NUS Extraordinary Conference

Last week we all trawled down to Wolverhampton, which is actually quite a nice place, to vote on the NUS Governance review. It needs to be voted through twice to replace the existing constitution, so they're probably going to hold two of these to push it through. I would personally say that this is quite undemocratic, since a lot of little HE unions and FE unions just send Sabbaticals or activists to extraordinary conferences without an election. Personally, I'd rather the constitution had a more democratic mandate, but the rules are such that if 25 unions call for an extraordinary conference we have to have one, and there are rules that unions can opt-out of elections. As in the last NUS conference, the vote was roughly divided between the right of student politics, led by Labour Students and the Organised Independent vote, and the 'Save NUS Democracy' umbrella group, which covers ENS, SWP and a whole host of little left groups. The crucial difference between this conference and the last was that there were less independent votes and FOSIS (Federation of Student Islamic Societies) voted for the motion. I am not going to ramble on about the ideology behind the opposition to the review, I think Hull-Left sums it up pretty well here, but roughly speaking the objections are as follows (again, I've borrowed their list):

Trustee Board: Gives power to non-student professionals, to guarantee that there is some actual financial and legal experts making sure the NUS doesn't do anything illegal. HUU have had these for a couple of years now, and I am glad they're there, as their advice has been very helpful at times and they're very aware that their position is limited by their roles (in our case, a charity expert, financial expert and legal expert).

Liberation Spaces: there is no liberation representation on the trustee board. I completely agree with this- the liberation campaigns have representation, but in the end the Board is intended to administer the Union not direct policy. Also, I would hope that the student leaders elected onto the board represent all students, and that the sectionalisation and pidgeon-holing which goes on elsewhere in the Union isn't necessary there. Keep the politics in the council.

Zone Conferences: This would hopefully clear all of the motions about Iraq out of the way. It would also mean stuff like 'this conference believes anorexia is a serious problem and the NUS should support research into it' that everyone agrees on anyway wouldn't have to waste conference time. Virtually nobody speaks against most of the motions and there are very few motions at national conference which are close enough to require a count. Zone Conferences would free up more time for issues which can't be agreed on without debate. Think about it: a whole half hour to debate a motion!

The National Ballot: Sounds good, and from what I can read our comrades on the far left agree.

Also, the left talk a lot about how we should solve the NUS' problems by more direct action and protests, but I don't see how that's going to help our finances. Sort out the money and we'll be able to run bigger campaigns!

I voted YES to the final motion, and voted as following on ammendments:

1. NO
2. NO
3. YES*
4. YES
5. NO
6. YES
7. NO
8. YES
9. YES
10. NO
11. NO
12. NO
13. NO
14. YES
15. NO
*I voted for this after parts were taken so it was reduced from a 'let's go home whilst there is an investigation into the effect of the constitution on minorities' to a 'let's have an investigation into the effect of the constitution on minorities' ammendment.

The only really contentious ammendment was 7, which proposed mandatory gender quotas for NUS delegations. Basically at least 50% (rounded down) would have to be women. I voted against because I believe in egalitarianism, and just as I would be happy to be represented by anyone provided they had the best interests of all students at heart, I would like to think I could represent female students. I don't think the fact our President is a woman, or our national President is gay reduces the amount of representation I get, and I think this applies both ways.

So until next time,

Iain

4.

Victory!

The HUU Governance review has passed, and I for one can finally relax after a year of madness. Well done to the Sabb team for getting it passed, especially to Coralie and Gibson for lecture shouting people, Priscilla for going out there and collaring people, and the marketting team for plastering the place with gear.

Not only did it reach quoracy (amazingly) but it was a 90(+)% Yes vote- admittedly the posters and materials were rather biased but I was expecting more objections from Scarborough! Good times.

Iain

NUS Elections

The NUS elections are over, and the following candidates were successful:

Chris Marks
'Irish' Mark Alcorn
Richard 'Priscilla' Jackson
Emma Kinloch
Irving Anderson
Urslaan Waheed Khan
Iain Keers
Ben Wilcox
Thomas Digby

congratulations to those who got elected. There will be an elections appeals committee coming up soon, so the list is still up for change.

Council

Hello and Good Day, fellow Hull Observers. I'm writing a quick post here as a summation of the last council meeting, and more specifically our current situation regarding No Platform.

On the 13th of the Month we held Union Council, and although a largely dull meeting there was a plethora of questions (admittedly mostly from me) to the President and the UST.

Firstly Helen got questioned as to our current lack of a No Platform policy- an issue raised not only because nearly every Union has one by default, but because she attempted to introduce one and was voted down six to one by her UEC!

Secondly, Alex was questioned extensively on the wholly undemocratic and unconstitutional elections held the Thursday before. Only 60 people in total voted in the elections, which I work out as being a shade over four people per candidates. Considering this candidate didn't even have the chance to vote for himself, this is a disgrace. No election dates were announced- and despite the fact that all the Tory candidates were elected I have been assured that even they only found out it was on when someone texted them to say that they've voted for them!

Oh dear:- where now from here? A complete failure for the first public duty of the year, followed up by Mr Hamilton failing to agree with the President what dates the Union will be holding voting for it's new constitution on. A farce all round.

But now back to the topic of choice- No Platform policies, and the furor around them. Here is the facebook group, where most of the arguments are laid out. Our position here has always been to firmly keep to the centre ground, whilst maintaining freedom of speech. We will quite happily meet the BNP, the NF, Islamist groups, Stalinists and other extremists on neutral grounds to debate- and we will win. However, the Union is a private building dedicated to helping and supporting students. It is funded by students, and quite simply, with a third of students international, and another fifth non-white, why should we have racist, xenophobic groups spoiling their Union with their propaganda?

Of course, we recognise others hold different views, and so at some point we will be organising a debate between both points of view. We'll let you know when that happens, but the easiest way would be to join the group above.

best,

Iain

Newsflash update on the new constitution!

Most people thought the lid had finally been nailed down on the constitutional white paper when the last UEC approved the document before leaving office. As you know, it is convention that the new UEC respects the decisions made by the old, even if they disagree with them. Last year, for example, the UEC disagreed with the 2006-07 policy of pulling out of the scheme, but they stuck by that commitment.

However, on the 20th of August 2008 the new UEC took a vote on the matter and voted 3 to 2 not to carry forward the document to referendum, breaking what was supposedly a 3 year commitment. This was discovered by combing through the UEC minutes- despite the enormous importance of this decision no consultation was made and no information released. After the lengthy consultation period established by the last UEC, with input from all sources including the new UEC, disregarding the white paper now appears to be nothing less than an abuse of power. Much credit to President Helen Gibson, who despite disagreeing with the paper in many aspects was one of two UEC members to defend it.

If the paper does not meet the timetable then it will not be ready for the 2009 elections (provided it passes) throwing everything up in the air.

The question is: where now from here? The UEC must be held to account over this decision, which has thrust the process surrounding the white paper from the light firmly into the undemocratic shadows which haunted previous years' proposals.

Freshers week

Hello everyone, and welcome to the new academic year. Freshers is a time of fun, but there is a bit of politics to be discussed! We have the traditional political society recruitments, with Labour and the Conservatives both at the fair on thursday. However, in addition a newly resurgent politics society will be recruiting, so make sure you sign up.

The following week the real action starts, as emergency elections begin to get new members elected for council, finance committee and so on. Everyone intending to stand needs to get their forms in for the end of freshers week. Elections for NUS delegates will also take place that week. You can download forms here.

Hope you enjoy freshers, and hope to see you soon for the new year :)

Withdrawal

I am formally withrawing the last post. Although as an organisation we are committed to good (ie incisive) journalism, the last post went perhaps too far. In future it will be policy not to use social networking sites as sources of information. There has been precedent in the past (which has not been challenged by the new administration) of using facebook to hold officers to account. I felt that it was wrong at the time of the precedent, and I feel it is wrong now: and two wrongs do not make a right, as I was always taught.

I want to apologise personally for any harm done to anyone's feelings, especially those of the new president, who was offended by the post. In future we will consult all members involved before publishing posts which might inadvertantly cause dispute, to minimise damage.