Brunel Labour

Enhancing Democracy motion passed

By George Bowden

Last night, my motion to introduce a new clearer reporting structure within the Union of Brunel Students passed at Student Assembly. This means that a steering group will be set up to design and produce a series of templates with the aim of making it easier for Brunel students to hold their elected officers to account and to make their achievements clear to see. It also mandated the Union to publish reports presented to Student Assembly on its website, something it doesn’t currently do.

How the new reports will look will be explored by this new steering group and the group is mandated to ensure its recommendations enhance democracy and integrity within the Union. The documents, which students use to hold their elected officers accountable, vary greatly between students’ unions and organisations. From regularly updated blog posts to fully developed, data rich reports; what is clear is that Brunel’s current reporting system can now be enhanced.

As well as new reports, the steering group will explore a new ‘strategy plan’ document for all elected representatives. This document will link a candidate’s manifesto and their strategy once in office. It will be able to be regularly updated and will be made publically available. Crucially, it will be able to be referred to by members of Student Assembly alongside the regular reports.

Why does this matter?

This matters because the easier it is to hold our student representatives to account the more we will achieve as an organised student body. Our student representatives will be encouraged to reflect the views of the student body more closely. Right now, this isn’t a problem; we have a strong team of sabbatical officers in touch with students at Brunel. We can’t assume this will always be the case.

What’s next?

Now with the initial motion passed, a steering group will be formed to design and produce the series of templates for the two new documents. The steering group is mandated to meet and decide its recommendations by the end of April 2013. While the steering group is mandated to include at least one representative from the team of sabbatical officers, group of chairs and members of Student Assembly, any Brunel student may attend meetings and contribute.

I hope that the Union of Brunel Students will use this opportunity to lead other unions in developing a gold standard in how elected officers present their work to the students who elect them.

George is vice-chair of Brunel Labour Students.

www.twitter.com/g3bowden

Cuts at universities are anything but “comforting”

Brunel Labour responds to Peter Smallwood’s campaign for NUS

Brunel Labour Students is dismayed by prominent Conservative Future member, and Brunel sabbatical officer, Peter Smallwood’s announcement that he will run for the position of president of the National Union of Students (NUS).

We openly question the commitment Peter will bring to the role of NUS president after so vehemently supporting the Conservative-led coalition’s reforms of higher education.

NUS has campaigned against a variety of education reforms since the coalition formed in 2010. Not least, the ‘marketization’ of the sector which led to a vast increase in tuition fees, the removal of EMA and most importantly for some, the ‘re-balancing’ of central Government grants to institutions which have led to severe cuts in university budgets across the UK.

Writing in Le Nurb, these cuts were described by Peter as “comforting”.

In November 2010, Peter wrote:

“If you can take any comfort from these higher education cuts, it is that while we may see cuts made… to teaching staff we can be comforted to know that the government will be putting that money to good use.”

We couldn’t disagree more.

Nowhere are these issues more relevant than here at Brunel. The university has been particularly affected by the cuts from central Government and has been penalised this year for failing to attract enough new students who attained AAB at A-Level or higher.

These cuts have seen Brunel reduce its budgets across student-facing services from School administration to access to journal articles; all aspects of university resources are on the line.

We question why Peter labelled cuts as “comforting” and while we recognise that he may claim to have been re-educated on the issue, not least through his role as Vice President Academic Representation at the Union of Brunel Students, we point out that other candidates for president of NUS have been consistently supportive of the NUS’s policies.

While Labour Students, the organisation we are affiliated to, has not endorsed a candidate for president of NUS, many candidates have caught our attention. Indeed, we plan to officially endorse a candidate for NUS president by holding a vote at our next meeting.

If you have strong feelings on who should lead NUS, and if you identify with Labour values, why not join our society and see what we’re about?

Visit our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/brunellabourstudents to find out more.

Anonymous asked: How can I contact the Brunel Labour Society via phone or email

You can contact us at brunel.labour@gmail.com or Facebook us at www.facebook.com/brunellabour

The Right To Die - by @Kerri_Prince

Tony Nicklinson died today. He suffered from locked-in syndrome which means that he is paralysed and cannot speak. He can only communicate by using his eyes. Just take a second to imagine what it must have been like for him. Can’t show emotion, can’t move, can’t communicate and has to rely on other people for every little thing. Tony Nicklinson was facing years of this suffering because the courts ruled that doctors are not allowed to assist him in dying. 

As we all know, there is only one guarantee in life and that guarantee is that you will die. We all will, one day. Some early in our lives and others extraordinarily late in comparison. So who are we as politicians or judges to make a decision on when people are allowed to go? Let’s take this one case at a time. This case was not a plot by members of his family to get any fortune that he left behind. This was a man who had a bad quality of life who wanted the right to choose when he died. But he was not allowed. What difference did this man being assisted in death have on any of our lives? There are no euthanasia clinics on every street corner, inviting people in with promotions and deals. What’s pretty scary is that some people imagine it to be that. Someone’s life is personal to that person. If they’re going to get in more and more pain, with no cure, which will eventually lead in their death - if they ask, let them die.

What genuinely terrifies me is not death - but how I die. I don’t want to have to be looked after by someone else until my last breath. I don’t want to have to be fed, washed, wiped, brushed, clothed or watered. I want to go with dignity. We should ensure, as a caring country where people have freedom, that people have the choice to die at any point in their lives, however they choose to go. I strongly believe that the state shouldn’t be able to put a blanket ban on personal freedom and liberty such as choosing when to die. The law should give doctors, medics and professionals the freedom to do their job as they have been trained to do.

It’s time we made a progressive step in the right direction. A foetus can be aborted long after 24 weeks if the baby will have a bad quality of life. Why can the same logic not be applied to assisted suicide? Two doctors would have to agree that the patients wishes are met and/or determine the quality of life and whether it’s in the patients best interest to die or not. The consent of the next of kin should always be required. This is not some money-making scheme. This is medical advice and opinion together with the wishes of the patient/family to make the best and most humane decision. The doctors may not have met the patient, may not have met each other and can give a solely objective opinion on that patients case. Even if you had to be qualified for a certain amount of years before you can make that decision. And the ability to opt out if doctors do not want to take part in assisting a patient to die. A board could be created to oversee assisted suicides to limit any abuse or wrongdoing. Accountable to the Department of Health. It’s an idea. It surprises me how little debate there is about assisted suicide. Do politicians not want to talk about it because it’s such a controversial topic? Afraid of alienating any voters? It is possible to have a system in place where people who want to die with dignity can do so without having to travel to Switzerland or risk members of their family being arrested. How have we ignored this issue for so long?

Some will argue that those who want to die can starve themselves. And live their last moments in pain? Slipping in and out of consciousness? You’d honestly pick that over having a cocktail of drugs that will relieve you of pain, shut down your organs and stop your heart? 

I hope that when the time comes, if I am diagnosed with a disease that will slowly kill me, that I’m able to die how I choose. That if I want to die but cannot do so myself, that a doctor or family member can help me. Just to die with dignity, is that too much to ask?

Welcome to Great Britain by @Kerri_Prince

I’m not someone to hang up flags, sing the national anthem or watch every television appearance that the Royal Family makes. But watching the Olympic Ceremony brought out something in me that I very rarely experience - pride to be British. I’ll clarify here that it’s not as if I hate being British and don’t appreciate everything this country offers me. But I don’t understand the overwhelming reaction that some people have to watching an elderly woman on a boat in the rain. I am not denying that the Queen has dedicated her life to public service, but the Jubilee hysteria was just too much to stomach - I’m much more interested in celebrating the achievements of the people who have contributed positively to this country, although the Queen does come under that umbrella.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel, leading the way in the industrial revolution, hard working men fighting for their country and the suffragettes, showing what we can achieve when we unite together against an oppressive force. The NHS, Harry Potter, James Bond, Rowan Atkinson and even the infamous Brookside lesbian kiss, a reflection on our successes, our achievements and how we’re leading the way in equality throughout the world. Some call the ceremony ‘leftie multicultural crap’ but they will be met with thousands of people who are proud of multiculturalism and exactly what Britain is and can continue to be. 

Anyone who speaks to me will know that I don’t personally dislike the Queen, but I don’t believe a monarchy is something that should continue to exist in a democratic and meritocratic society. I’m not calling for a revolution to see the Royal Family killed or chased out of the country - but why does the Monarchy still play a part in a democratic procedure?

I am proud of the people of this country who have contributed to our progression and achievements. Danny Boyle put on a brilliant show last night, educating the world on why we should be the ones to host the Olympics this year. I felt nothing throughout the Jubilee celebrations, yet watching our history in a dramatic show watched by billions put the biggest smile on my face, I almost wanted to pick up the Union Jack flag and start waving it around. 

I’ll watch the rest of the Olympics and cheer on Team GB as our athletes compete to bring yet more success to our country. 

Lords Reform - More Important Than It Sounds? - by @Kerri_Prince

A topic of discussion that seems to only interest politically-minded individuals is Lords Reform. Reforming an establishment that has been there for hundreds of years - sounds very dull, right? But if politics was all about interesting topics, we may see a completely different Britain when we look outside our windows.

It is not often we hear about the House of Lords in the news or the members that sit in it - probably because there are no elections every few years for Lords and they’re never knocking on our doors asking for us to give them our vote. Lords are not accountable to the general public so it’s no wonder that the vast majority of the population aren’t interested. They have no reason to be. 

In the political circles that have emerged over time, the idea of Lords Reform has been thrown around. There are those that want the Lords to remain as it is, and there are others that want to see the Lords abolished altogether and just keep the main chamber. A key part of the debate is whether or not we should elect the members that sit in the Lords. As things currently stand, members are not elected to sit. They are either appointed or hold a hereditary title. Bishops also contribute to the make up. One of my strongest beliefs is that there should not be religious involvement in the state, unless democratically elected. The will of the people should always come first, even before religion. If a candidate is elected on a religious platform, such as Bishops, then their position as a member of the Lords becomes legitimate. 

No matter how much progress the Labour Party made with various Lords Reforms, there are still hereditary peers that sit - unacceptable in a modern democratic society. The electorate should make the decision on who holds positions of public power. Power and responsibility should be earned, not passed down through families from generation to generation. What makes the successor eligible to be a Lord? Because they were born into a certain kind of family? Meritocracy, not aristocracy. If a hereditary Lord is serious about contributing to society, then they can stand for election just like everybody else would need to. We’ve gone past the point in society where money should be able to buy you power.

It’ll come as no surprise that I want to see a fully elected House of Lords, elected every 15 years on a non-political platform to end the power of the party whip and focus instead on scrutiny. I would opt for AV to be used in these elections as it gives the electorate the opportunity to rank their preferences, with the top 100 candidates being elected to the Lords, and the 101th candidate would replace any member who dies or resigns. A concern with elected Lords is whether or not ordinary members of the public can afford to take time out of their job to be a Lord and what expenses they should get. It’s essential that money is never the reason someone stands for election, but it should also never be a deterrent. 

Elected Lords on a non-political basis means that more people may want to stand without the need to align themselves with a party. The red benches shouldn’t be filled with party donors or friends of the Prime Minister. It’s essential to see Lords who are elected on a credible experience-based platform rather than a political one. Some may argue that candidates may be politically affiliated, which is allowed, but they would not be able to stand on a party platform or represent that party. Some of us stand in the pouring rain, knocking on doors and getting bitten by dogs when stuffing leaflets through doors, trying to get our message across as to why people should vote for us - no doubt experts will be able to do that too. 

I don’t think simply appointing experts is the answer because how do you determine what an expert is? There are the obvious scientists, doctors, nurses and teachers. But who’s the expert on the single mother raising three children on her own because the father is avoiding paying CSA? Who’s the expert on anti-social behaviour and gangs? What about the challenges that students are facing today and tomorrow? Someone who went to school 30 years ago won’t be much help on that. We need experts on real life, too - not just topics you can get a Masters in.

If we were to consider radical reform to the Lords, I would opt for a jury-style selection of the members - only for a percentage of the House. Pick 100 members of the public to join the Lords and take the driving seat on legislation that affects them. We need a range of backgrounds for effective scrutiny, not just those with an interest in politics and furthering their career. There would be boards of experts for the members to talk to and consult with, and a researching team at their disposal. But of course, this is just a dream. There’s no way a Government of today would let ordinary people make real decisions.

Should Student Activism All Be About Protest? by George Bowden

This week, the National Union of Students (NUS) organised a national walk out. This day of action was presented as being a well-coordinated series of protests, the biggest of which was in London. However, on my university campus at Brunel University in West London, it was business as usual. There were no angst-ridden, angry students sticking it to the man. Nor were there organised groups travelling east to Central London. At best, there were murmurs on internet forums, but even those keyboard warriors didn’t manage to leave Facebook to protest on campus.

Many people feel politically active students are far-left anarchists committed to violently protesting against the Government. However, from what I have seen at Brunel and other universities, students from across all disciplines are disenfranchised and apathetic towards politics. Surprisingly, some of my peers who are studying politics seem to be the most apathetic of all.

That is, it seems, until a well-known public figure gets involved. On the same day as the NUS action, Brunel welcomed an impromptu visit from comedian, marathon-junkie and Labour Party activist Eddie Izzard. It was a part of Ken Livingstone’s Mayor of London campaign and was well received by students who eagerly packed the small room to see him.

His audience represented the various political persuasions which are present at Brunel and university campuses across the UK. He handled difficult questions confidently, as keen students put him to the test. In response to a question about his aspirations in politics, Izzard confirmed he would be running for election in the future, much to the delight of the audience. He said: “In 2020, I will be running for Mayor of London or MP… I will run a good campaign, and get in. I want to find out what I can do politically.”

In closing, he gave advice to students, he said: “You can choose what you want to do… Go and vote, be active, no matter what party and give a damn about yourself.”  

For many, being active in student politics means protesting. Of course, legitimate protest is important, it is a legal right. It can help to attract publicity to the cause and works to unite like-minded individuals.  It can produce results too, recently an organised occupy movement at Manchester University helped encourage the adoption of the living wage on its campus.

However, over recent years, protests have left students with a bitter taste in their mouth, an unpalatable connection with orchestrated violence and crime. Some have suggested the disjointed nature of student protests and the factionalism which has gripped campuses across the UK has led students to become weary of getting involved. Is it for these reasons that students don’t want to protest?

Having talked to some of those who stayed on campus on Wednesday, the reason for this is could be more ordinary, a lack publicity. They were simply unaware of any NUS action taking place. Others spoke of a desire to form their own opinions, to develop their stance on issues before launching into protest.

Whatever the reason, instead of being out in force on the streets in Central London protesting about the Government cuts, they were sat in a room engaging with a famous political activist. Does this make them less active, or less motivated?

I don’t think so. Many of those in the room were elected within the Student Union and within the University itself. Some of the students were even elected councillors in local government. If me and my fellow students are going to make a real, impactful difference to the way things work we need to look beyond protest.

I think it is just as effective to begin our activism by seeking election, organising interest groups and finding other ways to bring about change from within. This will ultimately move student activism away from sporadic London-centric protests which are proving difficult to organise and ineffective in motivating students.

George Bowden

Brunel Labour meets @eddieizzard by @Kerri_Prince

It looked as if it was going to be another routine day, lectures and library until bedtime. Until I received a text half-way through a lecture asking if I could go to Student Activities as soon as I could. Turns out that the Labour Party had contacted our Campaigns Officer, Sam Donoghue, telling us that Eddie Izzard was going to be at Brunel in less than 24 hours to talk to us about the Mayoral Elections.

Usually the Students’ Union has a policy that an external speaker requires at least 2 weeks notice otherwise the event can not go ahead. But after appealing to the University, it was clear that we could not turn down Eddie Izzard coming to Brunel and it was given the go ahead. I then called the our local organiser for Mayoral/GLA elections, Sam Matthews, to confirm the details. Eddie was going to come to Brunel at 12:30pm for lunch with Brunel Labour, followed by leafleting outside the Union and then a Q&A with him in the lecture centre that I was asked to Chair.

I usually panic even when it’s a well-prepared and organised event, but because it was so rushed, I didn’t have time to panic. It was ‘be here at this time’, ‘say this’ and ‘do that’. A room was booked, security were warned, tables were reserved, Brunel Labour were organised and enthused - all we had to do was wait.

Eddie was supposed to arrive at 12:30 but due to Uxbridge buses not being the best of the lot, he was a bit late. There was also confusion regarding which bus Eddie was on and therefore what side of campus he would get off the bus. So we split up, some of us going to one side of campus, and some of us to the other. Then we waited. Not long afterwards, a U4 pulled into the bus stop and Eddie Izzard got off the bus alongside his organiser. After a short introduction, we made our way into the heart of campus.

Walking through campus, wearing our Labour rosettes, quite a few people stopped to look at Eddie, whispering among themselves whether or not it was actually Eddie Izzard. Due to the short notice, we set up a Facebook event the night before, leading to some people thinking it was a hoax despite us assuring them that Eddie Izzard was coming to campus. We took Eddie to the Student Union where he met the rest of Brunel Labour and we stopped for some lunch. 

Throughout lunch, we discussed various topics such as Eddie’s plans for the future, his marathons, gay equality, the Labour Party, the Conservatives and Boris Jonhson. I was nibbling at my Tikka Masala, close to throwing up with nerves (and I was only Chairing the Q&A!). Half an hour later, we started to make our way to the lecture centre for the Q&A with Brunel Students. There lecture room was full (there’s a first time for everything) with people waiting to see Eddie. He walked to the front of the room, all eyes on him and he made a joke about it feeling like a lecture. I introduced myself to the crowd as being Kerri Prince, Chair of Brunel Labour but I felt Eddie didn’t need introducing! After a few simple instructions about turning off phones, running when there’s a fire and to inform everyone that we were filming the event, I welcomed Eddie to speak.

For fifteen minutes, he spoke about why it’s important to be involved in politics and that the people in the room are the ones who care, who will make a difference in this world. He wasn’t overly party political and was quick to take questions on anything. He was asked questions by students about where he wants to go with his career (he intends to run for Mayor of London in 8 years!), whether it’s true he was late finishing his marathons because he was waiting for his camera crew (true!) and his perspective on the Monarchy (he wants to put them all up for election - keeping it in the family but letting us vote !). A lot of questions, answers and laughs later, it was approaching 3pm and we had to wrap things up. He was also asked what he wants to be remembered for (doing a gig in French!) and closed with a short speech about how we have to get involved to change things. A round of applause erupted after he had finished and students piled to the front to get him to sign their Eddie Izzard DVD’s and get photos with him. After a very successful event, Eddie made his way to Uxbridge with some members of Brunel Labour to hand out leaflets about Ken and his Fare Deal. 

Despite it being very last minute, it was a great success and we would welcome Eddie back at any time. Students are generally apathetic when it comes to politics but Eddie did what many politicians seem unable to do - he got students to listen to him. He made it relevant. He got them laughing. A great visit, a great person and a great event. 

Should we be selecting at the age of 11? by @Kerri_Prince

In some areas of the country, the 11+ is still used. The 11+ is a test given to those in the last year of primary education consisting of verbal and non-verbal reasoning, maths and English. Should we be testing young children at this stage? Arguably, yes – it will put those who pass the test into a Grammar School where there will be smaller classes, ‘better teachers’ and better facilities. Taking away the distraction that disruptive students bring, these academically able children are put in a position to achieve their best. Some may look upon this as being a great system – why shouldn’t those with the ability to do well, do just that? The 11+ is a test, a competition. What happens in a competition? Someone has to lose. It’s great for those who pass the test and go to a Grammar school, where they will have top facilities and equipment – but what about those who fail the test, are labelled as ‘stupid’ and go to the local comprehensive? The labelling theory argues that if you attach a label to somebody then they will take on that label as a result. Failing the 11+ and going to the comprehensive school, whilst all your friends go off to the Grammar is only going to put into your head that you’re stupid and cannot achieve. Some students mature later than others, so being tested at 11 only benefits those who have already academically matured.

I did the 11+, I passed the 11+, but there were no places at the Grammar school so I had to go to the comprehensive. They didn’t care when I asked for more work in class because I was rushing ahead, desperate to work my brain. They simply shrugged me off and told me to stay in time with the rest of the class. I was labelled as being stupid. Students need encouragement, support from teachers, constant working to show that despite how you do in a test at the age of 11, it doesn’t determine the rest of your school life. It wasn’t until I complained to my mum just after Christmas that I wasn’t being worked enough. We used to have spelling tests at home for ‘fun’ when I was younger, my mum constantly encouraging my siblings and I to work harder and strive to be better. My mum went to my school, spoke to the head teacher who agreed to take a look at my work and get reports from my teachers. The conclusion was that I should be moved up to the Grammar school. The two schools liaised with each other and eventually I moved schools. Some may see this as a good thing. It was, in terms of academia. But I had to leave my friends behind. I had to walk into a new building, meet new teachers and hardest of all – make new friends. By this time it was approaching the end of the academic year and everybody had already made their friends – I was just an outsider. Not only that, but I was behind in every subject. I wasn’t pushed enough in my last school and now I had so much work to catch up only to be on a level playing field. The upside of the school is that the facilities were so much better. They even had their own swimming pool and a proper drama stage – two of my favourite things when I was 11. But I still found it incredibly hard to make friends. Some will argue that you’re at school to learn, not to make friends – but having friends it what makes school so enjoyable. I was an outsider for quite a while, lost contact with my friends from my previous school so I spent the summer holidays alone without any friends. That kind of things can really bring a child down. At that age, you care about acceptance so much and not getting it can have a drastic effect on other aspects of your life. I even bunked school as a result of having no friends. It wasn’t easy.

I don’t understand why we need grammar schools and why we need selection. Streaming does just as good a job at helping those who need the push and those who aren’t as academically able. After year 9, I moved to London where the 11+ hadn’t been in use for years. I went to a state school in North London and it was the best school I had been to. There were people from all backgrounds, those who were more creative and those who strived to be the best in Maths and Science. But it worked. Being in a classroom with those who were more able than I was helped me. I then strived to do just as well as they were doing. This school prided itself on value added rather than grade outcome. They took into consideration the ability of students when they came to the school in Year 7 and then measured it against the outcome of their grades. That school, a non-selective and multicultural school, has one of the best value added scores in the country. The school took the strengths of students and developed them, making them brilliant at what they do. At the same time, encouraging them to work harder in the subjects that they weren’t doing so well in, with free booster classes for those who needed it. The school had great facilities too, a stage and their own swimming pool, even their own indoor sports hall. Tennis courts, basketball courts, plenty of computer rooms, smaller classes, great teachers – and this is a state school. The upside of streaming is that if you work harder, you’re able to move up a set where you will be pushed harder according to your needs. You don’t have to move school in order to be pushed harder.

Grammar schools aren’t needed. All they do is take the most academically able, push them harder and get the right results. That shouldn’t be what school is about. School should be about teaching, not testing. Because of a strict curriculum, the teacher may not be able to use their own teaching methods. I’m a firm believer in a good state school for every child, every school should be up to the standard of my third secondary school, and strive to do even better. Stop taking away money from comprehensives to funnel into the grammars, spend the money where it is needed and where it will benefit all. I have experienced those three kinds of school and I’ve seen the difference. I want to see creative, intelligent, open-minded, critical and enthusiastic young adults – not robots who learn to remember information just to put it down in an essay at the end of the year. That’s not teaching.

This article is by Kerri Prince and can also be found at http://brunel-vanguard.blogspot.com/2012/01/kerri-princes-blogs.html