Higher education reform bill passes: we’ll fight to repeal it

Hard-won concessions have blunted and delayed some parts of the ruinous reforms, but they’re not enough. Now we fight to reverse it and win a democratic National Education Service.

Graffiti reading "What Parliament does the streets can undo"Parliament has rushed through the Conservatives’ Higher Education and Research Bill – the legislative vehicle for their ruinous agenda of fee-raising, university-privatising reforms – in advance of the snap General Election. But that doesn’t mean the issue is closed – we will keep campaigning until they’re reversed!

The battle so far

Over the past eighteen months, we’ve fought a major battle against the reforms. We have argued the case against the misleadingly named Teaching “Excellence” Framework (TEF), presented our alternative vision of a free education system governed by democracy not the chaos of the market, and through protest and direct action – most notably the boycott of the National Student Survey, which closed for 2017 last weekend – we’ve generated pressure that has extracted concrete concessions from the government. Despite attempts by some student union bureaucrats to wreck the union’s democratically-agreed strategy, the NSS boycott was taken up in large numbers on many campuses, and despite substantial spending by many universities to cajole and bribe(!) students into giving them good marks, participation at a number of institutions is expected to come out below the crucial 50% threshold that makes the data unusable.

The goal of the NSS boycott is leverage. By disrupting a mechanism that is crucial to both the future implementation of the TEF, and the current management of the HE market through league tables and disciplining workers, departments and institutions, we gain power. Instead of coming to the negotiating table empty-handed, hoping (as some student union bureaucrats naively seem to do) to convince an implacably opposed and powerful enemy with a few nice words, we say this to the government and university managers: until our demands are heard and satisfied, you will not be permitted to continue with business as usual.

And our political strategy, including the boycott and many other activities, has indeed begun to win concessions. Many amendments were passed in the House of Lords, and though the Commons reversed many of them, we retained a number, including a tightening of regulations on new private universities, and a delay in the link between the TEF and tuition fees until 2020.

What Parliament does, the streets can undo

But these compromises are not enough. Fees are still set to rise (if only with inflation), the TEF is still coming, and measures to ease and accelerate privatisation will be put into place.

However, the story is not over. Everything the government does, we have the power to resist and reverse. History is littered with failed right-wing initiatives, passed but then withdrawn in the face of protest, direct action and industrial action. Famously, Thatcher’s poll tax was scrapped after enormous numbers refused to pay it and marched in militant demonstrations across the country, making it impossible to implement.

We can and will reverse the higher education reforms by continuing and stepping up our campaign. The NSS boycott begun this year must – as the vote at NUS conference last year mandated – continue until the reforms are dead. To make the 2018 boycott bigger, we should be preparing now, in particular assessing our local campaigns to learn from what worked well, and convincing and signing-up next year’s boycotters as far in advance as possible.

We also need protest and direct action, locally and nationally. Actions should be part of a coherent drive to add to the pressure, win hearts and minds to join the campaign, mobilise and organise activists, put the issue on the public agenda, and issue a show of force to our institutions and the government. We need discussions with education workers, whose trade unions supported our boycott enthusiastically, to see how we can cooperate and how their industrial muscle might be brought to bear on the issue.

And our movement and NUS need to organise all this under the banner of an unequivocal political demand. No fudging and no tinkering round the edges – let’s be crystal clear that we won’t settle for less than the complete reversal of the reforms.


The campaign also needs to offer a convincing, concrete alternative that can inspire and win people to the cause. We’re not simply asking for the old status quo back and we shouldn’t pretend it was good enough. Instead we want to revolutionise education and build a democratically-run, free-to-access, cradle-to-grave National Education Service, open to everyone and serving people not profit. And we will fund this and other social measures by taxing the rich and taking over the banks. So please keep contributing to NCAFC’s big debate to build our vision of what that would look like.

The General Election

Finally, the results of the upcoming General Election will have a massive impact. As well as the smaller parties on the left, now the Labour leadership supports free education too. We want opposition parties to pledge that they will reverse the reforms and build the free and democratic education system we are demanding. If Labour or a Labour-led coalition forms the next government on such pledges, that will be excellent but even then we can’t sit back and rely on leaders to solve our problems for us. They’ll face resistance and pressure to compromise, and we’ll need to stay active to demonstrate support and generate pressure in the opposite direction for the Left to follow through on its promises. And if the election results in a Tory government or a Tory-led coalition, we won’t give up. So either way, protest and direct action will be needed.

Educate, agitate, organise!

We have a big battle ahead of us, but it’s one we can win. So let’s get out there and educate, agitate, organise – keep spreading the word about what is happening, raising our demands and arguing to convince people of our cause, and getting democratically organised for discussion and action. That means both in local groups from campus Free Education campaigns to Labour Clubs, and on the national level – come to NCAFC’s Summer Conference to discuss and decide our next steps.

See you on the streets to reverse the reforms!

Sheffield’s fee rise shows why we need disruptive action

sheff tefJosh Berlyne, University of Sheffield

On Monday Sheffield University announced it will be raising tuition fees. As part of opting in to the Teaching Excellence Framework, fees will rise to £9,250 for undergraduates next year, and may rise to £10,000 by 2020.

This has happened despite over 3,000 students, staff and alumni signing an open letter calling on the university to opt out of the TEF.  It has happened despite Sheffield having a Vice-Chancellor who has consistently opposed tuition fees, and who has been vocal in his opposition to the TEF. This highlights a number of important points.

First, opposition to the marketisation and privatisation of universities—which fee rises, the TEF, and the higher education reforms more generally embody—will not be successful if it is localised. Universities are subject to the imperatives of a financial system which is out of their control. Any semblance of democratic control over the financing of higher education (if it could ever have been said to exist) has been blasted away; with central governmental funding slashed, universities must rely on tuition fees to sustain their budgets. As inflation rises, costs rise. This means tuition fees must also rise.

This leads to the second point. Since universities are subject to these financial imperatives, completely out of democratic control, winning the moral argument is not sufficient. No matter how convinced a Vice-Chancellor is that education should be free, they will always give in to the short-term financial pressures imposed on them. Students need to make it in the financial interests of the university and the state to act in the interests of students and workers. That means disruptive action.

The present state of affairs in universities means that the interests of students and workers are placed secondary to the financial interests of universities.  This is the wrong way around. The interests of universities should be put in line with the interests of students and workers.  The only way to do this is through democratic control.

The process of marketisation, which hands control over to the imperatives of the market, is being driven forwards by the present round of higher education reforms.  Thus resisting these reforms is a crucial part of the battle for democratic control.  The NSS boycott, which is being organized on 21 campuses across the country, is one way to generalize this battle.  In disrupting the ways in which universities are internally managed, and disrupting the management of the UK higher education sector as a whole, the boycott gives students the power to force concessions from the government.  On those campuses where a boycott is happening, students should get involved; on those where a boycott is not yet being organized, students should make organizing one their priority.

The “Teaching Excellence Framework”: exploiting staff, raising fees and marketising education

Tory Minister for Universities & Science, Jo Johnson

Tory Minister for Universities & Science, Jo Johnson

James Elliott, NUS NEC Disabled Students’ Rep & NCAFC Disabled co-rep

Usually when governments say that something, whether students, quality, or access is ‘at the heart of the system’, that is when the student movement needs to pay close attention. Recent statements by the new Universities Minister Jo Johnson and the 2015 budget from George Osborne have confirmed this – we are not ‘at the heart of the system’, but capital definitely is.

Following in the footsteps of David Willetts’ Higher Education White Paper “students at the heart of the system”, new Tory Universities Minister Jo Johnson has announced “teaching at the heart of the system” – which seems to mean a further round of teaching casualisation, institutional funding linked directly to graduate earnings, and even higher tuition fees.

What Jo Johnson proposed is to introduce a new ‘Teaching Excellence Framework’ (TEF) to parallel the ‘Research Excellence Framework’, which uses a set of metrics to rank universities every five years and award them funding based on the results. This will include ‘outcome-focused’ metrics, and Johnson’s original speech included the phrase, “clear financial and reputational incentives to make ‘good’ teaching even better.”

Johnson was asked by the London South Bank Vice-Chancellor if this was to be “linked to pricing of courses”, which he evaded and refused to rule out. In the Commons, Johnson was asked by Labour MPs, including the former Blairite President of NUS Wes Streeting, to rule out a fee rise and refused. Then this week, in his budget, George Osborne announced fees would be able to rise in line with inflation at institutions with measures that, “include allowing institutions offering high teaching quality to increase their tuition fees in line with inflation from 2017-18, with a consultation on the mechanisms to do this.”

What does this ‘TEF’ mean?

The Times Higher Education’s John Morgan has analysed what this might mean, predicting that once the Conservatives have passed “English Votes for English Laws”, they may be in a better position to get a rise in fees for English universities through Parliament, and then those that do well in the TEF may be allowed to raise fees.

This will be set out in an autumn Green Paper, usually a precursor to legislation – and an Act of Parliament could be a sign that the TEF will be linked to a fee hike, or at least a variation in the cap. I explained how this might work for NCAFC this week.

The TEF has ramifications beyond just tuition fees, however, and is another logical step in the marketisation of higher education. The ‘outcome-focused’ metrics are likely to measure things such as graduate salaries which clearly have nothing to do with the quality of one’s education. This will hugely disfavour teaching staff who train students who go into low-paid public sector work, like becoming the next generation of casualised academic workers. It will also fail to take into account that people with higher-earning parents will go into higher-paying graduate jobs, not necessarily through good teaching but through personal contacts or early advantages in life.

What is the Research Excellence Framework, and what is wrong with it?

The Teaching Excellence Framework follows in the footsteps of the Research Excellence Framework. Described by Peter Scott, Professor of Higher Education Studies at the Institute of Education, as “a Minotaur that must be appeased by bloody sacrifices”, where, “universities’ main objective is to achieve better REF grades, not to produce excellent science and scholarship”. The REF is the governments method of allocating research funding to institutions. For 2014, 1,100 academics graded 191,232 research outputs submitted to REF, where sometimes just one assessor will grade your research. The system is erratic, and unpredictable, and could see departments closing from a loss in funding. In one half-joking Guardian piece advising academics how to do well in the REF, they are told, “Don’t write a book or extended monograph: the REF makes no distinction between research outputs, so there is no incentive to undertake long-term projects. Also don’t bother with risky, visionary or imaginative projects unless you can be absolutely certain that you will get a publication out of it. No publication means no impact.”

Sound like the sort of thing that university teaching could do with? No, us neither.

What did Jo Johnson actually say?

Let’s take a closer look at what Johnson actually said. He claimed his focus will be on three key manifesto pledges, which are lifting the cap on student numbers, delivering the TEF, and finally, “driving value for money both for students investing in their education, and taxpayers underwriting the system”. Johnson says he plans to, “assess the employment and earnings returns to education by matching Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and Department for Education (DfE) education data with HMRC employment and income data and Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) benefits data.”

This will likely mean that the outcome-focused metrics are all about graduate earnings and employment. A ‘good teacher’ is no longer someone who enriches your understanding of a subject, or enhances your critical thinking, they are now a glorified careers service – and their success will be measured by your paycheque.

Johnson also talked up the National Student Survey (NSS), a continued irritant for education workers who are pitted against one another in a quantitative survey. These kinds of metrics hurt workers in education, facilitating their exploitation, as quality of education is not something that can be polled, quantitatively measured or bottled up and weighed. These bogus metrics are then used to justify redundancies, funding cuts, and drive workers to striver harder and harder to ‘outperform’ their colleagues, fostering antipathy and a competitive spirit among staff that divides them.

What is particularly damaging is the repeated references to the Competitive Markets Authority, and polls conducted by the Higher Education Policy Institute, which seem to indicate students are increasingly thinking of themselves as consumers buying a product – and that their teachers must be graded on their ‘customer service’.

Unsurprisingly for such an ardent Thatcherite, Johnson notes, “competition will also be central to our efforts to drive up standards”, a continuation of a policy which has seen almost half of academics pressured into giving higher grades and struggle with unmanageable workloads.

While paying lip service to the notion that, “education is about more than just wage returns”, Johnson went quickly back on course by reminding students that, “it is also important to remember that higher lifetime graduate earnings provide benefits to society – including higher tax revenues and faster and fuller repayment of student loans.” Johnson has redefined ‘education as a public good’ to mean ‘work hard for the bosses and pay off your debts’.

There are further references to making sure higher education matches the needs of big business, including the very explicit statement that, “we are not yet rising to the challenge of ensuring that enough young people are choosing courses where there are skills shortages and strong employer demand”. While this technocratic, business-led approach to higher education is not dissimilar from what Labour were offering before the general election, Johnson may outline in more detail what this means in his Autumn Green Paper.

Then comes the final explanation of what his ‘TEF’ will look like. In a mission to “drive up standards in teaching”, Johnson will, “stimulate a diverse HE market and provide students with the information they need to judge teaching quality”. This explicit marketisation will give students indicators of which course suits them best, to be provided by his TEF. In neoclassical market economics, ‘pricing signals’, are required to indicate a product’s worth. Demand goes up, so does the price. Given this (unexpectedly, and probably deliberately) failed in higher education with so many institutions charging £9,000 straightaway, there is of course nothing to differentiate between – except for things the government wouldn’t imagine we would value, such as the course content, who’s teaching, the location and any number of other, non-monetary factors. Part of Johnson’s justification for the ‘TEF’ thus appears to be that it will help you, as future students, pick your course. Kind of like a Which? for HE, but where the poor performers face job cuts and closures.

Reassuringly and honestly, Johnson finishes by reminding us that this TEF, “goes with the grain of our reforms since 2010 and aims to accelerate positive changes already underway in the sector.”

Most worryingly, Johnson then talks about ‘incentives’, and says that they will be published in the Green paper in the autumn. What better way to make potential applicants aware of what the best institutions are than by allowing those universities to ‘price’ themselves somewhere above the current £9,000 cap? And what better way to reward such ‘teaching excellence’ than to allow those (likely already very rich) institutions to bring in more cash though higher fees? It’s a win-win for the bosses, and a lose-lose for students who pay more and the staff who are pressurised.

What are the politics behind this?

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), which universities sits under, is in financial trouble. They have to make the same austerity commitments as other departments, and in 2010 that meant replacing all the lost funding from central government (the grant for humanities teaching was all but abolished) by trebling fees. Higher fees, and the move by almost all universities to charge the maximum, has meant that huge amounts of public money are having to be loaned out to an increasing number of students – 45% of which is expected to not get paid back. This has created a huge strain, and led to the move to sell-off student loans.

BIS are now being asked to find another £450m of cuts from somewhere, hence Osborne’s cuts to maintenance grants, and making universities rather than the state responsible for Disabled Students Allowance (DSA) from 2016/17.

Now in order to provide some relief to the Vice-Chancellors and the sector, Johnson is throwing them the promise of some extra cash (in the form of higher fees) if they jump through the hoops in his new TEF. If institutions offer the right courses for business (in other words, fund science at the expense of the humanities), and students play ball by looking to pay off their enormous debts, then everyone at the institution will win the reward of a tuition fee hike.

How does the student movement fight back?

We need to start fighting now against the potential threats, not wait until the government explains things in more detail, by which time it will be too late. This has always been a failure of the student movement and often the NUS, in playing the waiting game and merely ‘consulting’, when it should be protesting and picketing. We need to get the word out quickly that this is bad news, and defeat the Green Paper before it is even published. That means mobilisation, linking students’ unions up with UCU branches, and building for the national demonstration in November.

We must present our alternative which is democratic control of teaching, in the interests of students, communities but also teachers and workers themselves. When the government consult, we must simply tell them they are wrong as loudly as possible, not try and get a seat at the table.

There may well be attempts to integrate students’ unions and the NUS into the process of drawing up this system, and running it, in order to give a sheen of legitimacy and make ‘students as consumers’ feel ‘empowered’ by the TEF, like we are finally getting our ‘value for money’ by reviewing our teachers. We should be totally opposed to this.  The fundamental basis of these policies is anathema to us – they can’t be fixed so they must be smashed – and the stance of the student movement should be no collaboration. Just as UCU is advising its branches to not comply with the Islamophobic Prevent programme (which is also the Conference policy of the NUS), our SUs should not contribute to the implementation or governance of this system except to say it should be stopped outright, that we reject markets in education, and that we will not be tricked into thinking these policies empower students.

“Students and workers, unite and fight” is not just a slogan, but a principle. The government that is going to raise our fees and cut our grants is not only the same that is cutting staff pay and introducing metrics to discipline the workforce – but these policies are inextricably linked. We must fight them both, together.

Labour leaders’ refusal to set policy on education funding is cowardly dithering

Photo of Liam Byrne MP (Shadow Minister for Universities, Science and Skills) at a podium

Just weeks after releasing his feeble, reactionary essay on education policy, “Robbins Rebooted”, Labour’s shadow HE minister Liam Byrne has said it would be “tough” to make its fees policies clear before December. This is a back-track from Labour’s earlier position. The party had previously appeared likely to announce that they would cut the undergrad UK/EU fee cap from £9000 to £6000. That would have been far from enough – we would continue to fight the proposals and demand free education – but at least it would have been a clear plan. This retreat echoes Byrne’s refusal in “Robbins Rebooted” to go beyond vague noises to clear commitments on a postgraduate fee policy.

The Labour leadership says it is holding off committing to spending on this and other areas, but it is still banking on students’ votes, which it describes as “critical”. It has caved and embraced the logic of austerity, and expects us to do the same. We refuse.

There is no justification for this conservatism. The money is there: in fact, our society is awash in immense wealth. The only issue is that that wealth is squandered, locked up in the bank accounts, mansions and businesses of the rich. Labour claims to be the party of the working class. If so, it should commit to taking back the wealth that class creates, and putting it to better use. Propose serious, properly enforced taxes on the income, assets and businesses of the wealthy, and take the banks under democratic control. Use this vast wealth to provide free, accessible education at every level, to rebuild and improve the NHS and other public services, and to guarantee decent wages and benefits.


NCAFC Conference Report

Report of NCAFC conference

The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts national conference took place in Birmingham on December 8th and 9th.  150 activists came together from all over the country to co-ordinate local struggles and plan the future of NCAFC.

The general tone of the conference was constructive and determined: one of developing ideas, strategies and structures to allow the student movement to fight and win when it next surges. There was a huge array of discussion and debate – in informal and formal sessions, as well as self-organised spaces for Liberation groups, and a lot of socialising and fun. (If you have photos of the conference, please email them to [email protected])

In this report:

1.Structural Outcomes of the conference

2.What conference voted for

3. Workshops roundup

4. Liberation, Section and Regional caucuses roundup

5. Election Results

6.  Motions passed in full


1.Structural Outcomes of the conference

The conference was a major step forward for the campaign, and for the first time established a clear set of core principles and a constitution for NCAFC.  This means:

  • NCAFC has a charter of core principles
  • NCAFC is now a membership organisation with:  watch this space for info on how to become a member
  • When the student movement next has an upsurge, we can dissolve our existing structures into a directly democratic delegate model
  • Local anti-cuts and other societies can now affiliate to NCAFC
  • NCAFC is in the process of setting up a new Federation of students or student unions, to which unions or students can affiliate. This will be decided at a conference, which will occur within 6 months

2. What conference voted for

The full text of what was passed is below. In short, NCAFC decided to:

  • Work on creating broad, non-sectarian anticuts groups on every campus
  • Push forward with a central political campaign for free education funded by taxation of the rich, while also focussing on neglected issues which affect many students, including housing and the NHS
  • Make the call for the abolition of all debt a serious political priority
  • Build a network of school and FE students, on the basis of campaigning for living grants; building fighting college students’ unions; opposing privatisation & marketisation; opposing market-driven mergers and cuts in courses and lecturers; and resisting all fees in education
  • Run a campaign on students’ rights as workers
  • Link up with Medsin, BMA Students, Keep Our NHS Public and the NHS Unity Network to fight what the government is doing to healthcare
  • Campaign within the Labour Movement for a coalition of ‘Trade Unions for free education.’
  • Organise towards a united left intervention within NUS
  • Make links with student activists in Sri Lanka against violent attacks on them


3.Workshops roundup

The conference provided a lot of opportunities for useful informal discussion of a wide range of topics. These included:

The fight for Further Education

International students – for dignity, against deportations!,

What’s happening to our Unis? An overview of attacks on HE

Change the world – Organise at work!

The lessons of the Quebec students’ struggle

Defending abortion rights

Student union democracy – smashing “their” structures and building our own

Saving the NHS


4. Liberation, Section and Regional caucuses roundup

Disabled Caucus

Disabled students caucus ran a lot more smoothly than it ever has before. Usually our time is entirely consumed discussing access needs at the actual event but those were so well organised for, that following elections, (in which Matthew Reuben and Edmund Schlussel were elected uncontested) we began a discussion on bullying. We talked about the way it can destroy movements and officers, how to counteract it, and how to support each other. We also discussed how there is a culture of silence around disability and, especially, ‘invisible’ disability on the left, and how to tackle it. Looking to the future we want to get involved in the cross-liberation conference we hope to plan for early Spring, and we want to prepare, probably two, workshops for the next training event. We also intend to build links with groups such as DPAC with the goal of calling a national day of action against ATOS in the new year.

LGBTQ Caucus

There were about 30 delegates present but we believe work must be done to engage more LGBTQ activists, especially Black* and Trans* students. We discussed issues that affect LGBTQ students, for instance cuts in public sector services for LGBTQ people, access to health services and education due to money issues and coming out, and lack of visibility for LGBTQ students.

After elections, we talked about the idea of “community”, and how the many local LGBT societies have become depoliticised and prone to doing only inaccessible/stereotypical social events. We want to engage societies and clubs around universities and colleges in a radical political community, and in NCAFC. The caucus agreed that there was a job to do in terms of intervening in the NUS LGBT Campaign, which has radical potential.

It was also agreed to call and hold a Liberation Conference where all self identify Disabled, Black, Women, and LGBTQ people can attend to discuss issues and unify efforts to campaign for all of the groups and improve Intersectionality work. We will aim to combine this with Liberation Training sessions.

Black Power Caucus

Around 14 people attended the Black Power Caucus. This isn’t great but is an improvement on previous years. Much of the caucus’s time was taken up with a debate around elections and candidates within the caucus, but it was ultimately productive. After elections, the caucus discussed using different forms of communications – including social media – to organise, and setting up an e-list. The caucus also agreed to organise an event in the near future.

Women’s Caucus

The women’s caucus elected a new women’s committee of 9 people which aims to support the activity of women in the NCAFC locally and organise for national activity; facilitate communication and skills sharing between women activists; and promote broader involvement in NCAFC Women and the NCAFC.

We reflected on the experience of conference so far (meeting on the Saturday evening). We agreed that, despite the fact it was statistically male-dominated, it was the most positive and accessible conference we had experienced. To build upon this and improve future events we agreed to explore ensuring gender neutral toilets, childcare provision and working together to propose motions and support each other to prepare speeches and participate more actively in motions debates. We also agreed to approach the other liberation caucuses to consider how we could improve diversity within the women’s caucus.

Reviewing the Charter for Women in Education (passed at last NCAFC conference) we discussed a few areas on which we would like to focus activity in the coming period. In particular, defending and extending abortion rights; fighting against attacks on the NHS; and defending or fighting to reinstate childcare support services on campuses, stood out. We also discussed how we might relate to support networks for women who experienced violence or abuse, and considered researching the experiences of women in education around this issue.

Scotland Caucus

The group discussed how best to organise the Scottish section of NCAFC. A consensus was reached to establish a relationship similar to that of NUS UK and NUS Scotland. A working group was established to organise a conference in February to constitute NCAFC Scotland as a federation of affiliated unions, groups and individuals. It was agreed the conference would meet in Aberdeen, and the group would approach as many sympathetic groups as possible.

The working group consists of NC members from Scottish institutions, namely Megan Dunn, Mike Shaw, James McAsh, Gordon Maloney, Lucy Eskell, Hona Luisa Cohen-Fuentes and Nathan Bower-Bir. Elections were held for the NCAFC Scotland representatives on national committee, with Megan Dunn (University of Aberdeen) and Mike Shaw (University of Edinburgh) elected.


The group also briefly discussed recent changes in education policy in Scotland and the need to organise around housing issues.

Welsh Caucus

The Welsh caucus was bigger than in previous years.  Elections were held for the Campaign Against Fees & Cuts Cymru Committee and is now Edmund (Cardiff), Andrew (Aberystwyth), and Jamie O’Brien (Aberystwyth).

A new announcement on HE policy in Wales is due after Christmas, and we’ll be looking at how we can develop anti-cuts groups in Wales and to engage these groups in CAFCC/NCAFC.

International Caucus

The International Caucus had a well-attended and productive meeting, during which we discussed a breadth of issues confronting non-home, and in particular non-EU/EEA, students here in the UK. Some of the most pressing issues we addressed include the following: Obtaining student visas; strict monitoring of students, including attendance monitoring and the government’s “Prevent” agenda; high, volatile fees; new regulations for remaining in the UK post-study; and the UK Border Agency’s revocation of sponsor status from colleges and universities (e.g. London Met), leading to students’ loss of their visas (taking note also of the particular challenges faced by students of private colleges). We discussed the problems that follow from these—including added stress, feelings of alienation, and the threat of deportation—, noting further that many of our challenges are linked to the other Liberation Caucuses and that we would benefit from greater collaboration. 

As we enhance our understanding of these issues and their effects, we seek to engage more international students on our own and other campuses to build a broader movement. A conference to be held in Bradford in or around late February will provide us the opportunity to coordinate with other campaigns and groups to delve deeper into these issues and agree upon direct action we can take. 

We selected three members to represent us on the National Committee: Arianna Tassinari, Aadam Siciid-Muuse, and Nathan Bower-Bir.

Jewish Left Caucus

A caucus of self-defining Jewish NCAFC supporters caucused towards the end of the conference, to talk about issues such as jewish political identity and anti-Semitism. Discussion focussed on a number of issues, including the recent release of anti-Semitic cartoons by the ISG in Scotland. The caucus decided not to ask for representation on the NC, but will be an active informal caucus within the campaign. If you want to be involved, email [email protected]


5. Election Results: a total of 38 elections took place

National Committee ‘Block of 14′ members (14 elected, 40% reserved for women):

  • Beth Redmond, Liverpool John Moores
  • Luke Durigan, UCL
  • Roshni Joshi, South Downs College
  • James McAsh, Edinburgh University
  • Michael Chessum, UCL and ULU
  • Gordon Maloney, Aberdeen University
  • Claire Lister, Birmingham University
  • Daniel Lemberger Cooper, Royal Holloway and ULU
  • Rosie Huzzard, Sheffield College
  • Naomi Beecroft, Edinburgh University
  • Edward Maltby, London
  • Hannah Webb, UCL
  • Simon Furse, Birmingham University
  • Matt Stanley, Mid Kent College


Scotland Region (sharing 1 vote on the NC):

  • Mike Shaw, Edinburgh University (Open Place)
  • Megan Dunn, Aberdeen University (Women’s Place)


Wales Region (sharing 1 vote on the NC):

  • Andrew Tindall, Aberystwyth University
  • Edmund Schluessel, Cardiff University
  • Jamie O’Brien, Aberystwyth University


London Region (sharing 1 vote on the NC):

  • Alex Peters-Day, London School of Economics
  • Thais Yáñez, Birkbeck College


Women’s Campaign (sharing 1 vote on the NC):

  • Esther Townsend, University of East London
  • Thais Yanez, Birkbeck
  • Beth Redmond, Liverpool John Moores
  • Alice Marshall, Hull University
  • Ella Thorp, Newcastle University
  • Hanna Moy, Edinburgh University
  • Naomi Beecroft, Edinburgh University
  • Alannah Mary Jane Ainslie, Aberdeen University
  • Hona Luisa Cohen-Fuentes, Edinburgh University


Disabled Campaign (sharing 1 vote on the NC):

  • Edmund Schluessel, Cardiff University
  • Matthew Reuben, Royal Holloway and Cordoba


Black Power Campaign (sharing 1 vote on the NC):

  • Ravi Maitreya Normandale, SOAS (Open Place)
  • Roshni Joshi, South Downs College (Women’s Place)


LGBTQ Campaign (sharing 1 vote on the NC):

  • Jack Saffery-Rowe, Royal Holloway (Open Place)
  • Sarah Watson, Aberdeen University (Women’s Place)
  • Thais Yanez, Birkbeck  (Trans Place)


International Section (sharing 1 vote on the NC):

  • Arianna Tassinari, Oxford
  • Nathan Bower-Bir, Edinburgh University
  • Aadam Muuse, Bradford



6.  Motions passed in full

The NCAFC constitution which passed is now available on the website: to see it, please click here.


Standing Orders, Debating Procedure, and Safe Spaces Policy

Conference procedures

The Secretariat is responsible for allocating chairs to sessions and for running the debates, including procedural motions and compositing. They sit near the chair, and may not vote.

The debating procedure is as follows:

1. A proposing speech for the motion

2. Debates on any amendments to the main motion, which follow the procedure in 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

3. An equally timed opposing speech against the motion

4. Further debate at the chair’s discretion until the debate is balanced

5. Parts procedure

6. A vote. If the chair deems that there is a clear majority, they may declare the motion passed or fallen. If the chair cannot call the vote, the vote must be counted by the Secretariat, who may ask for assistance from members of the NC.


The parts procedure is as follows:

–          Any conference attendee may call for parts by specifying them in writing to the chair

–          The parts may be to REMOVE or PASS any part of any motion or amendment

–          The chair shall call one timed speech in favour of the parts (property of their proposer) and one equally timed speech against. They may call more if the debate is contentious and there is time.


Procedural motions are as follows

1. A challenge to the chair’s ruling on a vote: if this passes a revote on the motion or amendment will be held without further debate.

2. A call for a revote on any given amendment or motion: if this passes a revote on the motion or amendment will be held without further debate.

3. A call for a recount on any given amendment or motion: if this passes a count will take place again.

4. A call for more speeches on any given amendment or motion: if this passes, another round of speeches will be held. (The chair may also accept this motion without a vote).

5. No confidence in the Chair: if this passes, a new Chair will be elected from the floor by show of hands.

6. A call for a suspension of procedural motions: if this passes, no procedural motions may be proposed other than motion 8.

7. A call for a change in the agenda: if this passes, the agenda will be amended accordingly.

8. A reinstatement of procedural motions: if this passes, the outcome of motion 6 is reversed.


Procedural motions take precedence over the debating procedure. They can be proposed by any conference attendee.  In the case of motion 5, the Chair will vacate, and the debate will be chaired by a member of the Secretariat.


Elections at conference

The following elections shall take place at conference:

  • Elections for the National Committee
  • Elections in autonomous caucuses


The Secretariat have responsibility for co-ordinating non-autonomous elections at conference, and appointing a Returning Officer or returning Officers. Returning Officers have responsibility for running and announcing elections at conference, and may not run for election themselves.


The elections for non-autonomous elections shall be held as follows:

–          Candidates must nominate themselves by a set deadline

–          Candidates running for the same position shall be given the same allocated hustings length

–          The voting system shall be Single Transferable Vote

–          If a gender quota system is in place, ballots will be counted regardless of it in the first instance. The lowest ordinarily elected non-quota candidates will then be excluded from the count, and candidates on the quota promoted, until the quota has been satisfied.


Liberation, section and regional caucuses shall hold elections for their positions as follows:

–          Elections must be held at every conference. (Caucuses may also hold additional elections at training caucuses if they vote to do so).

–          Elections shall be run by an appointee of the caucus.

–          Candidates shall make elections speeches, and have equal time allocated

–          Elections may be approved by show of hands if any position is uncontested; if not, Alternative Vote must be used



Safer Spaces Policy

Anyone who comes to NCAFC-organised events is subject to this policy.

NCAFC cannot fully meet its goals if it is not fully inclusive, or if it leaves any demographic feeling marginalised, unrepresented, or unwelcome. This safe space policy is designed to ensure that meetings take place in a considerate and relevant manner, without participants being undermined for discriminatory reasons.

If someone violates these agreements three times, they will be asked to leave the space. The three-strike policy can be bypassed if a serious infraction of these agreements happens, to the extent that someone feels unsafe. Examples of serious infractions include, but are not limited to, harassment, bullying, theft, sexual harassment, sexual assault and threatening or violent behaviour. NCAFC takes all violations of these agreements seriously, so please don’t hesitate to make your concerns known.

1. To ensure that the safe(r) space policy is followed, it is imperative that the chairing process is not impeded.

2. Discrimination of any kind is unacceptable and will be challenged. This includes, but is not limited to: racism, ageism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, sexism, body-shaming, slut-shaming or ableism. Similarly, prejudice based on ethnicity, nationality, class, gender identity, gender presentation, language, ability, asylum status, political or religious affiliation will not be tolerated.

3. Respect each other’s physical and emotional boundaries. Always get explicit verbal consent before touching someone or crossing boundaries, regardless of the intentions behind the contact. Sexual harassment or sexual assault will lead to the perpetrator being banned from meetings and police involvement, if desired by the victim(s), will be fully supported. If you encounter any kind of harassment or assault please let us know, so that those responsible can be dealt with.

4. Be aware of the social space you occupy, as well as the positions and privileges you may be conveying, including racial, class and gender privilege. If a member of a liberation strand requests that you change your use of language regarding topics about their liberation strand, please be respectful and change your use of language. If you are unsure as to the reason your language was inappropriate or offensive, please politely contact the relevant liberation strand officers.

5. Avoid assuming the opinions and identifications of other participants. Examples include, but are not limited to, assumptions regarding sex, sexuality, gender identity, preferred personal pronouns, neurotypicality, able-bodied status, socio-economic background, political opinion, relationship model and religious beliefs.

6. Recognize that we try not to judge, put each other down or compete.

7. Be aware of the language you use in discussion and how you relate to others. Try to speak slowly, clearly and use uncomplicated language. Please do not applaud people as it impacts on the accessibility of events. If you are unsure of the terminology relating to another’s circumstances it is generally preferable to seek clarification, rather than risk using inaccurate or stereotyping terms.

8. The group endeavours as much as is feasible to ensure that meeting spaces are as accessible as possible to the widest range of people. Where it is allowed by the venue, there will be a supervised quiet/safe space room available at every event. In addition to this, if there has not been an access break in the previous 90 minutes, or if the atmosphere of a meeting has become counter-productive to reasoned discussion, then an access break of no less than 10 minutes must be taken by everyone, if requested by any one person.

9. Conferences, training events and workshops are alcohol- and illicit drug-free. There shall be no consumption of alcohol in the venue during the specified conference, training event or workshop times. Social events organised outside of these by NCAFC will allow the consumption of alcohol, unless stated otherwise by the event organisers.

10. Foster a spirit of mutual respect: listen to the wisdom everyone brings to the group and treat people with respect.

11. Give each person the time and space to speak. In large groups, or for groups using facilitation: use the approved hand signals to indicate you wish to speak. These hand signals will be clarified at the start of each discussion.

12. “Respect the person; challenge their behaviour.”: whilst a person’s behaviour may be problematic, everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and their behaviour does not negate that fact.

13. Whilst ground rules are collective responsibility, everyone is also personally responsible for their own behaviour.


Challenging Bullying in the student movement


1. A culture of bullying is rife throughout the NUS and its member unions, targeted at anyone who challenges established order.


1. This culture puts the health of many student activists and the health of the student movement at risk.

2. This culture is not confined to any one faction or political aligment.


1. We will work to propose a constructive solution to the culture of bullying in the student movement

2. We will speak openly about bullying and its consequences

3. We will examine our own behaviour as individuals and a movement as a step to this openness.


Access at NCAFC Events


1 *That there are a number of disabled people, and people with access requirements that regularly attend, or might wish to attend NCAFC events

2 *That NCAFC currently has no accessibility policy

3 *That NCAFC Disabled Caucus ran a session on access needs during the liberation session, and took suggestions for what would be necessary from as many people as possible


1 *That more disabled people will feel comfortable attending NCAFC events if access information is made clear from the outset

2 *That access has been severely compromised at previous NCAFC events and this is not acceptable


1 *To implement the following as standard for all NCAFC Events:

-A method of asking people to declare access needs when registering for the conference

-Documents (motions, timetable, any other documents) being released online as .doc and .pdf a week in advance of the conference to allow people time to print or prepare for them as necessary

-The venue being a location with accessible public transport links

-Information regarding whether the venue is wheelchair accessible to be released at the same time as the venue is released

-Access breaks of at least 15 minutes, at least every 90 minutes, to be standard, timetabled, and not to be voted on

-Explanation being given to all delegates regarding the inappropriate nature of clapping and whooping, and hand signals to be explained instead

-Explanation being given about why ableist language is no more acceptable than homophobic, transphobic, racist, or sexist language

2 *To attempt to implement the following at all NCAFC events, and inform attendees as early as possible if this cannot be implemented

-A timetable to be kept to exactly, without any unexpected changes, delays or alterations

-A microphone and hearing loop system, both to ensure people are able to hear the debate

-All venues to be fully wheelchair accessible, with ramps and lifts as necessary

-Members of the NC who can be approached for assistance to be easily visually identifiable

-All documents available on coloured paper or with coloured acetate overlays

-Sweets and water to be available on or near conference floor

-A quiet area to be present for people if they wish to leave conference floor


1 *The NC to implement all of Resolves 1 for every further event

2 *The NC to attempt to implement Resolves 2 for every further event and inform attendees when this will not be possible

3 *The NC to look into the viability of a palantypist, sign interpretation, streaming, and large video screens of speakers for future events

4* Whomever is responsible for putting together a timetable to discuss it with the representative(s) of disabled caucus on the NC before it is released, to ensure it is accessible.


Developing the NCAFC

The NCAFC has now existed for almost three years. During that time the campaign has served an irreplaceable function as the only national left-wing student organisation uniting in struggle, on the basis of honest cooperation and an open democracy, activists with widely differing political views. This has allowed us to play a major role.

The British student movement is noticeably stronger than it was four years ago. However, compared to the upheavals of late 2010 and early 2011, there is a relative lull. It is vital that we use this space to solidify our organisation, reach out to wider layers of activists, step up our political agitation, education and self-education, and develop our campaigns.

It is important that we do not think of the student movement as just waiting for the next big bang. Even a much bigger organisation than ours currently is cannot create mass movements at will. None of us predicted the revolt of winter 2010-11 (though with hindsight we can see its precursors in the Gaza occupations of 2009 and the local anti-cuts battles of 2009-10); no one in Quebec predicted their 2012 student uprising. Major differences between the Quebecois student movement and ours not withstanding, the lesson from Quebec is that ASSE built a solid organisation active in many campaigns and undertaking many initiatives during the quieter periods, creating the conditions for the upheaval, playing a central role in its victory – and developing its organisation out of the struggle.

What we need to do is help student activists Educate, Agitate and Organise around a range of issues, developing our ideas, organisation and campaigns on a variety of levels.

Some of what we need to do will be dealt with in other motions. But over the next sixth months development of the NCAFC should include:

1. On an organisational level: a better functioning, more regularly meeting National Committee, which creates subcommittees and working groups to research and organise on a variety of issues; a proper system of affiliations by local groups, student unions etc; and a concerted drive to extend our network of contact with local groups.
2. Seeking to develop broad, non-sectarian, united student anti-cuts/mobilising committees on every campus, with a focus on fighting cuts and privatisation and making links with campus workers as they resist the squeeze on their pay, terms and conditions which seems to be the main feature of management attacks this year.
3. Relaunching and developing existing campaigns such as Take Back Your Campus and the VC Pledge.
4. Developing campaigns on issues which affect or interest large numbers of students, but are currently neglected by the organised student left, such as housing and the NHS.
5. Building a solid network of FE and school student activists through Schools and Colleges Against Fees and Cuts.
6. Develop the work with and among international students done in the last months.
7. Running a political campaign on who should pay for free education and to rebuild education and public services, focused on two key demands: tax the rich/business and expropriate the banks.
8. Producing more and better NCAFC materials.

9. Extending and developing our international links.
10. Producing materials on the content, purpose and control of education under the title “Education for Liberation”.


• Student Worker Motion

This Conference Notes:

  1. A NUS survey noted – “The overwhelming majority of students, three out of four, take on paid employment to help make ends meet, either during term time or during the holidays. Holiday work is more popular than term time work, with 51 per cent of students planning to work during the holidays” (NUS Student Experience Report, 2008, p.33).
  2. These forms of employment are usually unskilled, low paid and casualised such as within bar or retail work.
  3. The “Supersize My Pay” campaign from the UNITE union in New Zealand which broke legal minimum wage discrimination that existed for the minimum waged young workers as well as the recent Wal-Mart and fast food industrial actions in the USA.
  4. Progress already made by the GMB Trade Union Southern Region Young Members, Royal Holloway University and the University of London Union (ULU) in establishing student worker networks and the successes particularly at Royal Holloway already of winning conditions for students and fighting for recognition with the student union there.


This Conference Believes:

  1. That we must begin to help organise students who work on campus and elsewhere not just for better conditions, but as a fundamentally political activity, one that can equip students when they leave university with the skills in their workplaces to fight back but also be part of transforming the labour movement in the here and now.
  2. That NCAFC wherever it is present needs to be part of the argument that students should see themselves as workers: that education we receive is the product of labour, from cleaners, admins to lecturers etc. and to join with these workers for better conditions for all.


This Conference Resolves:

  1. To help co-sponsor a speaking tour in the new year of a Wal-Mart and/or fast food striking worker around the UK.
  2. To support circulation in print and online of “Know Your Rights” material to disseminate everywhere NCAFC has a presence in a similar way to ULU.
  3. To advertise online and in print all efforts towards establishing student worker networks and task the incoming national committee to discussions with local Trade Union branches – holding recruitment days on campus, running workshops etc.
  4. Encourage all students not in employment to be involved with initiatives to unionise and organise the unemployed, including but not limited to the UNITE community branches. The incoming national committee should contact and begin discussions with UNITE and other such initiatives on how this can be done.


Defend the NHS!

Conference notes
1. The battles taking place on many fronts to defend the NHS from the Tories’ attempts to dismember it.
2. The recent springing up of many more powerful local campaigns, including for instance the battle to save Lewisham A&E, which has seen many thousands of people on the streets.
3. That many students are active in, and many more interested in and could become involved in, this struggle.

Conference believes
1. That the NHS represents a limited piece of the what Marx called “the political economy of the working class”, putting the interests of human beings before the interests of profit – like our demand for free education in public, democratic education system.
2. That the NCAFC needs to mobilise students in defence of public services and the welfare state beyond education, and that this is a crucial part of that fight.

Conference resolves
1. To produce a guide to the issues surrounding the NHS and how students can become active campaigning to defend it.
2. To investigate organising a student day or week of action in defence of the NHS.
3. To approach organisations including the medical student network Medsin, BMA Students, Keep Our NHS Public and the NHS Unity Network to organise a joint campaign.
4. To add our name to the statement to rebuild the NHS being circulated by the NHS Unity Network (see below).


Labour: rebuild the NHS!

We are campaigning for the Labour Party to develop and fight for the policy on the NHS agreed by its conference, and for the next Labour government to carry it out.

Numerous Constituency Labour Parties submitted policy to the 2012 party conference calling for a clear commitment to repealing the Tories’ Health and Social Care Act, reversing privatisation and marketisation, and restoring the NHS as a public service. The conference passed a composite resolution based on these motions unanimously.

We welcome commitment to repeal the Act, but reject arguments against top down reorganisation. The Health and Social Care Act represented a comprehensive reorganisation to subordinate the NHS to market forces. We want a comprehensive reorganisation of the health service in order to save and restore it.

We want a return to the founding principles of the NHS: quality healthcare for all on the basis of need, as a right, in a publicly owned, publicly funded, publicly provided and publicly accountable system. To achieve that, we will campaign for and demand Labour campaigns for:

1. Repeal of the Health and Social Care Act
2. Abolition of the new provision allowing 49 percent private beds in NHS hospitals
3. Restoration of the Secretary of State’s duty to provide a comprehensive service
4. NHS organisations to be the preferred provider of care in all cases
5. Reversal of the Tories’ funding cuts and provision of adequate funding
6. Abolition of the obscenely wasteful and inefficient internal market/purchaser-provider split
7. Replacement of PFI, also obscenely wasteful, with direct funding; write off existing PFI debt
8. Halting and reversal of privatisation and outsourcing at every level
9. Abolition of Foundation Trusts, replacement of CCGs by democratic local health authorities
10. Decent, national pay, terms and conditions and pensions for NHS workers, and a democratic voice for them in how the service is run.

We reject the argument that there is no money in society to pay for restoring the health service. The NHS was created at a time when British society as a whole was much poorer than now. Taxation of rising dividend payments and the incomes of the rich, and using the wealth of the nationalised banks for social purposes, are potentially rich sources of funds. In addition, abolishing market mechanisms and PFI would save many billions.

We will work with comrades in the Labour Party, health workers’ organisations, the broader trade union movement and NHS campaigners to defend our health service and fight for these policies.



Bring Back EMA!

Conference believes:


1.  The scrapping of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) was a grave error.

2.  This scrapping of the EMA was done is spite of Michael Gove, now-Education Secretary famously saying in early 2010 before the general election: “Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.”

3.  EMA allowed students from some of the poorest families to access Further Education, and its abolition has had a hugely detrimental impact, hitting young women and Black students particularly hard.

4.  Evidence from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, found that the EMA increased the proportion of young people who stayed in education from 65% to 69% among 16-year-olds and from 54% to 61% among 17-year-olds.

5. Our fight for social justice and accessible public education is not conditional on its “benefiting the economy” or “being good for growth”.

6. EMA has continued in Wales, albeit in a diminished form, and remains an invaluable part of support for college students

7. Indications from Welsh Labour and from the Labour Party nationally both show a long-standing intent to stop EMA in Wales when the school leaving age is raised to 18.

8. EMA has been secured in Wales through 2014

9. The Welsh Government has instead decided to take the lead on privatising & marketising colleges in Wales



Conference further believes:


1.  EMA wasn’t scrapped without a fight. An enormous, spontaneous FE student uprising took on the government in 2010 to demand EMA was saved. Despite hundreds of thousands of students protesting, occupying and walking out of their colleges this Tory-led government ignored a generation.

2.  But the government also radicalised a generation and the anger over the scrapping of the EMA remains.

3. That while the scrapping of EMA was a terrible thing, and an attack on working class students, it would be a mistake simply to call for the reintroduction of something that was never good enough in the first place.
4. Simply saying something easy and populist is not the way to win a serious political campaign. We need a better and broader analysis of FE policy
5. If we call only for the reinstatement of EMA we are letting down everyone who has been hit by other cuts in FE, which are less glib to talk about.
6. We call for living grants for all students: this includes FE
7. The 2010 student occupations in Wales were specifically cited by the Welsh Government in explaining their decision to continue EMA

8. Other grants in Wales have however been cut

9. Youth Fight for Jobs Wales, Action Against Cuts Cardiff, Aberystwyth Radical Forum and other anti-cuts groups in Wales advocate opposition to all cuts to public sector jobs and services

10. Campaigning around single issues in isolation is less effective than coherent, broad campaigns with the ultimate goal of a democratically-run socialist education system.
1. To do our homework on school and FE funding policy, and produce a detailed set of analyses and demands
2. To call for living grants for students – not simply the reinstatement of EMA

3. To invite activists from the Wales anti-cuts movement to write a guest blog for NCAFC detailing their success in defending EMA

4. To continue opposition to all cuts and public criticism of all elected officials who vote for cuts

5. To integrate campaigning to save EMA into a broad and coherent strategy around college students, including but not limited to: building fighting college students’ unions; opposing privatisation & marketisation; opposing market-driven mergers and cuts in courses and lecturers; resisting all fees in education; and more things that I don’t have time to list since the amendments deadline is in 2 minutes

6. To have more time to submit amendments next year


The labour movement and free education


Conference notes

1. That almost all trade unions have policy for free education.
2. That the Labour Party’s policy to reduce fees from £9k to £6k was not decided democratically by any Labour Party body, but – like so much Labour Party policy – made up by the leadership.

Conference believes
1. That even the incredibly limited promises the Labour leadership has made are unlikely to fulfilled without a fight.
2. That it is necessary for the labour movement and student movement to make clear demands on the Labour Party and the next Labour government.
3. That this is not at all counterposed to our fundamental method of struggle on our campuses and in the streets. The point is not to politely petition Ed Miliband, but to seek to bring pressure to bear through every possible channel.
4. That in the first instance this means seeking clear policy on education in the unions, and demanding they seek to impose this policy on/in Labour.

Conference resolves
1. To work with labour movement activists to seek to establish a “Trade unions for free education” coalition.
2. To approach left-wingers in Young Labour including LRC Youth about organising a joint campaign to demand the Labour Party changes its policies on education.
3. To produce a manifesto for education and seek to win support for it in the labour movement.


Student housing


NCAFC notes
1. That prices for student accommodation have doubled in the last ten years, with average weekly rent being £117.69.
2. That this is partly because of an increased use of private accommodaiton.
3. That student support (grants/loans) only just covers the cost of rent and leaves almost nothing for actual living.
4. That this has forced many students into finding (mostly low-paid, precarious) work and/or taking out large commercial bank loans.
5. That NUS has produced materials on this issue, but neither radical demands nor a visible campaign.
NCAFC believes
1. That accommodation quality and costs are in reality as much of an issue for students as fees, and need to be campaigned on.
2. That we should, minimally, be demanding rents which cover the cost of running accommodation but do not make a huge profit for the landowner/company.3. That this will require both local campaigns and national coordination with a clear set of demands.
NCAFC resolves
1. To produce a campaign pack on campaigning over the issue of housing, including a charter of basic demands – including the demand that absolutely no one should pay over £100 a week.
2. To encourage supporting anticuts groups and SUs to campaign on this issue.
3. To raise this issue in motions to NUS conference.
4. To link demands around student housing to broader questions of the cost of private rented accommodation, the lack of council housing, access to and level of Housing Benefit and other benefits etc.


Abolish all debt


Conference Believes

  1. Personal debt in the UK stands at £1.412 trillion, an average of £53,706 per household
  2. Student debts under the new fees regime will mean an automatic debt of £27,000 – for a home/EU student on an undergraduate course in England (and £36,000 in Scotland). Once living costs are taken into account, this may well come to over £50,000
  3. Postgraduate and international students take on vast sums of debt and frequently support their studies with commercial loans
  4. The past few years has seen a significant increase in loan sharks and pay day loans targeting students.
  5. Abject poverty, lack of access to basic things like food, shelter and wearable clothes, is not uncommon for some students – especially those with no support from home or parents.
  6. A large proportion of students are forced to take on part time work – if they can get it – to cover their living costs.
  7. Debt is a cause of mental health problems, and of suicide. On 4th December the Huffington Post reported the death of a 23 year old unemployed graduate.

Conference Further Believes

  1. Debt is a major source of misery and poverty for a huge proportion of the population in modern society
  2. Debt is a class issue: it purchases our time, committing us to work longer and harder, while the profits of our work are enjoyed only by a privileged elite.
  3. The call for abolition of student debt is sound and would find serious support among students
  4. The call for abolition of student debt is capable of serving a broader struggle against the present arrangement of society: it could be the tip of the iceberg for a much bigger campaign for the abolition of all debt.

Conference Resolves

  1. To make the abolition of student debt a major political priority
  2. To produce articles and materials on the politics of debt and connected issues
  3. To make debt an issue for any Activist Welfare activities that we undertake



The Left and NUS

Conference Resolves

1. To work towards a united left intervention at NUS Conference that involves common themes and a slate for the NUS Elections




Emergency motion – support the student movement in Sri Lanka!

1. That since 28 November teachers and students in Jaffna, Sri Lanka, have been on strike against the arrest of leading Tamil activists at their university, including three senior figures from the SU.
2. That the students were brutally attacked by government paramilities that have set up in an office opposite the university.
3. That last months police and intelligence officers invaded the university, breaking into and ransacking student rooms. When MPs and prominent journalists visited the scene, they were also attacked – as were the 400 students who marched in protest.
3. That all this follows a systematic pattern of repression against Tamils which has been going on since the defeat of Tamil nationalists by the Sri Lankan military in 2009.

1. To support the protesters in Jaffna and send a message of solidarity from this conference.
2. To send a message of protest to the Sri Lankan High Commission.
3. To seek to make links with student activists in Sri Lanka



‘Teenage Riot’ Part I

VICE’s TV production arm VBS.tv have put together a new film about the student protests entitled Teenage Riot. In the film VBS followed the progress of the largest period of civil unrest in England since the 80s, available in 5 parts all this week, the full length film will be available next week at VBS.tv. Check it out here

Stop the tuition fee increase! Join the march on parliament 9 December

This Thursday, 9 December, tens of thousands will come to London to march on parliament as the tuition fee increase is being discussed and voted on. School, college and university students will be joined by supporters from across the country to take a simple message to the government: “no to fees, save EMA”. This protest will be massive – make sure you come along and join NCAFC and other student campaign groups in our opposition to the cuts agenda of the Condem cabinet.

The protest will be starting from University London Union (ULU) on Malet street, gathering at 12 and setting off shortly afterwards. Bring whistles, coats, food and gloves!

If you cannot come to London then organise protests in your local area. Go to town halls, target tax dodging shops on the high street (Vodaphone, Topshop) and shut them down for the day.

Join the facebook group http://www.facebook.comevent.php?eid=136567579732280

D Day!

This is IT people! The day has come!

The date for the parliamentary vote on fee increases has been announced!


We all need to start mobilizing, organizing, publicizing… the works!

Talk to your student unions, guilds, societies so you can come on a coach down to London and make some noise at Parliament!

They wanted big society? They’ll see big society!

Bring your friends, family, lovers, brothers, carers.
Bring your nan and your neighbours, bring noise and creativity!

Let us know if you need help organising people to come down (or up) to London.


(more info HERE)

Students hold sit-in at Browne Review VC’s office

Birmingham students took over their Vice Chancellor’s office by holding a sit in on Friday.

Vice Chancellor Professor Eastwood sat on the panel of Lord Browne’s review in to higher education funding which suggested removing government funding from arts and humanities subjects, and completely removing the cap on tuition fees.

John Bowman spoke to student Ed Bauer about the action.
[Read more…]

Battle plan for action against Browne review

Action Against Browne Review
National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts Southern region meeting

Passed 13 Oct 2010

A historic attack on students

The Browne Review, which was expected to raise the cap on tuition fees has gone even further than many realised – completely abolishing the cap altogether.

Whilst it is not yet law, cabinet ministers including Lib Dem Vince Cable have said they agree with the findings of the report and intend to implement it. They will likely reproduce it in some form in the Comprehensive Spending Review with a view to the bill coming into being in the next budget.

This is in direct contradiction to their key manifesto pledge, to abolish tuition fees. It even contradicts their plans for a ‘graduate tax’, which they supported after the election. Most even signed a special NUS pledge to say they would vote against any rise in fees.

Some Lib Dems MPs have said they will rebel against their party whips – the sell-out will also anger party members. The rise in tuition fees will leave weak points exposed in the Lib Dems and therefore the coalition. The

Lib Dems are therefore a key target for protest, actions etc.
This is also a likely reason why the review was announced in secret and released well after its completion.

We will protest at the Lib Dem HQ in Westminster at 4pm on Oct 25.

Killing universal education

The review is an historic attack on education in several ways:
It will make higher education simply unaffordable for huge numbers of working class, and lower-middle class people.

It will create a market between universities – some will charge extortionate fees and become playgrounds for the rich. The others left behind will become increasingly badly funded, vocationally based, or will close.

As such this is also a huge attack on the idea of learning for the sake of learning and expanding working class culture. University will become a place where the ‘haves’ study to get well-paid jobs in finance and business related degrees.

Subjects such as art, philosophy and politics – the humanities – will become increasingly drained of resources as students scramble to find courses that can realistically provide them with a job that will pay off a debt worth tens of thousands.


The Browne review will have angered millions of students – those already concerned about debt at the universities – and those in FE colleges and school who want to go to university. It will also further radicalise intellectual and university teachers concerned about the wider damage to education and culture.

In this environment, a mass movement can take place – so the action we now take has to be swift and radical.

Thankfully, there are already key actions organised nationally and in London, which can draw in huge numbers of students.

October 20

The march against the Comprehensive Spending Review. A student march will take place at 4pm, from ULU. We should argue for meet up points at every university in London take friends and political contacts to ULU from there.

We will use the demonstration as an opportunity to advertise the “free education” bloc on the demonstration on 10 November.

Halls canvassing and stalls should be organised next week to build for the Comprehensive Spending Review demo.

November 10

This is the big joint NUS and UCU demonstration. Again feeder marches should be organised. In the run up to the demonstration we will organise postering in key areas of London, advertising the “free education” meet-up point.

We will also build this demonstration with canvassing and leaftings, and we should fight for local anti-cuts groups to support the “free education” bloc


We will call a national walk-out and protest that can be publicised on both the 20 Oct and the NUS free education bloc on 10 Nov.

A good date for this would be in the last weeks of November.

The NCAFC will organise regional meetings through which the walkout can be organised, drawing in as many students as possible – we will put particular emphasis on school on college students who will suffer worse from Browne’s review. University students where possible should ‘adopt’ a school or college to build for the walkout.