ON 14 November 2005, student politicians gathered from across London to meet and debate a no-confidence motion against Luca Manfredi, the chair of ULU Council. After three hours of furious claim and counter-claim, the result became clear. By 27 votes to 5, Luca was history.
The result marked the culmination of weeks of internal plotting, frenzied rumours and a consistent show of defiance by the man himself. But whilst the dear leader may have thought that reports of his own imminent demise were exaggerated, it was always clear which way this was going to turn out. A slow-motion death by hackery, Luca’s deposal was almost as neat as the downfall of Khrushchev in 1964 (Look it up - Ed.). Both Luca and the Soviet leader headed ostensibly ideological organisations, sought to wield a monopoly on power, and were hindered by their own personal and policy weaknesses. But above all, both proved incapable of comprehending and controlling a political environment characterised by secrecy, factionalism and brutality.
Luca’s fall was masterminded by the LGBT interests in ULU. Luca stood accused of homophobia and discrimination against minority groups in the student body, based on remarks he made on the UCL Union online messageboards during 2004. With his comments so grossly misinformed and incredibly offensive to the entire student community, Luca clearly left himself open to attack. A no-confidence document was drawn up by Alex Coles and Oli Usher in October 2004, cataloguing some of Luca’s most extreme comments. But nothing came of this, nor even attempts to have Luca dealt with under College harassment proceedings. ULU and UCLU officials wilfully ignored breaches of protocol being perpetrated by a senior student politician. There was no storm of reaction from the LGBT community, only an indifferent silence – punctuated by a few angry rebuttals on the messageboards (see CG05).
The original rumours of a no-confidence began to circulate just weeks into term, immediately following claims of a spat between ULU President Stewart Halforty and the council chair. Halforty, Luca claims, disclosed this to him at a meeting of the two. But after casually revealing this information and being pressed for more by an alarmed Luca, Halforty denied any further knowledge or involvement in the creation of a motion. This was just some friendly advice, proffered as a gesture of goodwill between the two colleagues.
Or perhaps not. Halforty and Luca never saw eye to eye from the very start of their terms in August. Leaked documents acquired back then show how frosty relations had become even whilst London baked in the summer sun. Halforty’s belief in emphasising support towards Muslim students in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings was vigorously opposed by Luca – who suggested that the Islamic community at the University of London ought to be making greater efforts to condemn extremism on campuses, and opposing groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir. Halforty denied the link between extremism and campuses, and then opined that HUT was a non-violent organisation which was no more offensive than Catholic groups campaigning for recognition of Vatican authority in Britain. “I will remain speechless,” replied Luca. “I am glad to hear [it],” shot back the president.
Halforty is not responsible for Luca’s removal. But the implication is clear – without the public support of the president, Luca was a legitimate target. The first ULU Council of term was a clarion call for the elites to begin the campaign against the chair. Within days of that first council, the first draft of the no-confidence began to fly (CG06).
So why is Luca being dealt with now, an entire year later and at an separate organisation? Why did none of these complaints arise during the election campaign, or when his candidature was endorsed by some of the people who voted against him on November 14? It is quite simple really – Luca no longer meets their needs. He proved neither to be as silent and spineless as he seemed during his stint last year on ULU Council, nor as enthusiastic an advocate of the rotten policies as the entrenched political factions could have mustered. There are plenty of people lined up to replace Luca - Jason Peachey from QM is apparently the heir to the throne.
Luca was nominally sacked to uphold diversity at ULU. But just like Iraq, it’s probably not being done for the stated reasons. Don’t feel sorry for Luca. But don’t feel proud of his opponents.
Halforty says farewell
But hang on. If this was a coherent ploy by entrenched political elites, then why did ULU President Stewart Halforty decide to resign in the days before the vote on Luca?
Simple really. The man couldn’t get anything done. An entirely separate bunch of elites opposed his policy priorities – staff. In the stodgy world of the U of L’s management culture, ambition is always met with disappointment. The aspirations of one are trumped by the machinations of a mediocre committee culture that rules supreme over our unions and universities.
So one unlovable elite beat another. It’s the law of the jungle in student politics. And I’m a tourist on safari.