Lefties Ruin Student Unions for all?

Racisim, bigotry, and good old fashioned cotrived left vs right pig-headedness all met in the firey inferno of UCLU’s AGM on the 5^th and resulted in the kind of divisive outcome that has led generations of students to dismiss their unions as nothing more than crazy demagogues whose internecine bickering serves no purpose other than to warm chairs.

 

The debacle followed on from the very heated ULU senate meeting where ULU Presiden Jen heuesman was taken apart for her initial refusual to fulfil the most basic task of a union president, represntation of member. Having realised that the room was clear in wanting a letter condeming condemnation of OTC and other service groups, Jen constantly reiterated waffle about ‘cultural and spiritual reasons’ for not wanting to sign her name on the basis of ‘generations of pacifisim’. But this argument was swiflty dispatched by an OTC group leader who pointed out that these students groups in no war particiapted in any kind of hostile activites so the pacifism argument was a non-sequiter and entirely irrelevant to the argument.

 

In the end, and despite some desperate squeaks about ‘checking equal ops policy’ on jens part, the vote was a clear cut demand for the ‘part-time’ President of ULU to actualy do her job, the only dissent being ‘usual suspect’ SOAS. The UCL delegate to senate, Andy Fernando, was pleased to be able to bring the news of success of this motion to the AGM the following day, and was emboldedn by the near unanimity of other UL colleges supporting the pro-OTC motion.

 

So what when wrong at UCLU? In scenes reminisent of NUS conference, or the happenngs of some dysfunctional polytechnic Student Union, lies, ignorance and fear-mungering half-truths were flung around to irritte and agitate. Students on both sides of the argument were made to feel like their union was riding rough-shod over their views, and was deliberately picking a marmite issue to stir up bad blood between students.

 

The result was a tense and worked up AGM where no-one present was there to hear the issues discussed and to vote according to the arguments made. Everyone there knew how they were going to vote before they arrived. Any neutral student would be bewildered as the major component of the debating was slagging off the other side. The AGM had little to do with finding out about what students felt and how their union could represent them, and more to do with which group could mobilise the most angry people to turn up and vote their way.

The resulting mess is what drives students up and down the country from feeling that their union is there to work for them and to represent their views. It’s what makes it easy for the people we try to lobby to dismiss student unions as nothing more than frivillious and unreprentative. It’s what makes it hard to convince students to come to us with their problems. It’s what destroys a student unions sole source of ligitamacy, the trust of it’s students.

 

Maybe someday student unions will move away from dablling in geo-political issues like israel-palestine, maybe someday student unions will find the issues that unite students around a common cause, not divissive issues and minority pet projects. Someday, student unions will be the defining positive expereince of a student’s career at university, and have the prestige and legitimacy they deserve.

While I should’ve been Revising: Concerning the NUS

While it is certain that some delegates who rock up to conference come wearing t-shirts daubed with absurd tribal markings such as ‘punks for socialism’, and ‘RESPECT [our right to hate Gays, Jews, and anyone with more than £10, while ducking under the banner of islamophobia every time opposition is encountered]‘, many arrive fresh faced and eager to do right by the students they seek to represent. A surprising number don’t walk into every vote knowing how they’ll vote. They listen to the debate, to the points made, and to the overheard chit chatter of surrounding delegates before making a decision (unless they are whipped, a most abhorrent process).

The problem is that, by and large, the NUS is run by the few who can convince themselves they know how they’re going to vote before a debate and exposition of reasoning. Most speeches have electoral tinges, and many consist of faction-pleasing axioms like ‘we must not let the right-wing prevail’, or entirely vacuous mob-pleasing statements like ‘I’m against racism’ or ‘I’m against Fascism’, or, ‘I’m against bad things, and approve of good things’. These oft-repeated catchphrases get the roar, but certainly bore.

An interesting outcome of the most recent London Regional Conference was that NUS ‘fresher’s’ decried the power and interference of factions, while the self-defined ‘hacks’ applauded it and pooh-poohed the ‘fresher’s’ calls to try and weaken their grip on agendas and votes. One anonymous source was quoted as saying NUS National President Gemma Tummelty  “scoffed” at the idea.

At first I was entirely clueless as to the cause of such a response. I wondered why delegates who surely stood on a platform furthering a better life for their members could use compositing as a playground tussle, which is ultimately won by the biggest bully. Why didn’t really pragmatic, useful ideas like “why don’t we put all the uncontensious motions, that we can all agree on, at the top of the motions list; and allow ourselves the rest of the session to discuss the exact semantic meaning of ‘anti-Semitism’.” rather than letting what amounted to constitutional boxing match for more hours than i care to remember. Eventually my rusty cogs strung together a hypothesis based on experience and inference.

The natural reflex of many of the careerist-cum-hacks is to assume, naturally, that in an NUS setting, most people have made their mind up, and it’s very much a ‘you are with us, or you are against us’ attitude. This makes sense to them as by and large most of the so-called ‘players’ within the active body politic of the NUS do fit this mould. So these people get used to most things being done by securing factional support, circling the wagons, and calling the opposition ‘right wing’. Both sides do it, and it’s a whoever-has-the-biggest-faction-wins kind of game.

As people become involved, the tend to face a moral dilemma, familiar to many a Westminster MP of the governing party entering parliament. Does one a) stay independent, make up ones mind after a healthy, rational, and informed debate as best one can in the best interests of one’s members, or b) take the Crown’s coin, become a minister, and sign on to the ‘message’; for the only way to ensure advancement within the ranks of the NUS, is to take the factional coin, sign up, sign away your individuality and independence, and use the factional vote to secure election.

So for one group of people within the NUS, the abrasive, black & white, winner-takes-all attitude becomes engrained to the point where all students encountered on the political scene are treated uniformly.

But it is often forgotten that there is a vast pool in the middle, a group of individuals who try to listen, understand and then make a decision. A group who become nauseated and thoroughly turned off by internecine squabbling and constitutional tennis. A group who if treated as intelligent, free-thinking adults will always be won over by strong argument. A group who have no aspirations for office and therefore do genuinely tend to try and strive for the best outcomes.

Sadly, as regional showed, while those in power owe their place to those whose coin they took, they will never have an interest in unsullied debate

A Response to ‘A Response to A Response’

I have no idea what conservative future has got to do with this, but lo and behold, representation at NUS conference has got shite all to do with genuine feeling of students on campus. This a sad function of the general political apathy of students, and the polarisation of the political landscape by uninformed half-wits.

Every serious candidate wanted to win. every serious candidate needed every vote they could get. every candidate knows that saying “im anti war” is not exactly a vote looser, is it? It’s like a politician saying “I’m anti tax”.

If student respect so “clearly” works on a wide range of issues, why does it not campaigning on such success, rather than reaching for the easy-to-say hollow statements used? My suspicion is that they don’t actually care about anything else but have jsut enough neurons to bang together to keep their left-of-left wing coalition together by being anti-top up fees, anti-racism, anti-Islamophobia. But ask yourself, how hard is it to be anti- anything? I’m anti-death! I’m anti-rain! I’m anti-crime!
See how easy it is! It’s like a toddler playing grown-ups. What is much much hard is defining yourself in something other than anti-… , it takes balls, conviction, and intellect to set out a bold vision of the ideal world and the steps necessary to get there. There is a total lack of any of this in anything i have seen splutter out of ‘RESPECT’.

For someone calling someone else “stupid” i think you need to grow up a little bit and attack ideas not the person. And i think you’re reading into what I’m saying your own misconceptions and beliefs. To assume i see no link to any international event and any domestic event is as good as saying I’m a brain dead vegetable on life support, and quite frankly makes me embarrassed for you. Re-read what i said, take away you pre-decisions on what i think and feel, and realise i am responding to points brought up in the Propaganda video. That i don’t think there is anything NUS could do in such a situation as the Lebanon Conflict. The NUS has taken leads on real, substantive issue where there has been genuine debate and thought. Anti-Apartheid for example, was a campaign with objectives, methods, and a real drive among the student body. I don’t think you’d find a single person in the UK who could knowingly describe what Israel did as “ok”, so is there really a need to campaign for something which is pretty much accepted? on an issue where there is a already a massive choir of voices with real gravitas, importance and experience? Is it not more worthwhile to spend our political capital, limited resources and limited activism on things which are not yet widely accepted, but which we all firmly believe need to be? on things were work over years simply by ourselves and really bring success?

I’d quickly like to call you up on your misconception of what the NUS is. It is a National Union of Students, a membership organisation that seeks to deliver real benefits for it’s students, to represent student views and to ensure every student has the best possible experience they can. Campaigning is secondary to ensuring it has active and engaged members. If everyone left, we couldn’t do a lot of campaigning. It has been the over focus on wasting money on leaflets and posters that has driven many many students away from the NUS and into the arms of apathy and whining. If we deliver benefits and engage students, then we can campaign, we are not, one first principle there to campaign on any and every issue. we think about students first, and ensure their welfare, and then we move onto the wider issues where we can help.

In regard to NUS extra, you miss the point of choice. If you’d rather have the discounts, get the card, if you can live without them, don’t. If you are a poorer student, a 15% discount at topshop is probably of no benefit so don’t bother. but in some cases, if you are ‘poorer’ surely the investment of £10 will work out saving you money in the long term, if you are want to shop at the involved companies. If people are to thick to work out the upfront cost minus future savings, they don’t deserve their place at uni. Your idea that you can gauge every student’s financial situation and judge for all of them is absurd, and you seem incapable of thinking about the decisions involved.

In regards to islamohpobia, your views are from a very insulated and reactionary background. People are afraid of lots of things, and generally what feeds that fear is ignorance. People aren’t scared of a religion, but of the actions some people have done in the name of religion! People weren’t scared of the KKK because they were Christian, but because they were murdering racist ???s.
I also feel you are being quite racist and to be honest, rude, by trying to rubbish my ideas simply because you think i am some kind of 1 dimensional stereotype. As someone who lives in an over whelmingly Bangladeshi community, not 10m from a rather large mosque, i am quite aware of what people are and aren’t scared of. I’m not scared of the old men with the white beards. im scar of the young ones with shaved heads who fight every week and beat people with their belts. Jack straws comments on the veil are much malginaned but very very few people have actualy read what he said, preferring instead to rely on hearsay and overblown reactionaries with political agendas. Tell me you have read exactly what he said and why you think what he said was in any way wrong and we can have a conversation. the ‘racist cartoons’ must mean the 11 cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed printed in 20 continental magazines. If this is indeed true, the word is certainly not “racist”. And on that, any slightly educated follower of the events is well aware of the cartoons themselves, those that were published, and those there were added later and included in the group that were taken to the middle east and spread to deliberately inflame the populace.
As you will know from your considered opinion the original 11 cartoons were not altogether that bad, but the 3 added post hoc were indeed highly bigoted and quite frankly shit. the original 11 were far more mild than was ever made out, but that never fits into the story peddled.

You can’t go a day without reading anything in the tabloids that isn’t ???y journalism of the lowest common denominator type designed to sell copy rather than inform. There are daily articles about binge drinking, house prices, immigration, the EU, so your point is somewhat weak.

you seem angry but uninformed, passionate but not thoughtful, its not wonder you are a prime candidate to be taken in by RESPECTS agenda. But if you are prepared to think before you speak, to gain some understanding on topics rather than merely gaining an opinion, i quite happily engage in discourse with you

Good day sir

A Response to ‘RESPECT’ NUS Election video

‘Respect’ Propaganda

originally posted on educationnet messageboard
I think its the perfect piece of low brow tabloidesque warporn that makes respect the laughing stock of the educated people of this country.

Firstly, and this point has been made before, like it or not the student populace, as a whole, don’t really give a fuck about the ‘anti-war’ thing anymore. There is NO SINGLE issue which unites students anymore, not even top-up fees, so to campaign essentially on a single issue shows what the tracing-paper thickness of ‘RESPECT’s’ intellectual credibility. I think i really can speak for a huge majority of students when i point out that we want to be represented by adults who can comprehend the wide range of issues that ACTUALY face ACTUAL students. Gemma, for all her faults, at least as independent mind, and can listen to real students’ problems with empathy and represent them to the wider world. I am terrified at the prospect of the intellectually-blinded, close minded respect people claiming to speak on the student bodies behalf in any situation, let alone on the national scale.

Secondly, your point in the video about the NUS ‘failing to call for a ceasefire’ only serves to reinforce how pointlessly hopeless a RESPECT leadership would be. To think the NUS has some kind of geo-political clout, and that a letter from Gemma on behalf of the NUS would in anyway affect national defence & foreign is straight up fucking retarded. The NUS would devalue itself by doing such a thing. Yes it was an error on the part of the UK to not get involved sooner, but what the fuck has that got to do with a National Union of students who role is to deliver real benefits to it’s members? Speaking out on things like that are the reason so many of our members just totally switch off at the mention of the NUS.

Thirdly, you claim to fight for ‘rights’ but only the rights you choose. NUS extra is OPTIONAL. see there is how you reinforce rights, give people a choice. I personally don’t think its all that, but I’m not forced to take it up (unlike an upping in affiliation fees). By deciding that NO-ONE can have NUS Extra, you are deciding for everyone, despite the evidence that quite a few students have taken them up. If you really do believe in rights, the first thing you should do is allow people the right to choose how to spend their money, not deciding for them.

Fourthly, “No To Islamophobia” is an easy to say mob rousing phrase that has very little behind it. Very few people are afraid of Islam. People get scared by all kinds of things, but a religion is not one of them. People CAN be scared by PEOPLE. I get scared chav in tracksuits when it’s 3am and i’m walking home alone wearing a pink shirt, pink scarf, and longish hair. I don’t think the chavs are going to turn around and say that i am WHITE-MALE-APHOBIC. When i was growing up, people were scared of the Irish, simply because all the terrorist activity on British soil from 1970-1998 was pretty much exclusively the work of the IRA, ergo all Irish must be terrorists. More recently, people esposing Islam are the ones who are doing (or trying) to get their terrorising on, it is somewhat natural of the thoughtless feckless masses to make a similar set of associations. The key response, and the one made by the majority of Irish communities during the troubles, was outright outcry as only retards use violence for political gain. The key to battling these perceptions is not to demonise and accuse back, but to educate. It is simply to point out the following point over and over again:

Terrorism is to Islam

 

what

 

KKK is to Christianity

Fifthly, and much more briefly, the photo displayed at 2:18 looks pretty photoshopped.

In conclusion, RESPECT and the like are thankfully the crazy fringe. Students, as a whole, don’t share your goals, ideas, or ideology. You are a stain on our credibility by associating yourselves with the rather shady fellows who fund respect and espouse such crazy ideas. I hope that conference sees through the crazy to the insecure retards with megaphones that you are.