UCL UNION leaders have refused to endorse the res- olution of a motion lending support to a London demon- stration on climate change, cit- ing legal restrictions.
In a motion submitted to the Welcoming General Meet- ing of UCL Union, students re- quested that a delegation and banner be dispatched to the London Climate Demonstra- tion on 3 December 2005, an event planned to coincide with planned Montreal Climate talks as part of “an international day of climate protest.” But in a meeting of the Governance Committee of UCL Union, a consensus of union executive and non-executive officers claimed that sending the ban- ner and delegation would “con- travene the principle of the Union operating in a position super partes” and that “the tim- ing to coincide with a round of talks and the explicitness of the demo’s political orientation made it such that the Union could not send an official rep- resentation.” This is a suspect interpretation of the law. But it is also cowardly. A whole host of student union leaders up and down the country – as nearby as Malet Street – have always dared to advocate the nirvana of ‘the campaigning union.’ The idea that a student union’s key function is to play a role in articulating and sup- porting the political vision of its members. None of these organisations have ever duelled with the law. Not one execu- tive officer has been thrown in the chokey for daring to take a banner along to a march, even a political one. And even if this had happened, it still wouldn’t nullify the moral responsibili- ty that a union has towards its members to campaign and take a stand.
The decision not to send a banner is inconsistent. Last year, students voted to send a banner to the European Social Forum 2004. Executive happi- ly complied with the decision. And no-one got prosecuted.
And finally, can’t climate change be regarded as some- thing beyond politics? Doesn’t the health of our environment and our planet constitute some- thing that is of interest to all peoples, including students as students? I mean, isn’t this just a sheer, bloody-minded laziness in refusing to endorse the march?
“It is not about the Un- ion being like GW Bush. It is about keeping away from street politics, be they good or bad” said General Secretary Luca Manfredi in defence of the de- cision. Well that says it all doesn’t it. ‘Be they good or bad.’ For fuck’s sakes.
Have a break
AN ATTEMPT to lift UCL Union’s ban on sale of Nestle products in its outlets was quashed at the Welcoming General Meeting on 11 Octo- ber. This is strange.
The original ban on Nes- tle products was imposed on 22 March 2004, after a packed general meeting voted to join the International Nestle Boy- cott (INB) campaign. The cam- paign alleges that the company has pursued unethical market- ing practises in the developing world, specifically relating to the marketing of powdered milk products. The resulting ban on Nestle products at UCLU was supported by two former Environment and Eth- ics Officers, and the current holder of the position, Louise Broadbent.
Broadbent came out as an enthusiastic advocate of the ban during her election in March, and her efforts to renew the original motion took no-one by surprise. But what is truly baf- fling is how little resistance she encountered from her more commercially-inclined col- leagues. The Nestle ban is a dull piece of union legislation that does nothing to actively sup- port the ban – students can sim- ply walk to Tottenham Court Road to get their Kit Kats – and denies a valuable income stream. The strategy of the INB is nebulous at best, and mis- guided at worst. And even if these two facts weren’t true, the union is certainly taking some sort of political judgement on the facts of the Babymilk case.
Given the obsession with remaining apolitical at UCL Union, this really doesn’t add up.
Addio Luca?
LUCA MANFREDI seems to be getting a lot of heat lately. A controversial candi- date in the UCLU and ULU elections of last year, opponents have always tended to label him as a homophobic, sexist, dis- criminatory brute – claims that found credence thanks to his persistent gaffes on the union’s website messageboards. But despite an almost self-con- sciously quiet online profile since the start of term, the crit- ics are back. And this time they brought friends. Friends with political firepower.
It must be the nightmare scenario for any union hack; winning an election only to find that no-one else has stopped fighting, and being in- capable of moving on to actu- ally doing the job. And thus the rug has been pulled out from under Luca’s feet with credi- ble rumours of a no-confidence motion being prepared against him at ULU Council. The cul- prits? An executive source in the know at ULU claims that members of the student LGBT community are doling out ret- ribution.
At 25 Gordon Street, Lu- ca’s ambitious plans for a re- write of the standing orders and union constitution seem to be going nowhere. Perhaps it’s re- form ennui by last year’s offic- ers. Nigel Harris, the former General Secretary, made a big thing of changing the standing orders and became almost a ‘reform bore’. But more like- ly, it’s simply down to Luca’s sinking political stock.
At the WGM on 11 Oc- tober, a faint thud could almost be heard as it hit rock bottom. A plucky student sought to re- lieve Luca of his chairmanship of the meeting. And even though the attempt failed, Luca appeared shaken. He should be. His executive colleagues are likely to take his policy propos- als even less seriously with the cratering of his political credi- bility. And the result is likely to be the total failure of all his best laid plans at the two plac- es he was elected to serve.
Harsh. But that’s politics.