Seachain an duine a bhíonn ina thost

How exciting! A debate!

Dear Sam & Carolan,

We write in response to your blogs (www.samburnett.blogspot.com) and (www.carolangoggin.blogspot.com) dated 25th October 2007 in which you object to being called ‘right-wing’ in the Student Socialist issue 5. We stand by what we said. The record of SU officials at Bangor Uni is unfortunately right-wing – here we outline also an alternative socialist strategy to defend the interests of students.

Disaffiliation from NUS
The SU claimed affiliation fees would be better spent on student societies, in effect forcing students to choose either NUS affiliation or better-funded societies. Students should have both. Unions get funding from the institutions they organise. If they are short of funding they should campaign for an increase.

Which we were doing and have continued to do. It's all very well saying something 'should' happen but the reality was that it was not happening, and that left us with a difficult decision to make as responsible trustees. It's facile to say there was no choice to be made; it is a mark of a good Executive that we faced this challenge head-on and asked students to make a decision on their priorities. It is important that students understand that if we are to pay money here, it means less money in another place.

Thankfully, Sam's campaigning has actually paid off, so it looks like there won't be a problem financially this year. But NUS's long-winded disaffiliation process meant that if we were anticipating financial problems this year, we had to hold the referendum last year.

NUS needs to be campaigning and democratic. Among other problems, students face fees, debt, poor accommodation and low paid jobs. Yet NUS is failing to seriously campaign on these issues – looking instead to small national demonstrations on a Sunday, small lobbies of parliament and ‘wining and dining’ various New Labour ministers.

Hang on, hang on, as a delegate at the 2007 Annual Conference I seem to remember that proposals to have big national demonstrations and campaigns were voted down -- surely it is undemocratic to suggest that the decision Annual Conference reached is wrong? The majority of delegates in the room supported NUS's current campaigning method so that is what NUS will continue to do.

Socialist Students argue for a mass movement to defeat these attacks, built through a national body with a real base among students and pupils, linked to trade unions and with a democratically accountable leadership. Currently we argue that campaigners should link up within NUS to fight for students’ rights. We put forward a concrete alternative to the leadership, and campaign for NUS to become a democratic, campaigning organisation. We contest elections for NUS conference delegates and local union positions, as well as being involved in local campaigns.

When did you or the student union as a whole attempt to argue along these lines?

As a democratic institution, we do what Council tells us to do. Council has not told us to do this. So we haven't. We do actively take part in NUS's events and democratic structures, just not campaigning along the lines you suggest.

Cuts to the School of Ocean Sciences
In the Student Socialist we said the union failed to fight this. This is true.

No it's not, weren't you listening at the GM when Sam detailed all the things we had done to fight it?

Students looked to the Union for leadership. Union representatives could only manage passive support and verbal protests, when students wanted to know “what can we do?” A Socialist-led Union would have made suggestions to students of how to oppose cuts, including holding a protest on an Ocean Sciences open day or outside the Vice-Chancellor’s Office, as well as getting press coverage and supplementary tactics such as protest letters. Mass action requires wide support, but despite exams a two hour protest organised by the union would have found an echo. Such a campaign would at least warn the university off making further cuts.

The University already knows the students were unhappy -- that was made abundantly clear by the students themselves and by the Students' Union. But the fact is that the University felt that these changes were necessary (particularly since the department was set to lose I think £5million over three years) and no amount of jumping up and down and shouting was going to change that. Also, as Sam said, we haven't had any complaints from students about their course this academic year which makes me think that the changes weren't so bad after all (please do correct me if I'm wrong here).

Campaigns like this have been launched elsewhere. At Lambeth College, where Socialist Students was in the leadership of the union, we organised a campaign against extortionate canteen prices. This organised demonstrations of hundreds of people. We are happy to discuss the lessons of this and other campaigns.

Extortionate canteen prices are not quite the same as cuts to Ocean Science: in the first instance, you are asking the University to make less of a profit whereas in the second you are asking them to make a very very big loss, the consequences of which would be felt elsewhere in the University. The University is not a bottomless pit filled with gold.

Right-wing or not?
“Right-wing” is not “an insult” if it’s an accurate description of those concerned, especially when they admit it themselves! Sam’s blog says “I would describe myself as centre-right…”

And where does Carolan's blog or in fact any of Carolan's actions ever say that she is right-wing? I do find it insulting, particularly since you have made no attempt to ever ask me about my personal politics and view-points.

We never described either you or Carolan as “fascist,” it is not us who use this word lightly. We have consistently combated the far right, through organizing many student actions and supporting wider campaigns to undermine the BNP’s vote and lies. When did the student union effectively campaign on this issue?

Ha, you should ask Sam about his infiltration of the party. As I said above, the Executive will do what we are mandated to do by Council. It's. A. Democracy.

Sam tells us Carolan was “indignant,” and she says “In all my born days, I have never ever been accused of being right-wing.” Carolan attacks “people who want to campaign against whatever the status quo is.” Surely anyone who is not right-wing wants to, and does, campaign against a status quo of Africa languishing in poverty, of Asia as a sweatshop, or in Britain of child poverty, low wages, students forced into part-time work and huge debts. This is not a status quo worth defending!

Except that in this instance we were talking about disaffiliation from NUS and claims that the governance review was more bureaucratic, not Africa languishing in poverty. Let's not obfuscate things. I don't mind campaigning against stuff when it really is A Bad Thing but I do object to people deciding that something IS bad just because it's the status quo. Which is what I said.

“Reform of NUS”
You describe NUS as “flawed, but which has now thankfully taken big steps towards reform”. Indeed, you were part of the steering group for the NUS Governance Review (also noted in Executive Council minutes for 05/10/07).

Did I say I wasn't? I also said it at the GM and at Executive and on my blog and I am listed in the White Paper as being a member of the Steering Group.

Brace yourselves, this next bit needs some serious debunking ...

These “reforms” mean destroying democracy within NUS, by scrapping the ‘Block of twelve’ part time elected NUS officers

No, no it doesn't. To quote from the Mythbusters document NUS has produced:

"The NEC voted to dissolve itself to allow for the creation of a new Senate and a Board. The Senate will be the political heart of NUS, deciding on policy between conferences and featuring 15 volunteers from HE and FE, a President, elected officers that lead each of the five policy zones, representatives from Nations, the Liberation and Social Policy campaigns plus non-voting attendees from partner student organizations. Meanwhile, an administrative Board (see myth 3) will be made up of a majority of elected officers and students, combined with experts in areas such as law and finance."

So there won't be an NEC, there'll be a bigger and more representative Senate that actually has some teeth instead, and there'll be a block of 15 instead of 12.

restricting delegation sizes

Where did this come from? Where does it say anything about restricting delegation sizes? That is not part of the governance review.

and transferring the running of NUS to a board of trustees.

Depends what you mean by "the running". If you mean "ensuring NUS does not break the law", then yes, the running of NUS will be transfered to a board of trustees. If you mean dictating what NUS does politically or how it spends its money (outside, again, of legal requirements), then no, the running of NUS will not be transfered to a board of trustees. Best practice across the charitable sector is for legal compliance to rest with a board of trustees. NUS is not a charity, it is a company, so it's even better practice to have a board instead of leaving all legal responsibility to people elected for their political skills rather than any kind of expertise in running a company. Wouldn't it be nice to have, for example, a national union that wasn't hundreds of thousands of pounds in debt?

How can these reforms be left-wing?! Unfortunately it remains the case that, as we said, “NUS is trying to become a more bureaucratic organisation…”

Being left-wing doesn't mean that you have to do things badly, inefficiently, illegally. NUS will be run much more efficiently which means less bureaucracy, or at least bureaucracy confined to the board room, leaving everyone else to get on with campaigning and providing effective resources and support. It means more bang for everyone's buck. Isn't that what CMs want?

In Bangor recently we launched a widely-supported solidarity campaign with Nigerian students arrested for standing up for their rights. We have already contacted you about this – will you support the campaign?

It will be taken to our Executive Committee tomorrow.

As for winning elections, three of us have recently been elected to the student council, Sam should know as he was there when we were elected!

Kind of implies I wasn't there. I was. You really trounced that opposition.

If you still regard yourselves as left wing you should campaign with us, in support of the Nigerian students or perhaps on other campus issues which we could all support. If you still disagree with us we would be happy to debate these matters with you.

Still disagree, sorry. My job is to look after students at Bangor University, and I don't think that I would be fulfilling my role properly if I were campaigning as you like to campaign. The joy of democracy is that I am allowed to disagree with you, and that despite disagreeing with you I have still been elected by a sturdy majority.

And I still have a problem with you slagging off the Executive in a national magazine.