That Girl from Derwent dwells on the value of religion this Christmas.
That Girl from Derwent has learned a few more things about prejudice since moving up North.
That Girl From Derwent reckons if you're going to be offensive, you should find a better reason.
That Girl from Derwent considers why it is that some words have wider implications than others.
The sky was grey, the hotel was dire, and we didn’t even go to the beach. But we didn’t care: who needs The Big Dipper when you can spend your day discussing procedural motions?
It was my first time in Blackpool, and I was surprised at how run-down the place was: anyone expecting a three-day drinking spree in a luxury resort was going to be disappointed. The sky was grey, the hotel was dire, and we didn’t go to the pleasure beach even once. But we didn’t care: who needs The Big Dipper when you can spend your day making policy and discussing procedural motions?
The conference opened with a crucial debate: the NUS Governance Review. This review of the Union’s structure resulted in the proposal of a new constitution. It was strongly supported by York’s delegates as it aimed to optimise the NUS’ ability to respond to the needs of students. It arose out of dissatisfaction with past failings, and the kind of financial mismanagement that Vision complained loudly about during last year’s affiliation referendum. The new constitution needed to be passed by a two-thirds majority at two consecutive conferences. With the majority obtained ay an extraordinary conference in December, it only needed to be passed once more in order to come into effect.
The new constitution would make sweeping changes to the way NUS works. The National Executive Committee (NEC) would be replaced by a Senate and a Board. The Senate would be politically representative, and make decisions on NUS policy and general direction, while the Board would take care of financial and legal issues – a setup similar to YUSU’s Senate and Exec. It would abolish the National Council and regional conferences - structures that everyone agrees don’t do very much, and introduce new Zone Conferences. These would be smaller, shorter conferences where issues in particular “zones” (welfare, education, etc.) would be discussed and non-contentious policy would be agreed, leaving more time at annual conferences to debate contentious issues. This would make it easier for ordinary students to have their say and submit motions without time constraints forcing them off the agenda.
But the proposed changes were not without opposition. Many on the far left within NUS considered them a step in the wrong direction and called the constitution an “attack on democracy”. They objected to the new trustee board, claiming that, although it was meant to make decisions only on financial and legal issues, it would be used to force politically-significant decisions, while not being a representative body like the current NEC or the proposed new Senate.
At the heart of the debate was a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of the NUS. To opponents of the constitution, the Union should be a radical, collective, campaigning group run entirely for-students-by-students and organising large-scale protests on issues like free education and the war in Iraq. For the constitution’s supporters, the NUS should be a campaigning body, which should also seek to address other issues like Quality Assurance and Student Feedback. In other words the NUS should be an organisation providing support to student unions and properly managing its budget; which, while not ignoring issues in wider society, focuses first and foremost on the student experience.
Thus, the two sides made their cases for and against the review. There were good speeches and not-so-good speeches on both sides. But the backers of the reform within the NUS leadership miscalculated, and their strategy of managing their speeches backfired. The pre-planned speeches that aimed to put forward the case for the reform instead came across as empty rhetoric, lacking in detail and wit, and without the passion found in some of the more memorable speeches against the reform. They also produced very little in the way of information about the review. While the opponents produced an impressive booklet detailing their objections, the “yes” camp only had flyers but nothing that might inform and win over undecided delegates.
The result: the vote fell short of the two thirds majority by 13 votes. But this is not the end of the governance review. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the EU Constitution – it will be back.
There is already talk of another extraordinary conference before the end of the year, and, if the NUS leadership really makes an effort to consult with students, listen to their concerns and make necessary changes, then the result will be different newt time. Hunger for change still exists within the NUS. With just under two-thirds of delegates supporting the review, it is only a matter of time before the changes we want to see within our National Union are achieved.
Reform was not the only issue at hand however, Blackpool saw heated debate and important votes on a number of issues – including a new policy on higher education funding which puts the NUS in a strong position to oppose attempts to lift the cap on top-up fees when the system is reviewed in 2009. Elections saw success for many backers of the review, with Wes Streeting elected as National President on the record of his success as Vice President – Education.
The conference also saw two motions proposed by York pass and become NUS policy. The first, which began as a campaign by York’s “People & Planet”, supports efforts to ensure that universities invest their money only in ethical companies. The other gives NUS support to Unions choosing not to work with companies like Carnage, which promote events without necessarily being concerned with community relations and student welfare.
Despite the initial disappointment of the failure of the governance reform, our time at Blackpool was well-spent, and the conference itself was a success for York. We were actively involved in debates, networked with other delegates, got involved in election campaigns, attended Fringe events on issues as diverse as Trans Rights and Prison Reform, gave strong speeches and got our motions passed. Let’s hope that we may build on our success and achieve even more next year.
You must log in to submit a comment.
