Student Right-about

Joseph Egerton °Ile of the most complicated arenas of Political contention at present is student Politics. The student unions—and especi

ally the National Union of Students—have

been for some years an almost exclusive Preserve of the Marxists. This situation is n°vt, altered by the emergence of a determined Tory group inside the universities ,a,rld Polytechnics, a group which is ending the monopoly of the broad left alliance be;(ween Stalinists and Tribunites. The clash ,Only incidentally over higher education 1",2tieles. The essential divide is between liberal democracy and state socialism. The division is highlighted by the almost total absence of a social democrat Labour group from the arena. With one or two exceptions, Labour student organisations are openly Marxist. Student Liberals are almost all aligned with the Young Liberals, not the Parliamentary Liberals. Thus the Tories ,are the

line socialism.

only group not to advocate hardThe rise of the Tories is due to their Presenting themselves as the natural representatives of the rank and file against from left-wing oligarchs. Taking their cue !Pm Disraeli's definition of party as Prganised opinion', they have set out to Saio the confidence and support of the apathetic mass of students by offering to their aspirations from a position Inside

, we traditional political spectrum.

.'11 seeking to destroy the left's domination of the student unions, the Tories have to overcome two great enemies—apathy and abuse 01 , not power by those determined to give in. Some say that this task is _Hlt, Possible. But recent successes in the mudent unions and the NUS elections suggest that a prolonged effort could reduce the extreme left to a minority. Two comePatgns illustrate the Tory technique—the inan1Paign in the NUS itself (which resulted ex a lrorY coming top of the poll for the ,eetnive committee) and the campaign at xford tUhniversit Where a former President of the e Y Conservative Association won Presidency of the Student Union against Strong Marxist opposition. The extent of

the Tory gain can be seen by the fact that four years ago there was scarcely a single

Tory at the NUS Conference and the Oxford University Conservative Association thought it had done well to get forty Tories out to an open meeting of the Students' Union.

Both campaigns were marked by a degree of professionalism in presentation and organisation seldom before seen in student politics.

Dr Butler, the Nuffield psephologist, is reported deliberating whether the Tory literature at Oxford would achieve the necessary swing in a seminar on election day. More important, perhaps, the Tories had worked out their policies very carefully indeed. These were in part modelled on the successful policies of the predominantly Conservative Scandinavian unions. Andrew Elliott, the successful candidate, gave high priority to tackling the housing problem and promised to start a self-help housing association, a Finnish device. The Tories tailored their commitments to financial realism—they had proposals to cut the cost of the Student Union and were committed to negotiating firmly with the university to minimise the damage that inevitable expenditure cuts would cause. In addition, they promised to support the greatest feasible independence for the colleges from the university bureaucracy— a move not appreciated by the left but welcome to the undergraduate body.

Thus the positive proposals put forward were credible. On the more political side, the Tories were distinguished by a commitment to seek direct elections to the NUS Executive by all NUS members and a strengthening of the elected council against the open meetings in the university. This package certainly achieved its objective_ helped perhaps by a feeling of discontent with the broad left concentration on politics and skilful exploitation of the broad left president's misfortunes.

The Tory victory rested largely on the ability of the Conservative Association to finance an expensive campaign and provide the manpower in addition to that needed for its research and general activities—which included preparation for city council elections and assistance at the Coventry by-election. The other contributory factor was the support given by senior Tory MPs, including a message of support from the Association's first woman President, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, which brought out the solid Tory vote. But the victory could not have been won without gaining the support of non-Tories. The NUS campaign was also based upon the presentation of carefully prepared policies and professional manifestoes. The basic proposals were dismissed out of hand by the incumbent president, Charles

Clarke, although even the New Statesman

correspondent described them as making good educational sense. The Tories were concentrating once again on the financially feasible—for example, the extension of day release courses. One interesting feature emerged—as the elections progressed (the NUS elects officers successively) the Tory vote grew when it became clear that the Tories were a credible force.

In the NUS, the Tories were given an opportunity by the hard-core Stalinists, who have for some years been closely identified with the Soviet interest. It transpired that Charles Clarke had signed in Buch on behalf of the NUS a declaration including assertions that British troops in Ulster were an example of 'fascist imperialism' and that the British coloured population was subject to extensive harassment. This caused particular outrage since the cosignatories included the Czech Student Union, an organisation formed after the Soviet invasion and after the suppression of the original union, which had supported Dubcek. The Tories succeeded in having Charles Clarke censured and an international committee (including a Tory) set up to represent the NUS at future gatherings.

The Tories have now reached the position where they can obtain a third of the places on NUS committees elected at conferences. A small increase in their vote would give them a second executive place and a larger increase might give them an office. They may be held back for some time by the consolidation of the left in response to the threat of a Tory avalanche occasioned by internal factions, but the real dangers are rather different.

Firstly, the University Conservative Associations may not be able to bear the brunt of regular elections and meetings— the Oxford University Conservative Association reckons on having to fight an election a term and pull out Tories in number at least twice as well. In smaller associations, this might prove more than the membership could do; in Oxford's case, the worry is mainly financial, but Edward Bickham, their appeal organiser, is confident that they can raise enough to finance a full range of activities. Secondly, there has been criticism, most prominently from the Daily Telegraph, of the entire Conservative campaign.

Senior Conservatives see the campaign as

useful both because it shows the Tory Party as relevant and active and because the campaign may restrict—and perhaps end—

the continuous propaganda campaign denigrating the Western Alliance. In addition, the weakening of the left may help to prevent the spread of a tyranny in institutions of higher education. There are places where staunch Conservatives, active in their home constituencies, dare not declare their allegiance for fear of violence or ostracism. The almost unanimous view among those who have been actively involved in the campaign against the Marxists is that the internal campaign offers the best chance of success, and that the alternative—of persuading universities to withdraw—would be a fiasco which encouraged the left.