Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
case proven really, innit? I remember when i was at uni (mid 80s) the NUS hierarchy was always seen as a bunch of sellout wankers thenNemo said:
The NUS...Where Did It All Go Wrong
- Thread starter JKKne
- Start date
To be fair to them, NUS itself has consistently backed the AUT in their pay claim and their industrial action and continues to do so - www.nusonline.co.uk
Thats not to say of course that the posts on this thread have not been almost entirely correct, that NUS is a fairly ineffective political pressure group, and thats largely to do with how disconnected it is with students.
The question of whether students should have to 'otp-in' to the NUS and maybe pay subs is quite interesting I think. From a left perspective, perhaps with increasing numbers of people going to uni (and then into jobs), maybe it would make sense for the left to back opt-in membership if it meant that students gradually realised the value of having a national union, representing students and changing government policy, and become ingrained with ideas of collectivism and solidarity through that. (Although i think that the NUS is quite shit politically, they do have influence on legislation on small issues like mature students etc, just not on the key funding and marketisation of education issues.)
However the problem lies partly that anyone involved in NUS thinks opt-in membership would be the apocalypse, but mainly IMO that the members of NUS are not students, but student unions, which are funded by their parent institutions and provide all the representation etc to their college/uni that a new NUS would want/need to provide. That universities move up the league tables partly based on how much they spend on student development (i.e. everything the SU does except commercial activities) means that local student unions would never disappear if NUS did, and only the sabbs who were really committed to collectivism and solidarity would encourage people to spend money joining an NUS rather than spending it in their own SU bar. I'm sure that right-wing sabbs would also simply create a sort of 'presidents network' that could represent students to government on education policy.
At the moment discounts at a few retailers and the occasional quote from an NUS officer in the paper are all that NUS means to most students. Actions by governments in the last 20 years have restricted what local students' unions can do, and institutionalised them by basing university league tables on things like how much influence students can have and how much is spent on extra-curricular things. Whether thats a good thing for students (in a narrow, short-term sense) is debatable, however its definetly not a good thing for people who think collectivism and solidarity are very important both as students and in later life, or are committed to major social change.
Thats not to say of course that the posts on this thread have not been almost entirely correct, that NUS is a fairly ineffective political pressure group, and thats largely to do with how disconnected it is with students.
The question of whether students should have to 'otp-in' to the NUS and maybe pay subs is quite interesting I think. From a left perspective, perhaps with increasing numbers of people going to uni (and then into jobs), maybe it would make sense for the left to back opt-in membership if it meant that students gradually realised the value of having a national union, representing students and changing government policy, and become ingrained with ideas of collectivism and solidarity through that. (Although i think that the NUS is quite shit politically, they do have influence on legislation on small issues like mature students etc, just not on the key funding and marketisation of education issues.)
However the problem lies partly that anyone involved in NUS thinks opt-in membership would be the apocalypse, but mainly IMO that the members of NUS are not students, but student unions, which are funded by their parent institutions and provide all the representation etc to their college/uni that a new NUS would want/need to provide. That universities move up the league tables partly based on how much they spend on student development (i.e. everything the SU does except commercial activities) means that local student unions would never disappear if NUS did, and only the sabbs who were really committed to collectivism and solidarity would encourage people to spend money joining an NUS rather than spending it in their own SU bar. I'm sure that right-wing sabbs would also simply create a sort of 'presidents network' that could represent students to government on education policy.
At the moment discounts at a few retailers and the occasional quote from an NUS officer in the paper are all that NUS means to most students. Actions by governments in the last 20 years have restricted what local students' unions can do, and institutionalised them by basing university league tables on things like how much influence students can have and how much is spent on extra-curricular things. Whether thats a good thing for students (in a narrow, short-term sense) is debatable, however its definetly not a good thing for people who think collectivism and solidarity are very important both as students and in later life, or are committed to major social change.
jbob said:You've got that completely the wrong way round. When there were full grants and fees were paid by the state, you had more working class people going to university. Moron.
Get your facts right. A generation ago students doing degrees were mainly middle class, and got grants not loans. Working class students (like me) went to 'techs, and didn't get grants.
Now the number of students has increased, and the number of working class students doing degrees, and lo & behold grants get replaced by loans....
Where else are we seeing this? Air Travel.... a generation or so ago middle class only, now with cheap air fares more working class people (like me!) can afford to travel... and now middle class tossers are bleating on about global warming (while driving their fucking chelsea tractors) and the solution is to tax & drive up air fares..
The similarity is that the carpet is being pulled out from under working people by pricing things out of our reach...
middle class student... you tosser...
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
marty21 said:
Very true. When I was an undergraduate back in the 80's, it was led by Phil Woolas, then Stephen Twigg and look what happened to them. But didn't Thatcher claim that the NUS was some sort of hotbed of radical socialism that threatened her 'revolution' and vowed to make membership of the NUS voluntary rather than automatic? I think the rot really began there. If the NUS are supporting university management rather than lecturers, then we really have hit rock bottom.
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
What is the role of the NUS? Is it there to represent the views and interests of the members or is it there to be a platform for radical politics or new-labour entryists who want to get onto the first rung of the political ladder?
What if the views and interests of the members are different to those within the hierachy that runs the union?
At Sussex back in 2002 all the socialists were thrown out by the membership because they tried to turn the union into the political wing of the SLP and almost ruined it financially. The fact that there was no big graduation/leavers ball because there was no money left to make it run is something that still sticks like a knife in my stomach.
What if the views and interests of the members are different to those within the hierachy that runs the union?
At Sussex back in 2002 all the socialists were thrown out by the membership because they tried to turn the union into the political wing of the SLP and almost ruined it financially. The fact that there was no big graduation/leavers ball because there was no money left to make it run is something that still sticks like a knife in my stomach.
Similar threads
