Liam Burns

The situation at ULU as we see it

Wed, 08 May 2013 16:04:00 +0100

In the past I’ve spoken about the complexities of a national organisation taking a simple position on a complicated local issue. The current situation at the University of London Union compounds this given that it is a membership organisation, sharing its membership with NUS. Of course, ULU isn’t a member of NUS. Technically it is a confederation of students’ unions - not dissimilar to NUS - so this is where the complexities of this situation come even more sharply into focus.

It’s taken me time to write this blog because I wanted to listen to what the students’ unions in ULU (our members) have to say about the issue. I think that the first thing that is quite telling is that very few people in ULU are jumping up and down on this issue and that we have had to be very pro-active in soliciting responses from unions whatever their position. Even more telling is that in some cases even officer teams are split, with one officer telling us they are agree with the review whilst their fellow sabbaticals say they don’t.

Over the last few days I have debated about how publically I should make both my own personal views (and therefore the position of “the NUS Leadership”) clear about the unfolding UL situation, and I have so far been quite cautious because I, and the vice-presidents of NUS, have been trying to find out from students’ unions in London, both those in membership of ULU and those not, what they think about the situation. I have decided not to use this blog to give you my views – you can solicit those from me directly. I want to use it to paint the picture of this situation as I, and others in NUS, see it in the hope to expose the complexity. That doesn’t mean what I’ve written of course is value free.

The status of ULU

As I said above ULU isn’t a member of NUS, it’s a membership organisation made up of those students’ unions that are attached to institutions under the umbrella/brand of the University of London. I appreciate that it is up to its own members not me to define it, but given that lots of the panic that I have heard has been around ULU being ‘the thin end of the wedge’ to understand that ULU is different is important.

Unlike NUS where students’ unions affiliate, in the University of London, membership to ULU for those students’ unions is automatic. Some people have asked why there hasn’t been an affiliation referendum if the unions were dissatisfied, and my understanding to that question is that there simply isn’t the mechanism.

I am informed that this has historically caused a great deal of tensions between the elected students’ union officers in member colleges as it makes accountability so much harder to achieve when there is no way to exit your membership if you don’t feel the organisation either represents you or is working in your interest.

ULU also isn’t a students’ union in the same way that we think about other students’ unions – as I have said it’s a confederation and so the argument that this is the ‘thin end of the wedge’ on attacks on students’ unions is misplaced. I accept that its legal status is incredibly complicated, however I don’t buy the argument that an attack on ULU opens the doors to an attack on every other students’ union because of its unique status.

Students’ unions have always been vulnerable to funding cuts from their institutions and it’s what makes some of the work that we do so incredibly hard. However, take the example of Bolton - that was the thin end of the wedge in terms of funding cuts and NUS has worked hard over the last 12 months to get Bolton SU back to a place where it is funded and has a future. This is why NUS is working hard with a range of partners and sector organisations, and why national projects like ‘Manifesto for Partnership’ are vital.

Adding to this is the complexity of where the funding comes from. Each of the local institutions pay a subscription on behalf of the students’ union to ULU, the local union have no say over where this money is spent, their head of college does this on their behalf. And there are questions over the role of ULU to represent students to the central University of London; a function that everyone has long since admitted was obsolete.

I think that it is important to point out that I recognise the work that Michael and Daniel have been doing this year, and I do think that they have some useful, interesting and valuable ideas for pan-London representation, however this isn’t about Michael and Daniel, it’s about ULU. I think it’s unhelpful in many ways to conflate the pan-London representation with this review of ULU because the pan-London work affects so many more students’ unions and students than ULU is funded, resourced or has the responsibility to cover.

Views of UL students’ unions

Having had contact with many of the students’ unions who are the members of ULU, the VP’s and I are struggling to see a consistent view of what their own member students’ unions want. Some are in agreement with the campaign to #saveulu and others are in agreement with the review findings. Given that these organisations are also our members it’s hard to see clearly a view that we should be taking given that many of its own members don’t want to continue to be so, and have no way of opting out.

Views of non-UL London students’ unions

The feedback from non-UL London students’ unions is less inconsistent (though there are some that don’t hold the majority view), they are keen that NUS doesn’t focus it’s time, resources and energy in saving ULU but argue that we should use our resources instead to set up a pan-London representative function that ensures that they (students’ unions in FE and HE unions) are able to give voice to students in London to, amongst many others, the Mayor of London.

NUS position

As a result of two years of mandates from National Conference to establish Pan-London representation on issues specific to students in London and relevant decision making bodies (GLA, TfL etc), this year we carried out a consultation and some scoping work about pan-London representation.

The outcome of the consultation closely reflected the ideas, suggestions and direction put forward by London unions (both in and out of ULU) and was put to conference. Sadly we ran out of time before this could be discussed but I am confident that it would have passed. It is on that basis, and because of the time pressures given the decisions by the University of London, that Rachel Wenstone is bringing a motion to discuss this issue to a meeting of the NUS NEC this week.

I believe that now more than ever that students in London need NUS to get on with developing pan-London representation. I think that this work needs to happen, we have always been clear that it is separate to the ULU situation, and something that NUS should be going ahead with, and that reflects the outcome of the consultation we ran in the autumn and in the motion put to conference. I believe we need to continue to pursue this and subject to the NEC meeting will be asking that this work is taken forward.

Our Next Steps

We are continuing our efforts to speak to, and get feedback from, students’ unions in London ahead of the NEC meeting this week where we discuss NUS work on pan-London representation. Unions in London who have not yet made their position on this clear can do so through any of the usual channels.

We will argue that in the event of the closure of ULU we expect to see the following:

All money saved on ULU subscription to go to the local students’ unions (this has already been agreed at the LSE for example) and that we have produced a briefing for UL students’ unions on how they can make this case to their institution.
Student leadership of any trust set up to run the services for students.
That there is clarity around the provision that is going to be available for small and specialist students’ unions as a priority.

I will also be making it clear to UL that I think that the review should have had student representation on it, I know that even those that feel that the outcomes are fair feel that the process cut students out, and it’s a point I fully agree with. However, I don’t see it as a reason to ignore the findings.

As I said at the start, this is a complex issue, and one that I don’t want to falsely become about me versus Michael, or NUS versus ULU. The students’ unions in ULU are what should be leading its future, and until they can agree, it would be wrong for NUS, a national organisation, to dictate to local unions; after all we are a confederation not a federation.

#FairRepresentation: The Arguments Are Clear But Regardless the Debate Deserves Respect

Sun, 07 Apr 2013 01:35:00 +0100

At conference this week, we’ll be debating an issue that I’ve come to believe is one of the most important issues we face organisationally. I didn’t always think that. In fact if you had asked me what I thought when I was a geeky physics student more involved in freshers week and the sports union than any form of politics, or even when I first became a students’ union officer back circa 1843, I would have given many of the arguments that I’m about to try and argue against. But that’s ok, and in fact that’s why whatever the outcome of the debate, I’ll be proud we had it.

So I want to do two things in this blog.

First is to say that when students’ unions are nervous about such a move, I get it. But students’ unions and NUS are at our best when we’re uncomfortable and yet still lead society. I want to make a case that some of the understandably intuitive concerns students’ unions have can be rationalised and shouldn’t stop us from taking this step.

Secondly, by virtue of how proud we should be for having this debate at all, we need to treat it and others, no matter what side of the argument they are on, with respect and consideration. Sarcasm towards those who want to lead us to taking a progressive step or unsubstantiated judgments on the character of those who remain concerned at such a change do us no good and stop us from recognising that the fact that we are having this debate when society lags behind is something to be celebrated, not derided.

NUS TELLING SUs WHAT TO DO

If you have ever heard me speak you’ll know I bang on about NUS working for students’ unions, not the other way around. And if I’m being honest, I think that’s the mistake we’ve made in the build-up to this debate. The mandate to bring this to conference did come from students’ unions – it was brought and voted on by students’ unions at women’s conference. But we didn’t then spend the time having the discussions wider than only women’s officers. That’s a fair cop.

But this will now be debated at conference and students’ unions will tell us what to do, one way or another. At no point will this be NUS imposing it. Of course, people (including myself) will argue tooth and nail for it because you elected us as political leaders rather than walking comment boxes. Just like the leadership and honesty of views you show your students, we’ll do the same at conference. But the decision will ultimately be that of students’ unions.

“MY SU HAS A MAJORITY WOMEN SABB TEAM”

That’s great. It genuinely is. But it is not reflective of the global average or, if you’re honest, likely to be reflective of the gender balance of your own sabb teams over a number of years. We know that because every year NUS collects stats on gender balance of officers and every year there are less women than men, especially in Presidential roles. So celebrate that your union is bucking the trend, but don’t pretend that it reflects global figures.

CURRENT REPRESENTATION IS UNFAIR… FACT

Lets start from first principles. Is it fair to expect that our democratic structures would reflect the diversity of our membership? What I mean is, if there are 56% of students who are women, would you say it’s fair play to want 56% of conference delegates, or sabbatical officers or SU Presidents to be women? My guess is most people would say “yes”

56% of all students in HE/FE are women. 36% are SU Presidents last year, and that’s high in comparison to previous years. In 90 years of NUS history only once has the NUS Full Time Officer Team been a majority of women. NUS Conference floor is without exception male dominated. It’s not a subjective opinion that *something* is stopping women from attaining representative positions that compound disparity in NUS structures, it’s a fact.

CHANGING THE ROOT CAUSE vs STRUCTURAL FIXES

Now do I know what it is that causes that unfairness? Not completely – it’s a fiercely contested area of debate. I don’t know if the problem is in getting women to stand or about them being elected once they have. But I know *something* is making our representative structures unfair because, unless you accept that men are inherently better representatives, then it’s fact.

There is a reason I’m hardly know for my political astuteness in NUS circles. It’s because I’m a physicist. I love science. I love evidence, fact, theories. Indulge me in releasing my inner geek to explain where I’m coming from. If when looking at data you find there is a recurring error from what you believe a result should be that is consistently to the same magnitude, you call it a “systematic” error. You seek to find out what’s causing it so you can isolate it from your results and compensate by changing the experimental set up. We don’t claim that it is inherent to the phenomenon you’re trying to observe; you simply accept that you have to compensate for it so that you can find what *is* inherent to the phenomenon being observed.

That’s what we mean when we say that women’s oppression in representational structures is “structural” – there is *something* that consistently stops a representative number of women from attaining positions of power. Gender balancing is about compensating for that while we seek to change the root causes. NUS has dedicated tens of thousands of pounds to things like the “I Will” women’s leadership training, our diversity survey, the establishment of a charity with diversifying the movement as one of its key objectives. But these long term cultural change programmes are not mutually exclusive from recognising a structural barrier that exists in the here and now and compensating for it. The ultimate goal of gender balancing is to one day have no need for it. But as I’ve said – it is simply fact that as it stands, there is a need for it.

TRANS* AND GENDER BALANCING

I’m too ignorant on the arguments around this and I’ve seen to many good people get slated and frankly bullied for trying to articulate their thinking in this area, so I won’t touch it with a barge pole. But I do have a huge amount of respect and trust in Sky Yarletts experience of these debates and, in my pretty limited understanding, am convinced by their arguments on why gender balancing is not regressive from the perspective of Trans* individuals. Drop them an email if you want to discuss: sky.yarlett@nus.org.uk

DON’T PATRONISE - LET WOMEN COMPETE AS EQUALS

The problem is that, in terms of outcomes, women *are not* competing as equals. If they are, then because all the evidence and facts show that women are systematically less successful at attaining positions of representational power (either because they don’t stand or don’t get elected), you must be accepting that they are inherently less able to represent than men. I simply don't believe that's true - and so there must be *something* else at work (patriarchy, sexism, subconscious misogyny, a society that causes a lack of confidence to stand... call it what you like) that in the long term we want to root out and in the short term we need to compensate for.

TREAT THE DEBATE WITH RESPECT

NUS has always been cutting edge when it comes to issues of equality. Whether Black, LGBT, disabled – issues of devolution or sectarianism… we are consistently decades ahead of society when it comes to having leaders who come from underrepresented backgrounds or creating mechanisms to break down structural barriers and regressive societal norms. Society does catch up but it does it much faster when we push it to.

I don’t pretend that Gender Balancing *delivers* #FairRepresentation. I believe it is necessary structural fix while we put in the long and hard graft of changing societal views so that, one day, the argument we’ll be making for motion 701 is redundant.

But whatever the outcome, whether we pass this motion or not, I’ll be so bloody proud that it’s our organisation that’s facing up to these debates and forcing the rest of society to do the same. From a geeky physics student who used to care more about what sock he was going to have to take a pint through than trying to understand “structural oppression” to caring about this so much now, something I’ve seen replicated in hundreds of officers over the years, there’s something special in us simply having this debate. It’s when we’re at our best so lets treat the debate, and those of us involved in it regardless of viewpoints, with the gravity and respect it deserves.

A New Group Chief Executive: I’m proud of both who and how we have appointed

Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:23:00 +0100

Last week Edd Bauer (one of our Trustees) and Peter Smallwood (VP Education at Brunel and candidate for National President) posted a note outlining concerns over the new appointment of a Group Chief Executive. Amongst their concerns, some are legitimate, but wrong. Some are inaccurate and some blatantly disregard trade union negotiated protocols. Points range from organisationally naïve, to politically inconsistent to overt attempts to undermine principles long established in students’ unions across the country to ensure we’re student led with staff protected from criticism which they can’t respond to. Let me take each in turn.

We have not given a “pay rise”

Six years ago when the current CEO was appointed, NUS was a completely separate entity from NUS Services Limited (NUSSL) and NUS Charitable Services did not exist. That looked like around 100 staff and an £6m turnover. The position we appointed to last week was Group Chief Executive responsible for 220 staff across the UK, made up of a campaigning organisation, a charity and a trading company with a combined turnover of £17m turnover and a £70 million respectively, with all money going to changing students’ lives. We have not increased the wage of the current position. This is a new position with much larger responsibility. This was explained several times to Edd and so I’m disappointed he seeks to mislead members in such a way.

The wage is far from over inflated

Furthermore, it is naïve in the extreme to suggest that this is an inflated wage. We undertook extensive benchmarking and external advice to arrive at how we secure the most talented Chief Executive without wasting members’ money.

The Group Chief Executive role requires someone who can operate at very senior levels with credibility and authority. They are more likely to be found in medium-sized or larger organisations with national reach and breadth of activity, operating at Director, or CEO level where they will have already had some degree of exposure to the running of the organisation, its governance systems, managing senior stakeholder engagements and being accountable for sustaining / developing revenue. The majority of individuals experienced enough to do this job would already be earning between £80 - £90k.

The Association of Chief Executives in Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO) salary survey cites that the median salary for CEOs of £15m+ charities to be £90,000 and in addition there is a 17% mark up for London-based organisations. The NUS Group turnover is currently £17m in total and in addition there is a £70m purchasing consortium. Not only in terms of our size, but also our breadth and reach, our commercial activity, our stakeholder complexity and membership size make this a much ‘bigger job’ than many of its counterparts in that income bracket.

We compared specifically against 8 significant, national voluntary sector organisations, whose CEO salaries were as follows. I haven’t given Trade Union General Secretaries and senior staff wages here... That’s because they are substantially larger than ours. Substantially:

Turnover (approx.)	CEO Salary
£5m	£105k
£5m	£125k
£20m	£120k
£8m	£120k
£22m	£80-90k
£6m	£90-100k
£20m	£80-90k
£15m	£80k

Add to this that CEO roles in students’ unions with £1m+ block grant tend to be paid in the £60k to £70k range - I find it at best ignorant and at worst massively disconnected from reality to suggest that a Chief Executive of an organisation of much larger scale, profile and complexity would command a similar wage.

Doing the best by students’ unions, not what’s comfortable and easy

So I’d also question if Edd or Peter's assertion that the wage is too high is in anyway in the best interest of students’ unions – which is his job as a trustee. The Presidents I’ve spoken to rightly expected us to appoint someone who can manage their money in the best way possible, find ways to continue to reduce affiliation fees and have the best experience and ability to make our campaigns and impact even more powerful. We could have appointed for the new role on a lower salary, but we would not have attracted the right talent. It may well be politically comfortable or electorally expedient for Edd and Peter to say that this wage is too high, but in reality this just shows how disconnected from working for students’ unions they really are. The job of the President and the Board is to do what is best for students’ unions, not what is politically comfortable and easy for the individual.

Politically inconsistent – You’re asking the wrong questions

I’d also challenge that Edd and especially Peter are being politically consistent. The question that a values-based organisation like NUS should be concerned with is not the CEOs wage in isolation from the terms and conditions of our staff across the organisation. If Edd was being politically consistent he would challenge the ratio between the lowest and highest earner in the organisation, our approach to childcare support, annual leave entitlement or the amount we invest in continuous professional development. In all these areas we have an incredibly good story to tell compared to other organisations. If Peter was being politically consistent… well I presume we would let the market rip and be allowing for a much higher wage. A legitimate view point but hardly consistent with his current protestations.

Meetings with high profile individuals

Astoundingly, Edd challenges why I would allow the Chief Executive to attend meetings with high profile sector leaders and politicians. Really? We don’t think that we should use the highest earning individuals to lobby, campaign and secure funding to change students’ lives, when the decision makers we meet will be surrounded by civil servants and advisors briefing them? This is a pretty basic concept that students’ unions have understood for many years now. In fact, surely it’s contradictory to try and slander someone as being a “bureaucrat” and then insist they don’t take part in the very activities that would absolve them of such an accusation?

Dynamics of the Trustee Board Meeting

There are a number of inaccuracies in Edd’s blog regarding the meeting where the wage at which we would advertise was decided. First of all, Edd didn’t leave the meeting in disgust - he had a rant and then hung up. If what people of a similar political ilk to Edd are looking for is someone to give forceful arguments against the ‘leadership’, hanging up not more than a quarter of the way into the conversation instead of engaging with debate is hardly the firebrand tactics I would expect. Edd asserts that a ‘motion’ on pay was ‘forced’ through. A paper was discussed and the majority agreed… that isn’t something being ‘forced’, it’s Edd losing an argument. Very different.

Campaigning Resources – A False Dichotomy

Both Edd and Peter have conflated the CEOs pay as a trade off with campaigning resources or the affiliation fees students’ unions contribute. There is a link, but not the one that they suggest. Since the last CEO was appointed we have decreased our reliance on affiliation fees by from 80% to 37% and reduced the amount we take from students’ unions from 9% of a block grant on average to 4%. We return over £5m a year through our commercial activity. That has been possible by good management and creating new revenue streams such as NUS Extra and NUS Digital (which has put £2.5m back to the movement this year and will deliver a further £1.2m a year by 2015 respectively). Was it student officers that came up with or drove those initiatives? No, of course not. You didn’t elect me or the other Full Time Officers to write business plans.

On campaigning, it’s simply not true to suggest that across the board our campaigns are under resourced. The amount spent on ‘activity’ has increased year on year for the last six years. Peter suggests the difference between the old CEO positions wage and the new Group CEOs wage would double or triple the FE or PG campaigns budget. That is a pretty school boy error to make – the vast majority of our spend on campaigns is our wages, not our ‘activity’ costs. And Peter’s figures also don’t include sums like the c £40k that was spent this year successfully stopping 2,600 students from London Met being deported. So if it is being suggested that we should not have set the new wage at this level and instead distributed the difference to activity costs, fine. But don’t pretend it would make a scratch on the impact of our campaigns. In fact if the consequence is a less talented CEO then it would be to the detriment of our campaigning.

So yes, there is a link between Chief Exec pay and our resources – pay the wrong amount, get the wrong CEO, we waste students’ unions money. Do it right, we create more revenue to change students’ lives.

We’ve Appointed a CEO with Extensive Campaigning Experience and a commitment to Equality and Diversity

Edd has challenged that we have sought to appoint someone with no campaigning experience and no commitment to equality and diversity. As if. Once again he has misled members by posting a document outlining a person spec which was not a final draft (The final pack is available here). Within the final version are explicit lines such as:

“This is an exciting opportunity to build on these foundations and ensure NUS is reaching maximum potential in its campaigning work…” within the introduction
“Realising our campaigning potential” as the first point within the Key Challenges section
“Experience of commanding the resources of an organisation to deliver effective campaigning and/or influencing strategies, and ideally some first hand of experience of campaign leadership” with the Knowledge and Experience section
“To ensure the NUS’s Policies on valuing liberation, equality and diversity, customer care and staff development are implemented effectively across NUS” within the Key Responsibilities section.

I also consciously put one of our liberation officers on the selection panel and placed an explicit question on equality and diversity within the stakeholder meeting between each candidate and ~20 students’ union/NUS officers, staff and externals – a question asked in every single interview for staff we conduct. Edd asks “is it not a time for the NUS to take Liberation seriously at the top of the organisation?” Well, yes… it has been for a while Edd. That’s why it is explicitly in our values, why we’ve invested tens of thousands into research across the movement and have several programmes to diversify the movement at senior levels, elected or otherwise. As a trustee, Edd knows that. So unless Edd’s point is that these blatant commitments to campaigning effectiveness are not under the headings he would have liked (in which case I’d suggest that the accusation of bureaucrat is somewhat misplaced) then he has either not read the candidate pack or is in danger of being accused of misleading the membership. He also inaccurately says there are more men than women at Head of Department level because he has only looked at one aspect of the Group. In fact 10 out of 18 (56%) Heads of Department are women, as is the new Director of the NUS Charity. We want to go further especially on our Senior Leadership Team but for Edd to make his point in isolation from all the work he know is on-going is misleading in the extreme.

On Ben Kernighan’s experience specifically, I find it really hard to understand where you’re coming from to suggest that someone who worked for the Terrance Higgins Trust and National Council for Voluntary Organisations at senior levels would be somehow substandard in this area. I wonder if Edd knows much about THT? The environment in which it operates and the amazing wins it has secured in either cash or societal change? I wonder if he realises that NCVO is a confederation of organisations that work day in day out to change people’s lives and Ben has led campaigning to secure them all sorts of support, legislative change and funding? If only I knew of a similar organisation he could work for… Unless Edd’s point is he wants an CEO who can make a bloody good placard, I really fail to see what his problem is.

Mentioning staff: Flaunting a Trade Union Negotiated Protocol

NUS, like many students’ unions, has a “Staff Protocol” which basically says that it is unfair and unwarranted to criticise, positively or negatively, collectively or individually, the staff of the organisation when they can’t respond – instead you criticise the elected officers who can and are ultimately responsible. For Edd as a trustee to throw around phrases like “stale” and link them explicitly to individuals is outrageous and cowardly when he knows they are not allowed to rebut those allegations. Not only that, it hugely undermines a trade union negotiated protocol, an outcome I’m surprised Edd has sought. I’d be surprised if the staff trade union does not pull me up for this and I’d expect an apology from Edd as soon as possible.

We’ve made the right calls

When being attacked from the Left and Right you’re probably doing something right and I’d just get on with the job, but in this instance both Edd and Peter need to be called out on what is nothing short of political opportunism. The students’ union Presidents I’ve spoken to have either been baffled at why we wouldn’t set a wage that could attract the right talent and experience, been angry at being misled by draft papers and inaccurate reflections on the process or rightly incredibly concerned that we have a student trustee willing to undermine protocols negotiated with our staff trade union.

So, as much as I think how we spend our resources is absolutely legitimate thing to scrutinise, publically, I disagree with nearly everything that has been presented and think this was absolutely the wrong way of going about it from an NUS trustee and Presidential candidate and I think students’ unions should call them both on that and ask the question, what would you think of such conduct by your own trustees or full time officers?

I’m of course happy to speak to any students’ union officer who still has have concerns. Having met Ben I’m incredibly excited about what he and the next President will achieve and I know Ben looks forward to meeting with the movement once he starts.

Dealing with conflict

Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:10:00 Z

The escalation of violence in Israel and Palestine is of concern to many people in the UK and this includes both international and home students. Experience shows us that when conflicts such as this happen around the world students in the UK will rightly want to debate and discuss the issues at hand. It’s easy as emotions rise to see the conflict in primary colours and it’s tempting to make bold statements condemning one side or another, what is more challenging is to recognise that this situation is incredibly complex.

Violence, death and destruction whoever they are caused by are, I believe wrong and it is tragic when this is what people are reduced too. I want to say to students in the UK, of course you should have the debate, and of course you are within your rights to take sides, but remember to those on both sides of the conflict in both Palestine and Israel this isn’t an academic debate, it’s a very, very sad reality.

I urge students’ unions across the UK to look at how they support students both home and international who have family and friends in the region, this will be a tough, worrying and difficult time for them and they need support from their university and students’ union now more than ever. I also urge student leaders right across the piste to show compassion and to handle debate and discussion around this issue with dignity and humility – it’s certainly what I will be encouraging our NEC to do.

I am also aware that people will be expecting me or NUS more broadly to make comment or make statements on this issue. NUS’ position, affirmed by National Conference is clear and can be found here for those that want to read it: http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/pageassets/about/minutes/necminutes/Microsoft-Word-NEC_220911_Minutes_A_V3_.pdf

I believe that right now the most important thing that NUS and students’ unions can do is to support those students here in the UK that are affected by this conflict, and as with all conflicts that impact on our members I call on both sides to cease violence.

Member led and anti fascist- that's the movement I lead

Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:54:00 Z

As well as being a confederation of students’ unions NUS represents a range of different interest groups, and our structures are sliced to reflect this. We have zones, liberation groups, autonomous Nations, committee’s that represent mature, part-time and international students. From time to time people elected inside these structures will say things that people infer are the ‘voice of NUS’, but as we all know life is just more complicated than that.

Aaron Kiely, the NUS Black Students’ Officer at the end of last week blogged about an open letter that he intends to send on behalf of the Black Students Campaign to the editor of Leeds Student. Today Lucy Snow, the editor of Leeds Student responded on the Guardian Blog. This interaction has attracted much attention and so I thought that I would take some time to explain where I am, as the President of NUS on this issue.

NUS is proud of our long-standing policy of offering no platform to fascists. It is this brutal and murderous legacy of fascism in the last century which informs our organisation’s passionate commitment to rejecting racism and fascism in the strongest possible terms. For me, the ‘no platform’ policy is too often misconstrued as a dictatorial, blinkered or preachy position rather than as one which holds that free and democratic debate is under threat from those who are not only not committed to those values but also seek to undermine them. It is because we cherish the values of democracy, equality and collectivism that we have come to this ‘no platform’ position and maintained it. Our members voted to adopt it and have consistently reaffirmed it with votes at our conference.

We remain committed to that NUS policy at a national level, but although many of our affiliated students’ unions have also democratically adopted their own no platform policies and we have supported them in doing so, none of our policies are binding on our members, nor should they ever be – our member’s autonomy and independence is non-negotiable. Although we will always make our case strongly to students’ unions and to student media, we cannot and should not attempt to compromise the independence and autonomy of our members by dictating to them, demanding or instructing that they follow a certain course of action.

As a member-led organisation, it is NUS’ affiliated students’ unions and the students they represent who must shape and lead our policies, not the other way around. In order to stay true to those values of democracy, equality and collectivism I believe we must trust our member students’ unions to take their own democratic decisions rather than seeking to hand them down from on high, particularly in cases where these values are in tension. It is, ironically enough, an integral part of the freedom and democracy that we value so strongly that we will often disagree in the student movement about what the right course of action is when these difficult cases arise. I strongly believe that we should trust our members and engage in dialogue and conversation, rather than dictate. Standing firm by that conviction requires listening as well as talking.

I have made it clear to the National Executive Council why I won’t be signing the letter because I believe that our work must always be with the students’ unions we work for, not separate to them. We should be proud of our position on No Platform, a position consistently voted for by students’ unions, and so we should work to support the sabbaticals at Leeds in what is an incredibly difficult situation. However, we also need to ensure those students that rightly found the article offensive know that they have our support in using their voice in their unions structures, I hope that this blog proves to them they have just that.

I Am The Change and fighting to save Epsom Phab

Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:25:00 +0100

In November last year, NUS launched a groundbreaking project called I Am The Change. We invited students let us know changes they wanted to make, whether it be about education, the community, the environment, personal development, health and wellbeing, careers or politics – it didn’t matter what it was about, or how big it was.

All visitors to the website then voted for their favourite idea with the winner receiving training and funding to help deliver the campaign. The winner was Courtney Giles – a student who wanted to stop Epsom Phab – a youth club for disabled and non-disabled children – being closed down by Surrey County Council.

Following campaign planning days and ongoing support, Epsom Phab will now remain open until the end of 2013 at least and the campaign team are hopeful of achieving their ultimate aim to have a permanent home for the youth club. Here is a video of how I Am The Change helped Courtney with her campaign:

Following this success, NUS is relaunching the project this week. It’s very easy for a college or university student to feel unable to change things. They may feel like an insignificant onlooker when it comes to big issues such as global politics, social inequality and racism, or even when it comes to comparatively ‘small’ issues such as student housing, bursaries and career guidance.

But change doesn’t have to be daunting or intimidating. If you make an effort to recycle, you’re saying “I believe in a cleaner world, and I care”. If you refuse to buy clothes from a company that uses child labour, you’re taking a stand against exploitation.

Courtney Giles didn’t automatically identify as an activist but she did know that she wanted to make a change and what this resulted in was actually a successful anti-cuts campaign. Even the most experienced campaigners know that true activism starts at grass roots level. Simple and immediate actions can have a profound effect when we work collectively with other people trying to achieve the same goal. And this could be anything, from writing to our MP to raising an issue at a local council meeting. Even our smallest choices make a difference, and some of them can end up having a bigger effect than we could possibly have imagined.

Be the Change now at www.nus.org.uk/iamthechange

Nick Clegg must apologise to voters for breaking his pledge, not for making it

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:15:00 +0100

Nick Clegg should be apologising to voters for breaking his pledge, not for making it in the first place.

The Liberal Democrats’ commitment at the 2010 election was to abolish fees, a policy they’ve had for a decade. It’s what they said on the doorstep and in their leaflets, and every one of their MPs signed a pledge to back it up. It’s why many students and young people voted for the party.

Recent research from the Intergenerational Foundation shows £9,000 tuition fees could push public sector debt up by £100 billion over the next twenty years, so when Nick Clegg say there was no alternative to raising fees, the public have reason to doubt such low grade excuses.

It’s up to Nick Clegg now to reach out and apologise to those he betrayed by breaking his fees pledge and to make amends by changing his policies.

We need your help on London Met and UKBA

Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:11:00 +0100

Hello all,

The Home Office’s recent decision on London Met means that over 2000 international students studying there will have to either find a new institution within the next 60 days, or face having to leave the country. This sets a dangerous precedent for other universities, and leaves international students, not only at London Met but all over the UK in a terrifying position. We need to keep challenging this decision, which is entirely wrong-headed, and need to make it clear that this represents a continuation of the Government’s abysmal approach to international students.

We need your help!

1. Write to Your Local MP

Find below a draft letter which explains the seriousness of this situation and the message it sends to international students in their own constituency. It asks them to publicly oppose the decision, and to oppose the continued use of international students in this way as a political football. Find your MP here and send the letter across to them today!

2. Petition

We’ve started an e-petition on GoPetition.com - sign it via the following this link.

Also be sure to circulate this letter across students on your campus, and as widely as you can elsewhere.

3. Support London Met

Students at London Met are shaken about the current situation. Show your solidarity by tweeting them (@LondonMetUni). Please publish your support on your website and Facebook pages as well as ours. And we will need to all continue making it clear that this is entirely misjudged, over the next days and weeks and we call for students to be allowed to continue studying at London Met.

4. Vice-Chancellors

Lobby your VC to publicly oppose this announcement – that must remain a focus. However, the sector should show solidarity if the worst happens and so as a contingency, if you are London or surrounding area, ask your VC to commit to absorbing the 2000+ international students who will be left without a place to study. Whilst we are still opposing the decision itself, we need to also put pressure on others across the sector to take the implications of this decision seriously.

Our focus has and is trying to reverse this decision. However, we cannot be caught off guard if the worst happens and hence we won a place on a taskforce – together with UUK, UKBA, HEFCE, BIS and London Met - to address the practical issues we now face, including ensuring that all the effected students at London Met are able to continue their studies in the UK.

Cheers,

Liam Burns, NUS President

Daniel Stevens, NUS International Students’ Officer

TEMPLATE LETTER TO YOUR LOCAL MP

Find out the name of your local MP via www.theyworkforyou.com

Dear [NAME] MP,

I am writing to you following the news that UKBA have revoked London Metropolitan University’s highly trusted sponsor (HTS) status – which means that over 2000 international students studying there will have to either find a new institution within the next 60 days, or face having to leave the country.

I am deeply concerned about the impact of this wholly wrong-headed decision – which of course is bad for the students concerned, bad for the institution and bad for the UK higher education sector. It is simply not acceptable to force thousands of students to find a new course at a new institution, particularly at this time when we are just weeks away from the start of a new academic year.

It is also clear that revoking London Metropolitan University’s licence in this way will further compound the growing perception that the UK is not a good destination for international students. This should be a great concern for all of us – international students bring new knowledge, ideas and perspectives from which UK students greatly benefit, and provide meaningful links to other countries and cultures, of such great importance in this globalised economy. Moreover, international students constitute an industry worth £12.5 billion a year to the British economy. It would be extremely misguided to take this for granted.

The fact that international students have so dangerously been treated as a political football in this way – and the negative impacts that this could have on those involved, and the UK economy – further emphasises the need for international students to be removed from immigration statistics, as has been recommended by the Home affairs Select Committee.

So long as the Government continue to use international students as a means of lowering immigration figures from the ‘hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands’, we continue to risk similar decisions which make the UK an unattractive destination for international students.

I very much hope that you’ll be able to raise concerns with Government on my behalf regarding the impact of UKBA’s decision to revoke London Metropolitan University’s HTS status – on the students involved, on the UK higher education sector and on the UK economy. Students who applied in good faith to study in the UK at London Metropolitan University should be allowed to continue studying there.

I also hope that you’ll be able to support our calls for international students to be taken out of migration statistics, so that they are not continually used as a political football, as they so clearly have been in this case.

Yours sincerely,

[NAME]

Winning on student support - focus on KCLSU

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:41:00 +0100

NUS has long campaigned for a future in which tertiary education is open to all, not just to those who can afford it. But we must also do what we can to help those students who are in hardship right now.

That’s why we have been helping students’ unions to fight to protect the pound in students' pockets. Our aim has been to ensure that students aren’t let down by inadequate and inappropriate schemes, whether they be extortionate hidden costs, or the government’s con-trick ‘fee waivers’.

The focus on bursaries in particular has delivered millions of pounds to students. The hard work of students’ unions has resulted in £3m more in maintenance grants, £20m more in funding retention activities, and an extra £34m which students can choose to take in cash or campus discounts. A total of £20m has been converted from meaningless waivers into real money which will benefit students. For information on how your union can campaign for the same, please check out the following resources:

Hidden Course Costs toolkit

Access Agreement guidance

Bursaries vs Fee Waivers

Pound in Your Pocket Interim Report

Mapping the Evidence - review of literature on student financial support

The government tried to cover up its bad policy and even worse maths with guidance which was purported to be in students' interests, but in reality only served the Treasury. Students knew this was wrong, their unions didn’t stand for it, and together we are winning the argument. We have only been lobbying on this issue for a year, and we have already ensured that thousands of students will be able to stay on course.

But this is just the start. We will continue to support unions to get more out of their access agreements, by getting rid of partial fee waivers, exposing the National Scholarship for the sham that it is, and developing a new system of financial support.

Below is just one of the success stories we are seeing around the country. Our congratulations go out to the KCLSU team and the rest of the movement who have fought so hard and won so much this year alone.

Guest blog by Hannah Barlow, KCLSU President 2011-12

After pressure from the Government to invest in Fee Waivers that would lever some of the burden from the tuition fee loan system, many Access Agreements appeared focussed on Fee Waivers and not Bursaries, and I soon found out that this was the case at Kings.

My first move was to understand how other institutions' Access Agreements compared. The Access Agreements are public information, and so I could find them on the OFFA website. From this it was easy to compare how many bursaries compared with fee waivers each institution was spending in proportion to their overall spend. I compared Kings with its Russell Group competitors and also the other London institutions. Kings stood out as having pledged the most money to fee waivers in London and was at the top end within the Russell Group (although a lot were far from what we would want them to be).

I presented this information in graph format to the Principal and Vice Principal in our monthly meetings. By using this very visual tool, it was easy for me to point out the differences, and using evidence to back up my argument gave my concerns more weight.

I then began to attend a monthly Widening Participation group which involved key staff members from the College who's role would tie in with this agenda. I had to be consistent with my ambition that bursaries would be more beneficial to widening access and also promote choice with respect to the National Scholarship Programme* (NSP). The NSP can be offered as a fee waiver or, if institutions choose, they can implement elements of choice e.g. can choose a cash bursary or accommodation fee waiver.

To further legitimise my argument I decided to hold a focus group and span our campus asking students about their finances and whether they would prefer a bursary or a partial fee waiver. On top of this I was in contact with the NUS who I knew had been collecting more wide spread data about fee waivers versus bursaries, including sixth form college students. All of the information pointed in favour of bursaries.

The discussions spanned 4-5 months and finally the group agreed to reallocate most of the funding from fee waivers to cash bursaries. In total I secured 2.2 million pounds more in bursaries and also negotiated the system of choice into the NSP scheme (£1k is a cash bursary and students can choose to use the other £2k as a tuition fee waiver or an accommodation fee waiver).

It was a great win for future students and KCLSU and I am happy that King's is committed to listening to its students and is taking steps to widen participation in partnership with its Union.

Our student loans are under threat

Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:36:00 +0100

In May this year, the New Zealand government raised the percentage of a graduate’s salary to be taken as repayment of their student loan. They did this without a parliamentary debate or vote – it was simply announced as part of the Budget.

You might ask why this should be of concern to us in the UK: unfortunately, it is a very real and serious concern to us, because it is a very real and serious possibility here. When our government voted to raise the cap on fees to £9,000 a year, it was not expecting all universities to start charging that amount. But they have, and now the treasury finds itself struggling to find the funds for the massive increase in loans which students have had to take out. We already know the system is unsustainable, so where does the government plan to make the necessary savings in future?

Unfortunately, the terms and conditions of our student loans are now looking very vulnerable indeed. The Universities Minister David Willetts is being deliberately evasive on the issue. Two months ago, at a BIS Select Committee meeting, he was unable to confirm that the student loan repayment system would stay the same in the future. We can safely assume that any changes will not be to the benefit of students and graduates.

The terms and conditions of student loans are under threat on three fronts. The government might, as in New Zealand, take a higher percentage of a student’s salary every month. It might reduce the threshold at which graduates have to start making repayments. Or it might increase the overall rate of interest. All of these would deal a crushing blow to graduates, who are already saddled with huge amounts of debt, in the midst of a recession.

And, as in New Zealand, the government could do any of these things without a debate or vote in parliament. The terms and conditions of student loans are arguably as important to students and graduates as the level of fees themselves, so how is it right that they can be changed without scrutiny?

Students are already entering tertiary education in the knowledge that they will be saddled with over £27,000 of debt when they graduate. If the government wants to make the financial burden even more punitive, they should be willing to argue their case ahead of a proper parliamentary vote. Slipping legislation in through the back door would be as gross a betrayal as the raising of fees itself.

Video: Liam Burns announces demo for 21.11.12

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:26:00 +0100

In a video message to delegates at the NUS Further Education Leadership training event for newly elected officers in colleges and sixth forms, President Liam Burns has announced that NUS is calling on students to march in London on Wednesday 21 November.

Liam Burns will be taking part in a social networking Q&A at 3pm tomorrow. Post any questions you'd like him to answer on our facebook page here or tweet @nusuk on twitter.

National Conference 2012 opening address

Wed, 02 May 2012 16:17:00 +0100

NUS President Liam Burns opens NUS National Conference 2012.

Invitation to Nick Clegg

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:06:00 Z

Clearly the decisions the coalition Government have made have had serious implications for students.

Nick Clegg will not be surprised that our members want to be able to scrutinise those decisions, inform him of the impact they have had locally and argue for a better deal for students. It would be disappointing if, having addressed National Conference before the 2010 General Election and asking for our votes, Nick Clegg would not willing to come and answer for the decisions he has subsequently made.

With this in mind, I have written to Nick Clegg inviting him to speak at National Conference 2012 and encourage you to do the same.

You can read the letter here.

90 years young

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:04:00 Z

Today we host the first of our 90th Anniversary celebrations, a reception in Parliament for old Friends of NUS - including all the presidents from the last 25 years.

NUS for me, has always been about positive change. What we within the student movement, do is try to change things for the better. We campaign to make our members experiences better and to make sure those not lucky enough to be in education can still have that option as a possibility.

Education is force for good and so are we. Across the country I see students’ unions that are working hard to make their union better, to make the lives of students better. There are individuals who have only managed to complete their degree due to their students’ union. There are organisations that we have made better by putting them under pressure. The recent victory against Wonga is but one in a long line, in 2006 HSBC reversed their decision to start charging interest on graduate accounts and famously the boycott or Barclay’s for their activities during apartheid in South Africa.

The future however holds a lot for us to be proud of. The Green Impact scheme is being franchised to other organisations; NUS is leading the way in carbon reduction. The recent general election and those in the nations were met with robust savvy campaigns from students challenging our elected representatives to be better and deliver more. This year as a movement we have invested more than ever before in Students. Invested in inspiring them to be ‘the change’, motivating them to participate in social enterprises, and encouraging them to get accreditation for the skills, experiences and contributions they make during their time in education.

NUS may be 90 years old but many of us are just getting started on our quest to be a force for positive change.

Why you should stand in the NUS elections!

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:05:00 Z

We are at our most powerful, most successful when our democratic structures are truly reflective of our membership and yet too often we NUS officers spend more time ensuring our own election success rather than encouraging others to think about running. Ensuring that anyone who wants to stand for election is able to is part of my job so let me clear - although I am proud of the diversity already on our National Council we should of course seek to increase the range of representation on it.

All of our NEC are elected and to be a more diverse council we need a greater diversity of candidates. It is simply not good enough that there were no women candidates for President last year and everybody agree that we need more further education students to run for positions such as welfare, union development and president. At the National Executive Council on 1st February, the NEC wrote to the Chief Returning Officer asking her to increase diversity and I want to do my part too, hence this blog.

Students think that people like them don't get elected. Over the past 2 years the NEC has had mature students, apprentice students and student parents elected into open positions. Students from small Welsh FE unions and large Scottish unions have been elected as National Executive Councillors. Where non traditional students stand they have proved that they can win.

Students think that it's difficult to run. You need either five or ten students to nominate you to stand depending on the position. They need to come from different institutions but with over 500 students' unions in membership of NUS there are plenty to choose from.

Last year one of the Presidential candidates was a first year undergraduate with politics different to the student movement stereotype and I believe that the election was richer for his involvement - even if I disagreed with him. He wasn't an NUS "hack", he wasn't an officer in his union and he hadn’t even been to conference before but he took the opportunity that I think all students should be able to take.

I promise you, working for NUS as an officer is one of the most exciting, rewarding and gratifying experiences out there, an experience not many are lucky enough to have the opportunity of seeking. I'm not going to lie to you, running for election can be tough. Really tough. But if you're up for the challenge, then what have you got to lose?

Resources for you and your students can all be found on the official NUS Conference Hub www.nusconnect.org.uk/conference/info. The rules are in Conference Document (CD) 11 and there's a guide to all the positions available. If you're thinking of running then get in touch with who ever currently does the job and ask how to go about it. Like I said last year at Students' Unions 2011 - if you want to run for President then give me a call. Ensuring great elections come first for NUS Officers - seeking re-election rightly comes second.

Tell your students to take the plunge and stand. I promise you, you wont regret it.

HE Bill – dropped or delayed?

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:37:00 Z

As many of you already know, around 11.30pm last night the HE twittersphere went into overdrive over news that the Coalition Government had shelved its plans to bring forward an HE Bill. The Telegraph reported the headline “American-backed private universities plan dropped”.

For those of you that follow me (@nus_liam) on twitter, you will know that I was quick to point out that the Government dropping the HE Bill is not necessarily a good thing, highlighting that the reforms can continue without scrutiny or opportunity to defeat. Those of you who have, like me, being paying close attention to this debate, will know that many of the most damaging of changes to HE that are taking place don’t need any legislation and would never have been a feature of the long awaited Bill.

I read with interest the first ‘blog’ on the issue from Mark Leach, the Senior Policy Adviser from the University Alliance and found myself agreeing with many of his points. My initial reaction is that whilst the news has been welcomed in parts of the sector, there is no reason for us to celebrate. People seem to be viewing it either as a u-turn on policy direction after months of public criticism, protests and occupations, or as a sign that the Minister has heard the calls from the sector for stability until we know the impact of £9k fees. I believe that it’s neither.

There are many reasons for us not to celebrate and as you all know, before this announcement I circulated a range of ideas and policy suggestions to you for consultation. I found your feedback invaluable in shaping both the policy objectives and the tactics for the term ahead. My initial thoughts are that the work done in that consultation still stands, the issues remain the same, and our demands have essentially not shifted, they just perhaps need to be refocused given the lack of legislation. So, I have this morning reflected on where we were about to go, considered where I think our policy demands are, based on our earlier discussions, and adapted our proposed activities to reflect the new circumstances.

So here they are, and here is what I think we need to do about them, Why the fight to stop the Government from selling off our education goes on:

Students don’t have enough power | Even without legislation, the Government’s funding changes are making HE more unstable and diverse, and students need more power to hold their providers to account. The Government assumes that students achieve power solely via “consumer choice”- but that power is illusory and doesn’t help if things go wrong.