During this year’s election campaign students may have noticed that there are two clear left-wing candidates running for the Education and Campaigns Officer position. Inevitably this has raised some questions amongst the students. What do we have in common? Where do we differ? What implications does this have for a left candidate getting elected?
Programme
To say that myself and Keir Gallagher are both running on a left-wing programme does not say very much and remains very abstract. What we should ask is what do we concretely stand for?
I stand on a clear programme stating the need for socialist policies to fight the Tory education cuts. The question cannot be solved within the confines of the UCL campus. The cuts in education and the rise of fees are not problems of UCL, but consequences of the capitalist crisis. I think it is important to be clear on this question as any reforms cannot be achieved or defended without coming into conflict with the limitations of capitalism.
Therefore, it is important to make no artificial distinction between the politics of UCL and the politics of the national student movement. That is why I also emphasise the need to have a healthy attitude towards the NUS. I am opposed to any attempts to split the NUS or create a new student union on a national level. The key to creating a fighting student movement will not be found in splitting our forces, but linking them up and rejuvenating them through an alliance with the labour and trade union movement.
It is only through such an alliance that students can effectively campaign for the abolition of all fees and student debt. Our campaign should not stop short at opposing an increase in fees, but should go all the way to abolishing all fees and introducing a living grant for students. The wealth exists in society for all education to be free, it’s just in private hands.
I fully endorse Keir’s position against the UCL Masterplan. He is correct in pointing out the undemocratic nature through which this project arose. As he correctly says, it "...does not represent the needs of the entire UCL community"
What it does represent are the interests of big business outside of UCL and their lackeys in the UCL management. This, once again, shows that one can only address the problems of UCL by tracing their roots in the current system.
The problems of “late and unhelpful feedback, overcrowded seminars [and] inadequate postgrad stipends” are extremely important issues. This is why I have raised two key demands that go to the root of these problems.
Firstly, we must defend lecturers. The cuts don't only affect services and facilities, they also threaten our lecturers. As I say in my manifesto, fewer staff means larger classes, thus lowering standards.
Second, student rents - particularly in London - are too damn high! And this has a direct effect on education, increasing the stress of students. This also forces them to take up precarious jobs that reduce their study time, and generally damages their student experience.
The fact that postgrad students are having to take on employment during their studies to supplement their stipends is a question of rent costs, and living costs in general. That is why I have identified in my programme the need to reintroduce a living grant for all students in higher education.
Splitting the left?
It might be argued that two left-wing candidates should not run against each other, as this would split the progressive vote in UCLU. However, with the preferential voting system students can vote for more than one candidate, meaning that the left-wing vote will not be split.
On the contrary, two left-wing candidates can reinforce each other, adding diversity, stimulating debate and making the campaign more dynamic. All the above will increase participation in the elections for student representatives.
I don't believe that students are hard to mobilise or disinterested in politics. The accusation that has been levelled at young people for years, that they are apathetic, is a slander against the youth.
If you talk to people today abut concrete issues such as tuition fees, cuts to housing benefits and hospital A&E wards or the general policies of the coalition government and its austerity programme, people have opinions. But that does not mean that they take an interest in Westminster politics, which many feel unrepresented by. The same is the case for UCLU students. If they feel let down by the politics of the union, this does not mean they are apolitical.
Therefore I think that if either Keir or me were to step down in this election, this would be a loss to student democracy. Keeping the Tories out will not be achieved in this way. There are no shortcuts to a victory for the left. The way forward is a bold, positive campaign for socialist policies!
Vote Stella Christou #1!
Vote Keir Gallagher #2!
For Education and Campaigns Officer
Programme
To say that myself and Keir Gallagher are both running on a left-wing programme does not say very much and remains very abstract. What we should ask is what do we concretely stand for?
I stand on a clear programme stating the need for socialist policies to fight the Tory education cuts. The question cannot be solved within the confines of the UCL campus. The cuts in education and the rise of fees are not problems of UCL, but consequences of the capitalist crisis. I think it is important to be clear on this question as any reforms cannot be achieved or defended without coming into conflict with the limitations of capitalism.
Therefore, it is important to make no artificial distinction between the politics of UCL and the politics of the national student movement. That is why I also emphasise the need to have a healthy attitude towards the NUS. I am opposed to any attempts to split the NUS or create a new student union on a national level. The key to creating a fighting student movement will not be found in splitting our forces, but linking them up and rejuvenating them through an alliance with the labour and trade union movement.
It is only through such an alliance that students can effectively campaign for the abolition of all fees and student debt. Our campaign should not stop short at opposing an increase in fees, but should go all the way to abolishing all fees and introducing a living grant for students. The wealth exists in society for all education to be free, it’s just in private hands.
I fully endorse Keir’s position against the UCL Masterplan. He is correct in pointing out the undemocratic nature through which this project arose. As he correctly says, it "...does not represent the needs of the entire UCL community"
What it does represent are the interests of big business outside of UCL and their lackeys in the UCL management. This, once again, shows that one can only address the problems of UCL by tracing their roots in the current system.
The problems of “late and unhelpful feedback, overcrowded seminars [and] inadequate postgrad stipends” are extremely important issues. This is why I have raised two key demands that go to the root of these problems.
Firstly, we must defend lecturers. The cuts don't only affect services and facilities, they also threaten our lecturers. As I say in my manifesto, fewer staff means larger classes, thus lowering standards.
Second, student rents - particularly in London - are too damn high! And this has a direct effect on education, increasing the stress of students. This also forces them to take up precarious jobs that reduce their study time, and generally damages their student experience.
The fact that postgrad students are having to take on employment during their studies to supplement their stipends is a question of rent costs, and living costs in general. That is why I have identified in my programme the need to reintroduce a living grant for all students in higher education.
Splitting the left?
It might be argued that two left-wing candidates should not run against each other, as this would split the progressive vote in UCLU. However, with the preferential voting system students can vote for more than one candidate, meaning that the left-wing vote will not be split.
On the contrary, two left-wing candidates can reinforce each other, adding diversity, stimulating debate and making the campaign more dynamic. All the above will increase participation in the elections for student representatives.
I don't believe that students are hard to mobilise or disinterested in politics. The accusation that has been levelled at young people for years, that they are apathetic, is a slander against the youth.
If you talk to people today abut concrete issues such as tuition fees, cuts to housing benefits and hospital A&E wards or the general policies of the coalition government and its austerity programme, people have opinions. But that does not mean that they take an interest in Westminster politics, which many feel unrepresented by. The same is the case for UCLU students. If they feel let down by the politics of the union, this does not mean they are apolitical.
Therefore I think that if either Keir or me were to step down in this election, this would be a loss to student democracy. Keeping the Tories out will not be achieved in this way. There are no shortcuts to a victory for the left. The way forward is a bold, positive campaign for socialist policies!
Vote Stella Christou #1!
Vote Keir Gallagher #2!
For Education and Campaigns Officer
RSS Feed