effort to stifle opposition to tuition fees.
3. That we should oppose this by campaigning for a positive and concrete alternative vision of democracy in our union, championing participative active democracy against passive consultation within a club of sabbatical officers.
4. That we should be clear what we mean when we talk about democratic events in our national union: we want participatory democracy which serves its members, not flimsy “Voice” events, which can cover anything from a small focus group to a non-democratic event such as a zones conferences and are not democratic at all.

NCAFC resolves:
1. To publish regular updates and commentary on developments in NUS.
2. That our activists on NUS NEC and other committees should
3. Constitute a well-functioning and well-communicating caucus;
4. Consistently discuss with the NC and/or other relevant bodies about what to submit to NUS NEC, about issues coming up, etc.
5. Write reports of NUS NEC (etc) meetings and other developments in NUS. We should normally publish reports within a week of the meeting
6. To seek to recruit other left wing activists in NUS to the campaign, but on the basis set out above. We need to discuss with NUS officials who are already NCAFC members but less centrally involved as soon as possible.
7. To urge all our activists operating in NUS to do so on the basis / in the spirit set out above.
8. To ask the National Committee to develop a programme for democratising NUS, including the following points:
a. More, not less, time to discuss and decide NUS’s priorities and plans – two annual national conferences, both of a decent length, against proposals to cut conference down even further or even shift to passive online voting which prevents proper discussion.
b. Accessible conferences. Currently, national conference days are inaccessibly long because there are so few days.
c. Rebalance power in the Executive from full-time to part-time officers, by reinstating the stipend part-time NEC members used to receive to support them in being active organisers and campaigners.
d. Create a full-time Trans Students’ Officer, as repeatedly proposed from NUS LGBT+’s Trans caucus.
e. Abolish the undemocratic, unrepresentative zone conferences.
f. Remove unelected non-students from voting positions on the Trustee Board, and if possible abolish the Trustee Board entirely – oversight of our union should not be separated from political democratic bodies.
g. Remove the ability of the leadership to put their proposals at the top of the agenda at NUS conferences.
h. Defend the role that procedural motions play in allowing delegates to stop the Chair and President controlling conferences.
i. Work to abolish registration fees for all NUS democratic events, if necessary by funding them through affiliation fees (which should be set according to a union’s ability to pay). There should be no cost incentive or bar against participating in all parts of the union’s democracy.
j. Restore and empower organisation at the regional level across the UK – the “Area” system, where there was an NUS organisation in each region, with full democracy and full-time officers, coordinating unions across higher and further education and capable of campaigning on local political issues.
k. Retain the autonomy and resources of liberation campaigns.
l. Properly resource and empower the “sections” (International, Postgrad, and Mature & Part-time) to carry out active organising and campaigning work under the democratic control of their members.
9. To campaign for this programme to be adopted by the NUS in its governance review, and if this is unsuccessful to propose it as an alternative to the leadership’s reforms.
To ask NCAFC members who hold elected posts in NUS to support and campaign for our programme for NUS democracy.
Motion B5: Strategy to Smash the National Student Survey

NCAFC Believes:
1. The National Student Survey (NSS) does not measure student satisfaction in any meaningful way.
2. The NSS is used by management in institutions to (and this list is by no means conclusive) bully staff, fire staff, change their contracts and cut courses. [1]
3. As a tool for marketization, the NSS is used to standardise HE, pitching incomparable teaching practices against each other and ranking universities to fuel a notion of ‘value for money’.
4. The focus on an academic style learning disproportionately affects art institutions and other specialist HE institutions which do not fit this narrow framework.
5. The questions that the NSS asks do not address institutional problems within universities.
6. The NSS is counterproductive to creating liberated, autonomous universities.

NCAFC Further Believes:
1. The only effective way to boycott the NSS is nationally and the only body with enough resources and influence to do this is the NUS.
2. Boycotts by isolated individuals will not help the campaign and serve no purpose.
3. Collective boycotts within individual universities will not be effective to defeat the NSS. However, the threat of a collective boycott (or a collective move to answer all questions the same, rendering the results useless) at an individual institution may still be a useful coercive tactic to force university managers to give concessions in some other area (e.g. to stop a fee rise), so should not be ruled out.
4. Our overall aim should be the end of the NSS through campaigning for a national boycott.
5. Until that is achieved (or if that is not achieved at the next NUS conference) we should educate people about the problems of the NSS and encourage them and our student unions (to encourage their members) to mark highly on all questions regarding staff so that they score highly.

NCAFC Resolves:
1. To campaign to get rid of the NSS.
2. To campaign for a national boycott by the NUS.
3. To campaign for the NUS to disaffiliate itself from the NSS.
4. To encourage institutions to create their own forms of democratic, participatory feedback processes to improve courses and departments alongside staff not at the expense of them.
5. Educate people about the problems with the NSS.
6. In the interim to encourage individuals and institutions to mark “definitely agree” in all the sections that affect staff and/or their course.
7. To campaign against the extension of the NSS to further education or postgraduate education
8. Until NUS implements an outright boycott, to call on individual student unions to refuse to promote, assist, or actively cooperate with NSS.


Motion B6: Childcare

NCAFC Notes:
1. The Childcare Grant for student parents is only available for full-time undergraduate students or those in teacher training
2. The Childcare Grant is only up to £150.23 for one child and up to £257.55 a week for two children or more
3. This amount is frequently well below the weekly costs of university-provided nursery services
4. Student parents are also entitled to a Parents’ Learning Allowance, this is also only available for full-time undergraduate students.
5. This is means-tested and can be between £50-£1523, which can be inadequate to meet the costs of living and studying with dependants.
6. Currently neither grants take into account periods in which a higher rate of support is needed, e.g. during dissertation periods
7. Further Education student parents under 20 are entitled to ‘Care To Learn’, however they, their learning provider, and their childcare provider must all meet certain eligibility criteria, which makes it highly difficult to access
8. The primary carers of children in society continue to be women, as displayed by the fact that 94% of child benefit is paid to women, therefore difficulties in support disproportionately affect women
9. The last significant report to provide information about student parents was in 2009

NCAFC Believes:
1. That the lack of support for student parents excludes marginalised groups, especially women, from the education system.
2. A free education system must always be a feminist education system, a system in which women are not barred by a proportionately higher cost of education.
3. That support for student parents should be universal, not dependent on being full-time or part-time, in higher education or further education etc.
4. That education cannot truly be free unless all can have equal access to it, which is inhibited by the barriers that student parents face.

NCAFC Resolves:
1. To support activist groups in campaigning for on-campus childcare provision to be free of charge for all students and education workers, including demonstrations and direct action
2. To launch a campaign for the universalisation of all financial support for student parents
3. To campaign for a higher rate of childcare grants and student allowances, that takes into account times during education where there will be a need for greater support.
4. To campaign for greater research into the difficulties student parents face
5. To incorporate free childcare and parent support at all levels for students and education workers into our campaigns for free education

Motion B7: Europe and the Referendum

NCAFC notes:
1. The Conservatives have promised a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU
2. This referendum is promised to be held within two years
3. There will be major ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns representing the interests of competing sections of the capitalist class.
4. The leading faction of the Tories is likely to oppose exit from the EU but is trying to renegotiate the terms, potentially undermining important rights and attacking migrants.

NCAFC believes:
1. The guarantee of freedom of movement for its citizens (including students travelling to study) is a very good thing that we should fight to defend – and fight to extend to those currently locked out of “Fortress Europe”. So is the erosion of national divisions.
2. Despite this and some other progressive policies, the EU as currently constructed is a project designed at heart to secure the interests of the rich and powerful. Its governance is relatively undemocratic and bureaucratic.
3. However, we can’t go back – a retreat into our respective nation-states and re-raising of borders can only be reactionary. Our national governments are ALSO constructed to serve the interests of the rich and powerful, and don’t have any more progressive potential. This is doubly true given the circumstances of this referendum, which would see the UK leave the EU in a debate dominated by nationalistic, conservative rhetoric against migrants and human rights.
4. Instead, we should attempt to build and connect the left and the student and workers’ movements across Europe, and fight for open borders and a genuinely democratic and socially just Europe – and beyond. This will involve a major shift of power and fundamentally remaking the EU project.
5. The NUS Executive’s vote in support of remaining in the EU is welcome, but its policy failed to criticise the EU as it currently exists or to push for a better Europe.
6. Transforming Europe in the way we want will require a massive fight by a left based in the workers’ movement and presenting its own vision. It will need to be clearly independent from pro-EU capitalists and the political campaigns representing their interests.
7. This should not be compromised during the referendum campaign, and we have to build the campaign to transform Europe at the same time as stopping exit. Being opportunistic in the short term will harm our ability in the longer-term to transform Europe so we should have no association with arguments to stay in the EU because it is “good for business owners” or to “maintain Britain’s influence in the world”.

NCAFC resolves:
1. To campaign against UK exit from the EU – including calling for a vote against exit in the referendum – while calling for a fight to make Europe genuinely democratic and socially just.
2. To link up with other parts of the left, the workers’ movement and the student movement in the UK that will campaign on this basis.
3. To link up as well as we can with the students’ and workers’ movements and the left across Europe.
4. To push for NUS to combine its existing stance against leaving the EU with a campaign for a more democratic and socially just Europe.
5. To push individual student unions to adopt and campaign for this stance in the run up to the referendum and beyond.
6. That our campaigning must remain clearly independent from, and appropriately critical of, campaigns against EU exit that stand for the interests of capitalists and for maintaining the EU as it currently exists. And we should encourage other parts of the students’ and workers’ movements and the left campaigning against exit to join us in making the same distinction.
7. At the same time as campaigning against exit from the EU, to also fight against any attempt by the government to placate right-wing eurosceptics by renegotiating the terms of union to attack freedom of movement, workers’ rights, civil liberties, or migrants’ access to benefits or public services.

Motion B8: Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS)

NCAFC believes:
1. The state of Israel has maintained a decades-long occupation of Palestine
2. Israel’s founding in 1948 was predicated on the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population in the Nakba and its continued status depends on the colonial theft of Palestinian land, a militarised occupying presence, racist and ethno-supremacist propaganda, a litany of international law abuses and unapologetic massacres of the Palestinian people every few years.
3. Between 8 July and 27 August 2014 through Operation ‘Protective Edge’, the Israeli army killed over 2,300 Palestinians.[1]
4. The Israeli army stands accused of using illegal weapons including white phosphorus bombs and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) weapons on one of the most densely-populated regions of the world, and with targets consisting mainly of civilians.[2]
5. This disregard for human rights and international law stands consist with Israel’s conduct during previous assaults on Gaza, including 2008/09’s ‘Cast Lead’ and 2012’s ‘Pillar of Defence’.
6. That extensive funding and military aid to Israel from Western countries helps perpetuate Israel’s abuses and relieves the financial pressure of warfare; the UK government also facilitates heavy arms trading and co-operation with Israel, marking their complicity in this and previous massacres.[3],[4]
7. That the current Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement was called upon in 2005 by a broad range of Palestinians encompassing unions, women’s groups, NGOs, academic groups, diaspora organisations and political parties.
8. The BDS movement demands three things:
1. An end to the 1967 illegal occupation and dismantling the separation wall
2. Full equality for all Palestinians living within Israel and the occupied territories.
3. The right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

NCAFC further believes:
1. That even after the massacres of Protective Edge, Israel remains unrepentant.
2. A survey indicated that 92% of the Jewish population of Israel considered the attack ‘justified’, including 2/3rds of self-identified ‘Left-wing’ respondents.[5]
3. In the latest Knesset elections this year, the Israeli population re-elected PM Netanyahu,who has gone on to form the most rightwing government in Israeli history.
4. That with leading Israeli politicians now within Netanyahu’s cabinet calling for effective genocide, ethnic cleansing of, and war crimes against Palestinians, appealing to their political establishment on a purely moral basis would be beyond naïve.[6],[7],[8]
5. That with the British government unwilling to even condemn Israel for this assault, it is now incumbent upon the public and civil institutions to exert economic and political pressure to convince Israel to abide by international law.
6. UK unions that support BDS include NUS, NUT, TUC, Unite the Union and UCU
7. That over the course of Operation ‘Protective Edge’ other countries, bodies and organisations have taken substantive action, such as Chile having suspended trade talks with Israel.[9]
8. The Israeli government consider BDS a serious threat to them, and to this end have employed staff and ministers with the express goal of countering boycott
9. Dialogue’ and ‘negotiations’ have failed;
10. the oppressor and the oppressed can never be expected to meet as equals at the negotiating table without the power balance having been equalised.
11. BDS helps equalise that balance.
12. Solidarity and support for the Palestinians, as a colonised people, should be on the terms set by the Palestinian people – as per BDS.
13. No colonised people in history have achieved liberation by relying on the graces of their coloniser.
14. That BDS is an effective tactic, which both educates society about these issues, economically pressures companies/institutions to change their practices and politically pressures the global community.
15. That BDS does not, in any way, discriminate against individuals. BDS is merely targeted at the institutions, and not particular individuals, that are complicit in the occupation of Palestine and of violating international law.

NCAFC resolves:
1. To affiliate with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement
2. To call on the British government to condemn Israel’s occupation of Palestine, cease aid and funding to Israel, and impose an arms embargo against Israel.
3. To issue a call to our membership to boycott companies and corporations complicit in financing and aiding Israel’s military, including G4S and Hewlett Packard.
4. To support such campaigns by our members both at a university and societal level, where appropriate
5. To issue a call to our membership to support actions on campus calling for solidarity with Palestine through divestment campaigns against companies complicit in the occupation of Palestine.
6. To support direct action against arms companies trading with Israel
7. Likewise, to issue a call to our membership to act in solidarity with campus actions in calling for a comprehensive economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel as called for by the Palestinian Civil Society.[11]
8. To mobilise for the Block the Factory! day of action against arms trade with Israel at Shenstone on July 6th [12]


Motion B9: Oppose the Counter-terrorism and Security Act

NCAFC Believes:
1. The government’s Counter-Terrorism and Security Act places a statutory requirement on public bodies – including universities – to ’prevent people being drawn into terrorism’.
2. This would extend to academic staff, including Postgraduate teaching staff, being forced to monitor and ‘inform’ on their students
3. This fundamentally, and damagingly, changes the dynamic between student and academic to one based on suspicion and surveillance
4. PREVENT and the Government’s ‘anti-extremism’ agenda have been used to create an expansive surveillance architecture to spy on the public and to police dissent, systematically targeting Black people and Muslims.
5. The Government’s anti-terrorism/security policy is fundamentally flawed in its approach; its operant concepts of ‘extremism’ and ‘radicalism’ are ill-defined and open to abuse for political ends.
6. The Queen’s speech outlined further intentions by the government to suppress those undermining ‘British values’ – which remain poorly defined, if at all – and exercising new powers against speakers to universities and broadcast material
7. Further to this According to the current Prevent Strategy, potential indicators of radicalism” or “extremism” include:
1. A need for identity, meaning and belonging.
2. A desire for political or moral change.
3. Relevant mental health issues.
8. The legal process under anti-terrorism law remains opaque and its application arbitrary and with such a broad definition of extremism all activists could be a target.

NCAFC further believes:
1. PREVENT has been introduced and strengthened under the pretense of ‘anti-extremism’ but its real intentions have always been to criminalise any political dissent, and neutralise the political agency of Muslim communities in Britain
2. The Act further criminalises political activism and disproportionately affects Muslims and Black people, and comes amidst a campaign of fear and demonisation from the government.
3. Islamophobia is massively on the rise across Europe, as a state-sponsored form of racism and is legitimised by the mainstream media.
4. Islamophobia can manifest itself in physical violence against Muslims/perceived Muslims, but also takes root in and is perpetuated by epistemic violence and imposed Eurocentric categories such as ‘good Muslims vs bad Muslims’ and ‘Islamism’ vs Islamic faith
5. The Act has grave implications for freedom of speech, but also freedom of protest, expression, faith, movement and many civil liberties
6. The government’s identified ‘warning signs’ of “radicalisation” problematise and renders suspect those with mental health difficulties.
7. Psychiatry has historically been used to pathologise behaviours of non-White people in the West, and PREVENT carries forward this tradition into the 21st century.

NCAFC resolves:
1. To publicly oppose the Act and call upon the government to repeal it immediately, whilst also mobilising against any new ‘anti-extremism’ measures or Bills
2. Work with a broad-based coalition of student groups, Black and Muslim organisations and academic unions to counter the false ‘anti-extremist’ narrative surrounding such legislation and highlight the nature of these changes
3. Condemn the Home Office for its treatment of mental health issues.
4. Work with UCU, Unite and Muslims and BME student groups to develop a campaign against Prevent and the Act on college campuses.
5. Work with UCU to develop a campaign against the spying on students
6. Develop and roll out anti-Prevent workshops and resources.
7. To work on every campus to pass policy opposing this law and to mandate the unions to oppose PREVENT.
8. To call for the Government’s anti-extremism agenda to be thoroughly reviewed and overhauled, and for the criteria and process under anti-extremism law to be made more transparent, accountable and open to scrutiny.
9. To support an independent review into the legality of the proposals under the Equality Act 2010.

Motion B10: National Gallery Struggle

NCAFC notes:
1. The ongoing struggle by 400 workers at the National Gallery in London against their transfer to a private company, including ten days of strikes so far and a 2,000 strong demonstration on 31 May (plus solidarity actions by London students).
2. That private security have been drafted in to intimidate workers.
3. That Candy Udwin, the senior PCS rep at the gallery, was suspended and has now been summarily sacked for asking questions about the privatisation.
4. That Candy Udwin is a senior member of the SWP, and is implicated in their shameful handling of sexual assault allegations.
NCAFC believes:
1. That we should support the National Gallery workers’ struggle.
2. That we should support Candy Udwin as a worker fighting victimisation by the bosses, while maintaining our criticisms of her and the SWP’s political record.

NCAFC resolves:
1. To send a message of solidarity to the National Gallery workers, including support for the reinstatement of Candy Udwin, publish it on our website and call for our supporters, activist groups etc to do likewise.

Motion B11: Protest Privacy

NCAFC believes:
1. Some things about the ways we are policed have changed in the past years and decades and others have not.
2. One thing that has become a recent fact is the ubiquitous surveillance that all protesters. Once upon a time all it required to get away with breaking a shop window was not being caught on the day, not you will wait anxiously for months or years, before one day court papers drop through your door.
3. One thing that has stayed the same is the conviction of the innocent. As David Graeber says, the distribution of ”felony charges” after protests is essentially random. Regardless of whether you broke any windows or not those court papers could just as easily drop through your door.
4. So regardless of the tactics you engage with on demos, it is clear we need to protect ourselves. One of the best ways of doing this is through ”masking up” or ”black bloc”, through covering your face and wearing clothing that is difficult to differentiate not only do you protect yourself, but you protect everyone else.

NCAFC resolves:

1. To cooperate with other organisations that promote protester privacy, such as NETPOL, in order to promote privacy tactics on NCAFC demos and on NCAFC contingents on demos.

Motion B12: The Fight in Labour Students

NCAFC believes:
1. That the ideological fight for free, fair, democratic education is fought on many fronts: on campus, in trade unions, in the formal and informal media, and in political parties.
2. That activists’ time, energy, skills and expertise are limited there is necessarily a division of labour between individuals and organisations.
3. That nonetheless, as a united front of free education activists, it is important that we all support one another in the work that we are doing.
4. That free education activists can do good work in a range of political parties: for instance the Green Party, Left Unity and the Labour Party.
5. That NCAFC should remain non-partisan and not encourage members to support one party over another, but that this is different to supporting free education activists within a party.
6. That the Labour Party’s link to major trades unions, many with free education policies, gives it a potential strategic significance in the fight for free education.
7. That Labour Students is one of the few remaining sections of the student movement to not support free education.
8. That, despite students holding more left-wing views on a range of subjects that the general population, Labour Students is to the right of the party membership on the majority of economic issues and is led by members of the Blairite entryist organisation ‘Progress’.
9. Labour Students’ disproportionate influence in the National Union of Students (NUS) has been a major factor in holding back and sabotaging the fight for free education over decades.

NCAFC further believes:
1. That while we may disagree on whether or not to support the Labour Party in elections, it would undeniably be good for the student movement if Labour Students was more left-leaning and supportive of free education.
2. That Labour Students National Conference, where their full-time officers are elected and their policy is decided, is a fraction of the size of NUS National Conference, and could be easily won by a strong left-wing intervention.
3. That a handful of extra left-wing votes at a Labour Club can make the difference between the club sending a delegation of socialists to National Conference, and it sending a parade of Blairite shocktroopers.
4. That many left-leaning students turn up to University or College every year and join their campus Labour Club, with no prior knowledge as to whether it is run by the left or the right.
5. That it is vital that these students, particularly in rightwing clubs, are encouraged to join their campus activist group.
6. That even one or two socialist activists intervening in a rightwing Labour Club can ensure that potential left-wing students are brought into the campus activist group and that the forces in favour of free education are strengthened.
7. That the Labour Campaign for Free Education, an affiliate of the NCAFC, is currently engaging in this struggle inside the Labour Party.

NCAFC resolves:
1. As a united front campaign of free education activists from different organisations and none, to remain politically independent from and not endorse any particular political parties.
2. To nevertheless encourage the struggle inside the Labour Party as one option amongst a wide range of useful forms of political activism.
3. To support the Labour Campaign for Free Education in its fight inside Labour Students and the Labour Party
4. To encourage those who are not already affiliated to a party, or who are inactive members of the Labour Party, to join Labour Students with the minimum objective of turning up a handful of times to
a. Vote for leftwing free-education delegates to Labour Students events
b. Ensure that ‘stray’ leftwing members in rightwing clubs are encouraged to participate in the campus activist group.

Motion B13: Free Public Transport

NCAFC believes:
1. That the cost of public transport is too high. Education cannot be free while students have to pay thousands of pounds each year to travel around the city that they study and live in.
2. There are still huge swathes of the British population left isolated because of unaffordable public transport, particularly those outside of urban areas. Making transport more accessible enables more people to leave their homes – in particular, women/carers with young children, the elderly, disabled people, the unemployed.
3. The high cost of public transport is also a particular barrier to young people, who are more likely to be on low pay, if they are in work at all.
4. The railways and bus/coach services should be in public hands. Public transport is a necessary public service and should not be exploited for profit.

NCAFC further believes:
1. Free public transport can aid us in the struggle against climate change, insofar that it can reduce carbon emissions and provide alternative modes of mass transportation and infrastructure. It would also provide employment in the public transport and planning sectors. We must, however, refrain from citing this as an individualistic campaign against modes of behaviour. Rather, it must be a demand made of the state.
2. Public transport should be paid for by taxing the rich.
3. Students are best-placed to argue for free public transport. In lots of European cities students already receive either free or heavily subsidised transport, and school-age students already receive free transport in London. Students are also typically (though not always) money-poor, but time-rich – and campaigning around public transport offers exciting opportunities for direct action.
4. In demanding free public transport for students, student would also be provoking a debate about free public transport in general, for everybody.
5. Campaigning around free public transport provides an opportunity to partially bridge the gap between the ‘student movement’ and ‘wider left’. As the politics of free education is increasingly broadened out, to include issues such as living grants, cost and condition of housing, immigration politics and so on, it is becoming increasingly clear that if we believe in free education, for everybody, then we need to be working with the countless campaigning groups, organisations and parties that are fighting for equality in the UK.

NCAFC resolves:
1. To call for a number of student-led direct actions demanding free public transport for students, initially in London – but also elsewhere around the country.
2. For these actions to argue, more broadly, for free public transport for everybody, and for public ownership of the railways.
3. These actions should/could include (but are not limited to) an occupation of the Mayor of London’s office, organised days of action where large groups skip the tube or train, demonstrations, action supporting strikes of workers in the transport industry and so on.
4. To attempt to establish a broad coalition of groups to support these actions, including (but not limited to) Left Unity, Young Greens, Reclaim the Power.

Motion B14: Decriminalisation of Sex Work

NCAFC notes:
1. Sex work refers (and is not limited) to escorting, lap dancing, stripping, pole dancing, pornography, webcaming, adult modelling, phone sex, and selling sex (on and off the street).
2. The current regime of austerity, and cuts to services and support have disproportionately affected women and women’s services.
3. According to the English Collective of Prostitutes since the rise in tuition fees in 2010 there has been a 1/3 rise in the number of student sex workers, the majority of whom are women.
4. Whilst sex work is not illegal in the UK, sex workers who work on the street can be arrested on soliciting or anti-social behavioural order charges, and sex workers who work together indoors for safety can be charged with brothel keeping.
5. Sex workers may be subject to “prostitute cautions”, in which there has to be no evidence of a sex worker’s “guilt”, and there is no right of appeal. This makes it even more difficult for sex workers to enter a different job if they so wish.
6. The amendment to the Modern Slavery Bill introduced by Fiona Mactaggart, arguing for criminalisation of clients, was defeated in November 2014 following campaign by English Collective of Prostitutes.
7. The full decriminalisation of prostitution was introduced in New Zealand in 2003 and has been a success.

NCAFC believes:
1. Sex work is work. Sex work is the exchange of money for labour, like any other job. It is different from other jobs because it is currently criminalised and stigmatised.
2. People should be free to choose what they do with their time, their labour and their bodies.
3. Sex work and trafficking are not the same. Sex work is consensual sex in exchange for money.
4. With the rise in living costs, the increase in tuition fees, and the slashing of benefits for disabled people, there has been a rise in students doing sex work (particularly online) alongside their studies in order to survive month to month.
5. The lack of funding for postgraduate education makes it likely that some postgraduate students use sex work as a means to fund their postgraduate degrees.
6. Financial reasons, and any criminal record gain due to the criminalisation of sex work, are often the main reasons for staying in sex work
7. Stigma against sex work means that sex workers are less likely to seek out help and support if and when they need it.
8. Regardless of the reasons for entering into sex work, sex workers of all backgrounds deserve to have their rights protected and to be able to do their jobs safely. This includes sex workers who do not find their job ‘empowering’. Whether or not you enjoy a job should have no bearing on the rights you deserve while you do it.
9. The pushes for legislation which would criminalise the purchase of sex (and introduce what is known as the ‘Nordic Model’ on prostitution) are often spearheaded by anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ, right-wing fundamentalists, working with radical feminists.
10. Often, legislation of this kind is brought forward in the name of anti-trafficking programmes, when in reality they are laws which aim to control what people can and can’t do with their own bodies, combined with dangerous anti-immigration initiatives.
11. Criminalising the purchase of sex puts sex workers, especially those who work on the street, in danger.
12. It is impossible to criminalise an aspect of someone’s job without it having a negative impact on the person at work.
13. Legislation targeted at combating poverty, austerity, universalising childcare and a living wage, sufficient social housing, and accessible education funding and living grants, is more likely to ensure those who do not wish to work in the sex industry do not feel forced to by economic circumstances.

NCAFC resolves:
1. To support and campaign for the full decriminalisation of sex work.
2. To resist and campaign against any attempt to introduce the Nordic Model in the UK.
3. To support any campaign for the revocation of all “prostitute cautions” received by sex workers
4. To support and be led by the work of the English Collective of Prostitutes and Sex Worker Open University.
5. To materially support student sex workers with (although not limited to) arrestee support, lobbying MPs, direct action (led or encouraged by Sex Workers).
6. To campaign for living grants so no student has to work whilst in full time education.
7. To affiliate to the English Collective of Prostitutes.

Motion B15: Social Housing Not Social Cleansing

NCAFC notes:
1. The 2011 Localism Act gave councils the power to force homeless households out of their communities permanently and into insecure private accommodation – which itself is one of the biggest causes of homelessness.
2. In London, councils are currently moving homeless mothers and children out of their boroughs at a rate of close to 500 families a week.
3. The housing affordability crisis is also spreading beyond London and its boroughs.
4. Homelessness in the UK has risen by over 50% in the last 5 years, due mainly to consequences of benefit caps, welfare sanctions and the bedroom tax.
5. There are currently numerous grassroots campaigns such as Focus E15, New Era 4 All and the Radical Housing Network which are actively challenging social cleansing.
6. As well as supporting housing struggles beyond the student movement, we are in a key position to agitate for and lead housing struggles among students.
7. That we have successfully passed relatively radical housing policy within NUS, and the incoming NUS VP Welfare is left-winger and an NCAFC activist, meaning we are in a good position to press NUS to finally follow through on that policy.
8. The excellent progress of the Living Rent Campaign in Scotland.

NCAFC believes:
1. Following the general election result, housing campaigns are going to be a fundamental area of struggle under the new Conservative government.
2. Housing is a human right, and the left should be united in calling for this right to be upheld for all members of society.

NCAFC further believes:
1. It is vital for the student movement to express solidarity with those facing eviction and homelessness.
2. Supporting campaigns around housing is an effective way for the student movement to link up with struggles of the wider left.

NCAFC resolves:
1. To support and build for demonstrations around the topic of housing, such as the March for Homes that took place in January 2015.
2. To condemn, and call for an end to, the process of social cleansing that is taking place in London and beyond.
3. To contact existing grassroots housing campaigns with a view to establishing strong relationships, and to find out how the student movement can most effectively support their work.
4. To use our channels of communication to publicise call-outs for housing-focused direct action, such as eviction resistance and occupations.
5. To encourage the development of local campaigns around student housing, like the rent strikes at UCL and SOAS.
6. To press NUS to begin pro-actively organising these struggles and the activists around them into democratic tenants’ unions. These may include student tenant unions, but ultimately we want to unite non-student and student tenants in each area in the same unions, including by working with existing housing campaigns.
7. To support and learn from the efforts of the Living Rent Campaign in Scotland.
8. To raise a general call for “living rents” – rents set according to the needs and means of tenants, rather than the market and the profits of landlords and agents.
9. To campaign across the UK for the following demands:
a. Ban letting agency fees
b. Private sector rent controls, including measures that limit the rent that it is possible to charge according to the size, quality and location of properties (a “points system” like that in place in the Netherlands and advocated by the Living Rent Campaign).
c. Contracts that offer both security and flexibility to tenants, to replace precarious short-term contracts that give landlords all the power.
d. End all privatisation of student halls and cap rents according to student finance provisions (e.g. in higher education, at half the minimum undergraduate loan).
e. Extend housing benefit to students and oppose the Tory policy to cut it from young unemployed people.
f. End all right-to-buy policies and invest in expanded social housing, funded by taxing the incomes and properties of the wealthy, and taxing homes left empty.
Oppose measures that require or encourage landlords to check tenants’ migration status.
Motion B16: Demonstrations and their Uses

NCAFC notes:
1. There is a tendency on the student left to dismiss A to B marches as variously useless and boring
2. The NCAFC organised a very traditional demonstration in November which reinvigorated the student movement, and was a springboard for direct action
3. A new way of “doing” demonstrations is emerging: these are the more “spontaneous” ones which tend to go on a big walk around London and not be negotiated with the police or involve a pre-planned or publicised route
NCAFC believes:
1. When NCAFC has organised demonstrations, they have very rarely been just from one place to another, useless or boring
2. The “new way” of doing demonstrations has its merits for avoiding kettles and causing disruption, however it often lacks a cohesive political message or any demands and can lead to a lot of people wandering around without much to do and becomes “depoliticised.”
3. It would be naïve to think that we as a movement can organise the kind of demonstrations mentioned above and have as high a turnout as with a more traditional demonstration.
4. Mass demonstrations, even when organised in negotiation with the police, provide
1. Platforms from which more disruptive direct action can be made (for example: Millbank)
2. A way to get in a swathe of new activists
3. A way to energise the student movement
4. A tool for radicalisation of existing activists (especially against the police)
5. A tool for political education of people around the demo
6. A large focus for the national and international media, which is a good way to publicise issues.
NCAFC resolves:
1. NCAFC should always organise demonstrations with a political slogan which has clear demands
2. NCAFC should organise a mix of “traditional” marches and smaller, more spontaneous and more mobile actions