This evening the Annual Members' Meeting (AMM) of UCLU was convened, following its postponement the week previous. Stella's campaign for socialist policies was present, leafleting outside the meeting beforehand advertising the campaign and our proposed amendment, and intervening in the meeting itself.
Two very positive motions were proposed, one entitled 'No Confidence in the Bloomsbury Masterplan', the other 'NUS conference policy submissions'.
Whilst not perfect, we wholeheartedly endorse these progressive motions and would have certainly voted in favour of them, had we been given the chance.
The motions recognise the need to fight the 'UCL Masterplan' if it means cuts to such important services as Gower Place Practice or bulldozing Carpenters' Estate, and links this to the need for democratic control of workers and students over redevelopment.
Amendment
However, on one point in the 'No confidence...' motion, we believed an amendment was needed to strengthen the document, and therefore strengthen union policy.
We were told our amendment was out of order. Nevertheless, we went along to the AMM, distributing leaflets with out proposed amendment. We proposed to:
Replace 'UCLU resolves - paragraph 5', which reads:
Two very positive motions were proposed, one entitled 'No Confidence in the Bloomsbury Masterplan', the other 'NUS conference policy submissions'.
Whilst not perfect, we wholeheartedly endorse these progressive motions and would have certainly voted in favour of them, had we been given the chance.
The motions recognise the need to fight the 'UCL Masterplan' if it means cuts to such important services as Gower Place Practice or bulldozing Carpenters' Estate, and links this to the need for democratic control of workers and students over redevelopment.
Amendment
However, on one point in the 'No confidence...' motion, we believed an amendment was needed to strengthen the document, and therefore strengthen union policy.
We were told our amendment was out of order. Nevertheless, we went along to the AMM, distributing leaflets with out proposed amendment. We proposed to:
Replace 'UCLU resolves - paragraph 5', which reads:
"5. Given the magnitude of some of the proposals, their severe negative impact on students and community, and the fact that no meaningful process of consent has taken place: we will fully support students, staff and residents taking direct action to block and resist negative aspects of these proposals."
And replace with the following:
“5. Given the magnitude of some of the proposals and their severe negative impact on students and the community, a serious mass campaign must be launched. The union should first and foremost launch a sustained campaign to argue the political points throughout the student body. Direct actions, such as occupations, should be endorsed by mass meetings of students, which give the widest layer of students possession of the occupation. Only a mass occupation of students and staff that turns outwards and links up with the general labour movement can hope to make a significant political impact.”
Good Intentions
We believe this point is very important, as it addresses an important question in the student movement - that of the nature of 'Direct Action'. It is particularly relevant in the light of the well-intentioned, although ultimately failed, occupation against the destruction of the Carpenter's Estate in Stratford, that took place just before Christmas.
The original paragraph effectively endorses the policy of declaring an occupation, and then (presumably) hoping others will rally to the cause. It puts no responsibility on UCLU to actively campaign for such actions, but that it will react in support in a reflex manner if a group of people act to 'block' or 'resist'.
Direct Action
If UCLU does not put the time and effort into campaigning and attempting to win the argument among a significant section of the students and staff, then people will not understand why they should get involved.
Furthermore, unless an occupation is endorsed by a group of students and staff with a sufficient numerical weight on campus, and all students have been given the opportunity to participate in discussing out such a decision - again the responsibility of UCLU - then students will feel alienated from the political process. The 'lefts' have it all sown up and appear to be carrying out decisions on behalf of the students.
We should not be enamoured by the wave of occupations of 2010. It may appear to prove the opposite of what we are arguing; that it is only sufficient to proclaim an occupation for students to rally in numbers to the cause. But 2010 was the exception, not the rule. It occurred under specific circumstances of imminent and draconian fee rises, the apparent betrayal of the Lib Dems and the coalition government of austerity coming to power.
We are not against occupations, only we argue that if you're going to do it, do it right. It is all too easy to create demoralisation and alienation among students if well-intentioned socialists fail to do the leg-work.
Motion Defeated
At the AMM this evening our motion was challenged and defeated. The argument against our motion, put forward by one well-meaning left-wing student, was that the students are not interested, and if we make known any proposal for an occupation, we will compromise our intended actions.
On the latter point, if you do not involve students, you will not be able to occupy and defend a broom-cupboard, let alone a lecture theatre. A real mass of students and staff, intent on occupation, will not be seriously opposed by security - who also should be appealed to on a class basis of solidarity in such a situation. And if you do not involve the mass of the students, they will ignore you. It is very common for left-wingers to moan about the apathy of the students or the working class, when all the while it is that very left-winger that is acting as an obstacle to getting students involved.
Which leads us to the former argument of the well-intentioned left student this evening - that generally, students are not interested. Well in that case their are one of two answers: either your cause is no good, or you are no good at campaigning for your position. Either way, don't blame the students.
It was ironical to be defeated on such a point in an AMM that had failed, after half an hour, to achieve quorate. Only 30 students were present in the AGM of UCLU.
Therefore it was announced that the union council would taken on the powers of the AMM, and we were allowed to attend as visitors and speak to the motion our amendment concerned. However, our amendment was still ruled out of order. We were allowed to propose the deletion of the original paragraph 5, which we therefore did, as we believed the question of a mass assembly was dealt with earlier in the motion, although not linked to the question of direct action. The union council voted against our proposal, with 3 in favour and 3 abstentions.
If I am elected Education and Campaigns Officer it will be my policy to make the political case for any given campaign, and then seek to have the actions necessary endorsed not only by the existing UCLU structures, but by the widest layer of students.
Socialism needs democracy like the body needs oxygen!
Vote Stella #1 for Education and Campaigns Officer!
We believe this point is very important, as it addresses an important question in the student movement - that of the nature of 'Direct Action'. It is particularly relevant in the light of the well-intentioned, although ultimately failed, occupation against the destruction of the Carpenter's Estate in Stratford, that took place just before Christmas.
The original paragraph effectively endorses the policy of declaring an occupation, and then (presumably) hoping others will rally to the cause. It puts no responsibility on UCLU to actively campaign for such actions, but that it will react in support in a reflex manner if a group of people act to 'block' or 'resist'.
Direct Action
If UCLU does not put the time and effort into campaigning and attempting to win the argument among a significant section of the students and staff, then people will not understand why they should get involved.
Furthermore, unless an occupation is endorsed by a group of students and staff with a sufficient numerical weight on campus, and all students have been given the opportunity to participate in discussing out such a decision - again the responsibility of UCLU - then students will feel alienated from the political process. The 'lefts' have it all sown up and appear to be carrying out decisions on behalf of the students.
We should not be enamoured by the wave of occupations of 2010. It may appear to prove the opposite of what we are arguing; that it is only sufficient to proclaim an occupation for students to rally in numbers to the cause. But 2010 was the exception, not the rule. It occurred under specific circumstances of imminent and draconian fee rises, the apparent betrayal of the Lib Dems and the coalition government of austerity coming to power.
We are not against occupations, only we argue that if you're going to do it, do it right. It is all too easy to create demoralisation and alienation among students if well-intentioned socialists fail to do the leg-work.
Motion Defeated
At the AMM this evening our motion was challenged and defeated. The argument against our motion, put forward by one well-meaning left-wing student, was that the students are not interested, and if we make known any proposal for an occupation, we will compromise our intended actions.
On the latter point, if you do not involve students, you will not be able to occupy and defend a broom-cupboard, let alone a lecture theatre. A real mass of students and staff, intent on occupation, will not be seriously opposed by security - who also should be appealed to on a class basis of solidarity in such a situation. And if you do not involve the mass of the students, they will ignore you. It is very common for left-wingers to moan about the apathy of the students or the working class, when all the while it is that very left-winger that is acting as an obstacle to getting students involved.
Which leads us to the former argument of the well-intentioned left student this evening - that generally, students are not interested. Well in that case their are one of two answers: either your cause is no good, or you are no good at campaigning for your position. Either way, don't blame the students.
It was ironical to be defeated on such a point in an AMM that had failed, after half an hour, to achieve quorate. Only 30 students were present in the AGM of UCLU.
Therefore it was announced that the union council would taken on the powers of the AMM, and we were allowed to attend as visitors and speak to the motion our amendment concerned. However, our amendment was still ruled out of order. We were allowed to propose the deletion of the original paragraph 5, which we therefore did, as we believed the question of a mass assembly was dealt with earlier in the motion, although not linked to the question of direct action. The union council voted against our proposal, with 3 in favour and 3 abstentions.
If I am elected Education and Campaigns Officer it will be my policy to make the political case for any given campaign, and then seek to have the actions necessary endorsed not only by the existing UCLU structures, but by the widest layer of students.
Socialism needs democracy like the body needs oxygen!
Vote Stella #1 for Education and Campaigns Officer!
RSS Feed