This amendment concerning Further Education funding notes that “the Comprehensive Spending Review announcements of October 2010 saw vicious attacks on both 16-19 and adult education provision.”

The amendment contains a clause concerning the NUS lobbying the local government. Opposition is based on the need to tackle this at national level rather than burdening already struggling councils.

A man with a bald head and big beard has said that he is a scientist. Indeed, as a scientist he “believes in things that work.” And as a scientist, he tells us that “EMA works.”

The next opposition comes from a FE college. He knows students that have been poor: “I mean poor.” The trouble for him lies in the fact that it is the that colleges are to decide EMA distribution. He was very angry as he asked the floor: “do you think its fair that a millionaires child recieves £30 when one student may not be able to afford the bus fare. NO!”

Someone has request that there is the deletion of conference resolves 2: “To create resources for students’ unions to allow them to demonstrate students’ financial and resource needs, in order to influence college decision-making on funding priorities.”

The opposition to this decried such wavering: “We need to put the strongest and most truthful demands to the government.”

The floor voted to delete the parts.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s