Maybe the truth hurts?

Hello everyone, greetings from NUS HQ where (if you believe Sofie Buckland) we’ve been hamming it up, laughing at the fall of democracy and chinking glasses with Boris Johnson. Of course that isn’t the case and have instead been fulfilling our mandate from NEC and talking to the real rank and file – student officers- about governance and answering their questions.

Unfortunately my gaze was distracted somewhat by a blog from the NEC member who, in her own words “hasn’t read the white paper, on principle” – a principle of laziness? This seems to be the principle she devotedly follows in all of her NUS work, since I haven’t seen any in two years.

From the outset, this blog by my colleague Sofie is stretching the truth. This is to put it mildly; utter bloggocks would be more appropriate. To demonstrate why I thought I’d take you through in the most accessible and honest way possible. You see, I’m not too concerned about whether I’m being called a liar or such like, my comments are backed up by 20 odd members of your elected National Executive and the white paper itself.

Ok, here goes…

“From it’s inception, the review has been based upon totally undemocratic principles – accepting “submissions” and adding only bits they agree with to the review, presenting the findings to the NEC with no opportunity for alternatives, no voting just “discussion” of any NEC member’s problems with the final document… it’s all basically exactly what the right-wing of the NEC wanted from the start, with little chance for the left to fight or intervene.”

I ask you, what planet are some people on? Was I the only person present at last year’s Annual Conference (the event which the opposition say is the beacon of democracy- doesn’t everyone say this?) where the membership passed a motion on this issue? I also strongly recall attending the subsequent meetings of that executive the opposition are so seriously trying to save, in which the process was agreed by a democratic vote.

But more pressingly, how could we have conducted the review and why weren’t these concerns raised before -without Submission from the Members who pay your expenses or from the oppositions faction(s)- people not elected by any mandate in their union let alone their unelected organiser whose been basket weaving for the last 10 years?

Our members (those that will ultimately vote on the proposals) did submit proposals and the entire breadth of opinion was reflected in the green paper (you can read it, it’s online).

“the right-wing are keen to pass these changes, consolidating their majority, as soon as possible. Extraordinary conference delegates can be hand-picked by sabbatical officers, and such conferences are without exception small and unrepresentative – we mustn’t let such massive changes to NUS’ democratic structures slip through on the votes of 300-odd sabbatical officers with little to no representation of rank-and-file students.”

Absolutely, calling an extraordinary conference is the easy option.

Firstly, it seems more than a little disingenuous for the hard left to argue that an Extraordinary Conference in the first term is inaccessible to “ordinary students” and then in the second breath call for a first term National Demo.

Furthermore, delegate entitlement is the same. The reality is that exams haven’t started yet, and given that unions naturally have more student involvement at this time of year, it’s more accessible, not less.

These issues aside, our members gave us a blatant steer to make these changes within the year, and more importantly, our obligation is to ensure that in NUS’ most important year we can concentrate on fighting the lifting of the cap, not trying to implement a new structure – that’s what would be best for the “rank and file”.

Finally, Extraordinary Conference is in the constitution that we’re trying to change, if you don’t like it then I suggest you support the change - don’t hate the player, hate the game.

“Labour Students and the Organised Independents think that only union officers should get a say in NUS – not the rank-and-file of NUS, the ordinary students who every day face attacks in the form of fees, lack of grants, low pay, course cuts, privatised accommodation, etc. They think only elected officers, who all too often stand on apolitical platforms, should be allowed to guide the work of the National Union of Students.”

Labour Students and OI’s eh? Interesting when the majority of those who voted for the proposals were from neither faction. Elected officers should have a say in NUS democracy and so should students, that’s why we’re retaining cross campus ballots (CCB) as a default and increasing the opportunities to shape and change NUS policy. The option here is quite simple – keep a system where student’s only chance to input into the work of NUS is conference OR keep conference, create Zonal events halfway through the year and increase the number of places available to students and student officers on the interim policy making body.

“I’ve got verbatim notes and quotes, so if you’ve got any questions about who did what at the NEC (and remember, you won’t hear it from any official channels), email me at blah blah blah”

Well this is true, you can access notes from Sofie - someone who hasn’t read the white paper and opposed it anyway, or (and maybe this is a radical suggestion) you can actually just read the paper and contact the authors with any questions.

The Blogs on this site represent the individual views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the National Union of Students.

All links in blogs will open in a new browser window.

The permanent URL for this specific blog entry is: http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/stephenbrown/274882.aspx