A motion of no confidence in Aaron Porter will be brought at NUS conference, and the frustration in the ranks is understandable. When the exceptionally well-attended main protests were being organised around the Westminster votes, NUS held separate events that few attended. He’s even had to admit he’s been “dithering“.
There have been exceptionally determined student occupations, showing a real commitment to challenging the Tory government, but as Paul Mason’s outstanding report on Newsnight last week showed, the leadership has in many cases come from the secondary school pupils “from the slums of London”. These are the kids who will pay the fees (or more likely be deterred by them), and these are the kids whose EMA is being taken away. No wonder they’re at the front of the marches.
Yet they’re not NUS members: the direct membership of NUS consists of students’ unions, not individual students, and this feels like a contributory reason for the avowed dithering. The leadership of NUS has always been too close to Labour, although this was even more obvious when Labour were introducing fees without their opposition.
It’s time for something new, a genuine national union for those in education, including at school. Perhaps NUS could become it, or perhaps it should be something entirely new. I’m pretty sure either way it would be a bit more radical.
#1 by Douglas McLellan on December 15, 2010 - 6:29 pm
For “real commitment” I assume you mean smashing up the place?
If from the poorest families – potentially the fabled ‘first in my family to go to uni” or actually *need* (and I really do mean *need*) the EMA then they will not have to pay the fees. Single mother working as a cleaner – no fees. Single unemployed father – no fees. Both parents on ES&A/DLA – no fees. Graduate and earn average salary – £7pw repayment. Big money!?
What would a new union do? What would a new union achieve? Protests without violence? Doubful? Protests where truth counts? Not so far.
#2 by Cameron on December 15, 2010 - 7:54 pm
I don’t get it, they’re poor so they don’t have to repay the fees? That they would have repaid only once they were earning above a certain threshold anyway? If I were English and I went to uni my parents wouldn’t be paying £9k for me, that’d just be my debt so why does it matter whether your parents are poor or less poor?
#3 by Greig Aitken on December 15, 2010 - 7:54 pm
I think real commitment means not engaging in candle-lit vigils down by the Thames, and it also means turning up to demonstrate despite having been kettled the time before and kept in those weird police detention zones till all hours. And did someone mention police ferula? Is £7pw – £7 per week? And source?
#4 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on December 15, 2010 - 8:20 pm
Douglas
Somehow forgets the reason those from disadvantaged backgrounds go to university is to achieve a better standard of life via a higher earning wage.
seeing as the upper levels of society are already closed to them and will be replenished by the sons and Daughters of the already wealthy.
This leaves the sightly more well paid jobs for the up and coming from the slums which may be just above the level at which pay back their student fees(where as the wealthy will have their paid by mum and dad and Nan and granddad to).
And so just just as they climb above the parapet Cameron lot(with Douglas help as well) kick them full in the face..
To which a lot of kids say why bother which of course suits camerons lot(and Douglas as well) in their stated intention to limit University education to those who are already wealthy.
#5 by Indy on December 15, 2010 - 8:49 pm
Graduate and earn average salary = ever increasing housing costs, council tax, utilities, travel costs, work clothes etc etc.
If you go a bit mental, get married and have a kid add childcare costs (plus the general cost of having a kid).
Fact is our society in its wisdom is making it about five times more difficult for young people starting out than it was for their parents and about ten times as difficult as it was for their grandparents.
Selfish baby boomers have a hell of a lot to answer for.
#6 by Doug Daniel on December 15, 2010 - 9:51 pm
I can’t say I’m surprised if Aaron Porter does face a no confidence motion – he was pretty insipid on Question Time last week, coming across very much as a Labour MP-in-waiting. He seems very much like the sort of person who goes into politics solely to become a politician, rather than because they have been radicalised and see the political arena as the only way to right some wrongs. After his stint, he’ll follow the same path to Westminster that most prominent MPs seem to follow these days.
This is pretty much the problem with unions anyway – they become too much about political wrangling and all the problems that hinder political parties, and the real reasons behind their existence get lost somewhat. Just like the political campaign groups we see on the internet at the moment start off with good intentions and go off on a tangent, opposing everything for the sake of opposition, starting campaigns without properly thinking through the consequences and killing us all with petitions, just to try and justify their continued existence. I actually think one-off grass-roots campaigns are going to be far more effective in the future.
But then what do I know – I thought Mark McGhee would be a good Aberdeen manager…
#7 by Douglas McLellan on December 16, 2010 - 1:59 am
@Cameron – Sorry. I was totally wrong there as I was mixing up two thoughts. If parents are poor there is more money available to support students at Uni. Parental income covers grants. You get a bigger grant if parents on low income. And if the parents I described are the parents of a student then the fee (if above £6,000k which all the protesters say will happen) will be waived for the first year.
@Greig – £7 per week. Comes from this calculation. Fees are repaid at 9% per year when income is above £21k. Average graduate wage is £25k. The repayment is on the difference between the £21k threshold and the £25k earning so that is £4k. 9% of £4k is £360 per year which is £6.92 per week (I rounded up). Source – http://goo.gl/9Kk1T (page 3)
@Mr. Mxyzptlk – I am not interested in debate the faux class war you seem to think society is engaged in.
@Indy – Agree that it is harder to get started now than it has been for years. Is the solution rioting and smashing up buildings? Most baby boomer wealth is tied up in property and pensions. Give it 30 years for most of them to die and the wealth has to go somewhere. What solutions are proposed? Why do people have kids when they cant afford them anyway? Why expect the state to pay for them. Now, we do have an ageing population and that will need to be addressed. Proper planning with things like tax breaks tied into maternity/paternity leave/child care could be a way forward.
@Doug Daniel – There are many reasons to be a MP. And professional politicians do lack real world experience. I would like the world to be a better place but some of the solutions I believe in are probably different from yours. If I were to be radicalised it would be because I am unhappy at government waste being paid for through the taxes of my under £30k salary. I want to pay less tax and NI because I see to much bad government expenditure. I agree with your entire post about Unions and ‘mission creep’ of various campaigns. And I shared your optimism about Mr McGhee as well.
#8 by Indy on December 16, 2010 - 10:06 am
Yes give it 30 years … meanwhile the younger generation get totally shafted. No wonder they are so raging. The fees issue is just the tip of the iceberg.
#9 by Douglas McLellan on December 16, 2010 - 7:12 pm
Indy – so the wealth has to be with the young? Can they not understand it will fall to them as it will then fall to their successors?
I live on less than £30k. I dont own a property. My car is 20 years old. I support/care for my partner who has a mental health illness (even she wonders what the problem is with a continued assessment of her health to ensure she is entitled to her benefits). Yes it would have been good to think about things like kids but life is sometimes not fair. Thing is, I dont blame anyone. I am not angry.
Yes I would like to own a property or live in a bigger one but I am not rioting. Yes I would like a car that I am confident will start when I need it to but I am not vandalising war memorials. Yes I would like an overseas holiday but I am not raging against anyone. Yes I would like to shop in Waitrose but I am not itching to start an intergenerational war.
Every morning I am happy if my partner has made it through the night ok. Every day I can take a small measure of satisfaction from my job. Every day I read something or watch something that engages my brain. I have my OU undergraduate degree which I paid for and I am considering doing an OU MSc which I will happily paid for. My earnings on graduation jumped 75% within 8 months so I was happy with that investment.
We live in a safe and secure society where despite inflation and VAT increases the cost of food and clothing (basic on both counts) are within the reach of almost everyone (Heating is an issue though. That really does need looked at). Yes there are problems and yes I am lucky to have a job. But if I lost my job tomorrow I would not be rioting. I would be looking for work wherever I could get it. Given my skills and experiences this would limit me to just Scotland but thats were I would look.
I dont expect anything from anyone. What I have done I have done through the frameworks within society that exist now just as they existed when I was in my early 20s. What do people want so much more given to them on a plate?
#10 by Exiled Nat on December 17, 2010 - 12:03 am
What no-one seems to realise is that this is a trend.
There will be a boom period after this current bust, which will inevitably lead to another bust, with the current protesters at the helm and they themselves will shaft their next generation.
The current model of capitalism has failed, sadly no-one will admit it for another generation or two and plenty more misery