To download a Microsoft Word version of the report, please click this link: NUSNC10 Report Chris Jesson.
- Report produced in Verdana font size 12 on primrose yellow background.
- Please send a message from the contact page in the event that alternative formats are required and I’ll see if I can send these to you.
Report Description
The NUS National Conference took place at Sage Gateshead from 13th-15th April. I was in Newcastle for the first engagement as a NEC member and the event exposed both rushes of adrenalin and tensions alike. I stayed in the rather nice Copthorne hotel on the Quayside (my room had a mini terrace overlooking the river Tyne and Tyne Bridge)
I arrived at Newcastle on the 12th for an NEC briefing and was pleasantly surprised with the city which looks to have been given an extensive regeneration programme on the keyside. The Sage Conference and Music venue is a particular favourite building of mine and looks stunning from the riverside. It is especially welcoming to have buildings like these that are radical from the existing streetscene and sightline, that have a capability to blend in beautifully. The conference hall (so I am told) is miles better than the Blackpool Winter Gardens. Now while I did not have the delight of visiting there, I did stay at the glorious Norbreck Hotel for my first NUS Disabled Students’ Conference last year, and would be glad to see the back of the place.
NEC members were allocated a daunting spot on the stage to sit, but I really liked this, even if it enforces a sense of hierarchy and power over everyone else. But maybe that is why I felt comfortable. It was amusing that I was put with the existing NEC members who politically affiliate to the left, so that every time this part of the stage was pointed at, I was suddenly included as a Socialist. I personally did not mind as I was able to reflect on their hard work at reaching out to the Liberation Groups which is something we agree on (even if the word ‘liberation’ sits uncomfortably).
The hall with up to and over 800 delegates had a very marked atmosphere and sense of vibrancy and on the most part of day one there was an etiquette of listening to most people’s views without complaint or anger. Admittedly, most of the motions here were not very controversial.
I made an open contribution speech on an equality and diversity motion in the Further Education (FE) zone. This was subsequently passed. This took place in the evening when the majority of Conference delegates took the chance to leave the hall and not return, which I thought was disgraceful. Most delegates have arrived here for a purpose and it is simply ill advised and a wasted opportunity to ignore the subject of FE in Educational debates. This is particularly so in that FE can learn from aspects of HE (and vice versa). I learnt a lot from this poor attendance and gained the consensus that there was a selfish attitude towards certain sections of the student community. This is utterly disappointing. I rounded the long day off (up at 7.15am and got back to the hotel at just after midnight) by going to the informal presidential hustings which was a thoroughly engaging affair – I personally considered that Belle Ribeiro-Addy spoke the best in these proceedings. While the candidates were hardly ripped to shreds they did put convincing cases forward as to their beliefs, although the stamping of feet from spectators and constant reference to the “militant working class” by Chris Marks began to wear a bit thin over time. I just have to learn with noise sensitivity I think.
Still, the vibrancy of the conference continued to day 2, which included welfare motions. I found it frustrating at times on occasions when I had prepared a speech, only then for the motion to fall under the guillotine but that is something new I learned to put up with! During spare access breaks and lunches I flittered around the stalls and represented the NUS Disabled Students’ Campaign on occasions. I am looking forward to working on this campaign and set up the stall back-board in the style of our new logo.
With commitments on the stall and work for Sheffield Union I decided not to attend the fringe meetings – additionally it was a good occasion to grab a bite to eat and I never avoid that. Further motions continued including election speeches for the Vice President positions. I thought the majority of speeches were spot on in delivery, even if the beliefs did not match my own values on some occasions. I did however notice over the course of time that the word “deliver” was not used sparingly!
Taking into account of all elections including the block of 15 positions (results announced later this week) I was strongly encouraged by the election candidates that stood for honesty and less of a political affiliation, as it matches what I consider in my values when working and representing others. I was not necessarily swayed by the best speeches, but instead where I agreed with the person on their objectives it was likely they would be considered for the vote. Either way I look forward to working with the eventual candidates and hope that in return they accept flexibility and negotiation in working with me on the NEC. I thought that the new NUS President Aaron Porter, International Officer Christina Yan Zhang and LGBT Officer Daf Adley delivered very good speeches on day two.
I did not stay the full day for the finale – instead choosing to leave at the beginning of the leaving speeches to arrive at Sheffield in ‘good time’, although it transpired that trains to Sheffield liked to be cancelled in true Cross Country Train fashion so I had to divert via Leeds. But the final day of the conference was epitomised by issues of censorship and a lack of clarity on motion 701b. I’ll deal with the latter first, to state I was unimpressed with the confusion in giving rounds of speeches and the voting process with the motion. It was clear delegates were drifting into the scenario without a clue in the world what to do and the situation deserved far better explanation.
That day had started badly for some delegates with the motions of censorship submitted early on, when there was a lower turnout of delegates (sore heads and all that). Durham Union submitted the motion of censorship against the NUS Black Students’ Officer, Belle Ribeiro-Addy and NUS LGBT Officer Daf Adley on the basis that Durham SU was to invite BNP MEP speakers. A poorly written letter advising on the delegation of United Against Fascism to stage protests at the event, had been sent by the officers including what Durham state as a threatening tone saying that ‘any problems are your responsibility to deal with’. It is on the basis of this letter (supposedly diktat) that contributed severely towards Durham students voting for disafilliation from the NUS.
The controversy arose because a moderate proportion of the National Executive Committee (NEC), including the NUS President Wes Streeting voted for the motion of censorship of Belle, but the second motion against Daf fell at a time when there were more delegates entering the conference hall and voting regardless. Voting without a clear conscience as to the subject being voted on is something I really do oppose and I express much disappointment on those individuals who did not use the vote of abstention for its instructed purpose. The censorship has been met with fierce opposition by many who simply state that as liberation officers they were employing the NUS’s no platform policy to a Students’ Union premises. There have also been mutterings of racial disadvantage from certain delegates.
My opinion of the whole censorship saga, including the reasons why I voted to abstain have already been documented on a Facebook note and is included below:
“I am a new NEC member who abstained and have just read through the note. I voted this way on basis that I was relying on reading about the durham situation pre-conference and listening to the speeches, all with their own viewpoint. Resulting from this I felt unclear as to the whole scenario and I fiercely oppose voting for or against something I am unclear on. I do not constitute this as “racism” against Belle however, that is a bit far fetched. I do however accept that “personal opinion” would have a hand in this.
I thought the process was shambolic in that there were more people entering for the 3rd censorship vote compared to the 1st and 2nd votes. I too thought it wrong that the number of speeches changed. I do hope that this is brought up for long discussion at the next NEC meeting and I hope I can bring some substance to sorting this situation out to regain the element of trust that has been lost amongst a significant number of people”
I will sincerely be looking at the options to resolve this mess come the next meeting as it is clear that certain procedures were not adhered to properly and decision making was ineffective. To all involved, I hope I can bring something to the table on this with you.
Overall, I really enjoyed my first National Conference and would quite happily continue these types of activities, it really gave me a buzz regardless of how draining the long days were. As a delegate coming from the best Students’ Union in the UK (Sheffield, naturally) it was good to see our Union co-submitting motions and amendments and getting involved in the democratic process.
Thanks for looking,
Chris
To download a Microsoft Word version of the report, please click this link: NUSNC10 Report Chris Jesson
Chrisadvisor 