By Joe Rukin
So what happens when the NUS National Executive Committee meet? Well according to those in charge of NUS, Britains Universities are a 'ripe recruiting ground for extremist groups', whilst the union is heading towards a £1m deficit following the ITM collapse and City-wide demos are planned for next term. No-one it seems likes the Tories, no matter what they say, and you've far more chance of getting a phone call from NUS part-timers this year.
At times the NUS NEC seemed not even to be paying attention to the decisions it was making and the compatibility between them. Less than an hour after condemning suicide bombings -in light of former UK students Omar Khan Sharif & Asif Mohammed Hanif deciding to take that path- in a motion that talked of Islamic extremists, the union passed another motion saying they should avoid using the word 'extremist' in relation to Muslims. The first motion, an emergency motion, had been proposed by UJS representative Daniel Rose. It drew on the recent suicide bomb revelations as well as the fact Hassan Butt claims to have recruited 'hundreds' of students to fight British troops. Whilst Rose was keen to point out that 'all sorts of extremist' exist, the motion was solely aimed at Islamic Fundamentalist Extremists and states it is they who are taking advantage of the 'ripe recruiting ground' that campuses represent. How the press react (if they indeed notice) to the 'official stamp of terror' that NUS has just put on University Life may, like the safe drinking campaign, blow up in the unions' face.
SWSSer Helen Salmon pointed out that on the specific subject of Israel & Palestine, in the past the NUS NEC had been keen to 'take sides' passing policy which condemned Palestinian paramilitary activity, but not so much against the more destructive acts of the Israeli military. The first motion was passed. Odd then that under a couple of hours later NUS passed policy on Islamaphobia submitted by Louise Hutchins which resolved for NUS to "Avoid using the term 'extremist' or 'extremism' in relation to Muslims in any NUS publications or communications.". Whether any of the NEC members voting yes to both policies read them or not is a different matter.
One of the first things to be decided on by a transitory NEC containing both current and members elect was the plans for a demonstration programme next year. And for once it is good news that shows at least someone is listening. Whether the promised early demo date and publicity ready before the start of the year appears is a different matter, but finally after years of waiting, students will no longer have to chose between their sport and the demo, as the national demo will be held on a Sunday.
There are also plans for city-wide demos, like the one which took place in Durham recently, which many unions were calling for at the NUS 'Rapid Response' meeting at ULU in February. The plan for these is obviously a little more shaky at the moment, but yes it is true, NUS are actually going to support and encourage student unions who want to take actions locally.
The news on the demos was followed by possibly the worst news of the day. Everyone knows that NUS has been strapped for cash since ITM went under, but the picture now is that the deficit has almost doubled in the last six months and is looking to come in between £800k-£1m, depending on how much of the unpaid affiliations fees come in. The union has secured an additional overdraft, though this years deficit will hit hard, being approximately 20-25% of turnover. However, NUS will expect to claw back cash after realising their website could be run in-house and advertising revenues paid direct to it without a middle man. The National Executive then voted to establish an uncosted International Students team in preparation for the creation of an International Students Officer.
Then came the most contentious set of motions- what to do about the Tory position on fees. Now you might think that, even with a hint of caution (after all this is the Tories saying this), that NUS might support the fact they had said they would abolish fees. No- not at all. A motion brought forward by the 2 Tories on the NEC, Ben Archibald and Richard Hilton, fell flat on its face. Why? NUS simply did not want to be seen to support something the Tories had said, despite earlier positive comments in the press by the union, which was made clear by a later motion which was passed "To oppose the Tory plans for HE on the basis that it will reduce access to HE".
It was even more odd then when you looked back at what some of the proposers of the second motion had said when the no-fees plan was announced by Iain Duncan-Smith. National Secretary Penny Hollings had said
"The Conservative party has correctly identified just how unpopular tuition fees have been and the catastrophic effect that top-up fees would have. Abolishing tuition fees removes a financial barrier that deters many from going to university and that can only be a good thing. However, this should not be offset by cutting costs in other areas just to court votes and score political points."
Whilst Rami Okasha, president of NUS Scotland, added:
"The Scottish experience has disproved the theory that tuition fees are the only way to fund widening access and increased participation in higher education. It is about time that the government at Westminster accepted this. The Scottish Parliament has introduced a graduate tax rather than fees, and in Wales, which does not have the power to contradict Westminster on fees, a Welsh Assembly grant for students has been introduced."
Conservative Futures' Archibald had no doubt that voting was politically motivated saying "All you have to do is look at who proposed this- what does it say? Labour, Labour, Labour, Labour, Labour" This point was intruging, while it had become clear that both Okasha & Chris Weavers belonged to the 'In Labour, Not Labour Students, hence Independent bracket', many would not have realised (unless they stayed on until the leaving speeches at NUS Conference) that many of the 'official opposition' within NUS- CfE were also card carrying labour members. This year Carli Harper-Penman used her leaving speech to emulate Helen Aspell who after serving as the CfE NUS Treasurer urged people to join the Labour party and go and canvass for them.
Well this year it seems a 'leaving speech' may have been a bit premature for Carli as, despite having served for the maximum of two years in a part time post on the NUS NEC as NUS LGB Officer (Womens Place), she has attained 'Rent-a-Candidate' status as elections committee has for some reason ruled her in to the race to be NUS LGB Officer (Open Place). Whilst Harper-Penman joked she was 'On message and in favour' to slate the Tory plans, John Dickenson-Lilley also affirmed that he had joined and was on the left of the labour party- for which he received the retort 'So why haven't you left the labour party?'
Lib-Dem Kat Martin was clear what had happened;
"When the white paper came out, we read it, welcomed what we liked and slated the government for the bad stuff. With this we seem just to be opposing it because it's the Tories who have said it."
Archibald instsited to the last word though, sayin;
"The Conservative party wishes the entire NEC the very best of luck explaining to their sabbaticals and students the reason for their opposition to free education, and wishes everyone a pleasant nights sleep."
After the Tory conundrum had gone, the committee was back to it's air of consenus. A motion to stop the BNP was passed, with only the CfE members abstaining- probably because the motion was made by Student Broad Lefts' (or as they prefer to call them Socialist Action) Louise Hutchins. Next, despite strong pleas by both current and future Treasurers Dervish Mertcan & Ross Renton, part time NEC members had the £50/month cap on mobile phone calls removed. Obviously, someone hadn't been listening to that 'Million Quid Loss' thing that had gone on earlier.
Guardian, Not as young as it was
Guardian, Students welcome plan to abolish tuition fees
