Just as before, I feel a need to intervene in the role of nonsense monitor. So here we go again:

“The review board was appointed by the National President and had no ordinary students on it”

A number of students’ unions submitted policy to Annual Conference with a process that included creating a “governance steering group”. This group would oversee the project but not make decisions on the paper or structure; this was for the National Executive. The steering group itself included five NEC members– from a variety of political persuasions- and two student officers. Applications to sit on the group from student officers were invited, and both candidates ended up being non-factional.

“The review board published no minutes and the meetings weren’t open”

Also sets the nonsense alarm bells ringing. All minutes are available should anyone wish to see them. The meetings had a broad membership and reported all their activity to the NEC.

“The Board took submissions but with no democratic process for including the majority”

Urgh (this is getting tiring), the submissions, from students’ union executives, councils and individuals are available for anyone to see, feel free to cross reference with both the green and white papers to see whether the majority opinion was accurately reflected.

I could go on, but let me get to the point.

The ‘hard left’ can complain all they like about the inaccessibility of the process for ordinary activists, but where are Sofie’s thoughts? Where were her ideas, constructively gleaned from months of consultation with our members? Yep, you’ve guessed it, she had none.

Because, and you know what’s coming – she- and the ‘hard left’ in general- don’t believe a review should happen at all. So it seems a little strange to be lambasting the changes, having never bothered to offer any suggestions or alternatives? Although I am relieved to hear that she finally took the time to read the review- even if it was after the vote.

The Extraordinary Conference argument is another classic embellishment tactic by ENS, who wail that, “only 300 or so delegates attended the last Extraordinary Conferences!” When in fact comrades, the figures were 550 (Leeds) and 580 (Wolverhampton) delegates - that’s just under the number of people who voted in all the full-time elections at this Annual Conference.

As for the 2009 review, most people know that if this Extraordinary Conference does not go ahead, then we will be implementing a new structure in the year that all our resources should be directed at the fight to keep the cap. But then we’re back to the same old chestnut, shouting loudly when the process happens, because for them, all is rosy in the garden.

Their activists like the current model – it works for them. They can shout and scream, get elected to the NEC with 30 votes and make potentially catastrophic legal and financial issues without worrying about being responsible. It might be revolutionary, but it’s not responsible or right for students.

“Zonal Committees where it’s one union, one vote…if this is going to include more students then I’d be pretty interested to hear it”

Well, firstly it works pretty well for Liberation campaigns and they involve more students then any other. Where’s your evidence to the contrary? I know that Liberation campaigns are more representative, more accountable and often more effective than any other part of the organisation – why not learn from them? And anyway, who said it would only be one person from each union? In fact, the proposal includes two places for each event, with more available for a small charge. With no real change in the Conference dynamic and an increased membership in the policy-making body – am I reading the wrong paper or is that more involvement?

I’m also asking myself another question, “what deems a personal attack?”

Calling someone “lazy” can be personal (however accurate) but is not being systematically called “right-wing” also just as personal? This epithet is what I, and many of my close colleagues, have had to deal with over a number of years. I for one have almost become immune to this kind of attack, given that it’s typically used against me when I disagree with “revolutionary socialists” on anything.

But anyway, correct me if I’m wrong, your position on the British political spectrum (let alone NUS politics) is defined by more than whether you agree to having three or four external trustees in an unincorporated organisation. I’ll have to dig out my old ‘A-Level’ politics textbooks.

Frankly, using the label of ‘right-wing’ as a term of abuse is both laughable and a slight, not only to me, but to the hundreds of actual left of centre, centre and right of centre individuals that are involved in our movement.

It’s no secret that my vision isn’t totally in the document. I don’t agree with absolutely everything, but it does contain an innovative way forward that is reflective of the majority opinion. If anyone has any doubts about whether this is true, they can see for themselves, in the submissions we received.

Oh, and if you were in any doubt about any of the work I do, you can see it here officeronline.co.uk/strongandactive, this will also demonstrate what drove my work – the demand from the membership. A membership with whom the ‘hard left’ has shown such distain by pedalling lies to block this review which we sorely need, whilst offering nothing useful in return.

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/274892.aspx