NUS President won’t seek re-election
Dismay over handling of tuition fees rise forces Aaron Porter out
Last week Aaron Porter, president of the NUS, made the decision that he would not seek re-election at the national conference in April – effectively bringing his troubled yearlong presidency to an end.
Speaking in an interview with The Guardian, Porter highlighted the need for a “fresh outlook – because if we are to reach out, and engage with, the full diversity of our membership, we need to move beyond the tired rhetoric and redundant tactics of certain factional groups.”
Many have speculated that Porter had no choice but to stand down, after fierce criticism by students of his apathetic approach to rising tuition fees. Sources from within the NUS blamed the decision on the magnitude of “personal abuse” that Porter had received in recent times – abuse that caused him to abandon a rally that he was due to speak at in Manchester last month. He had to be escorted to safety by police after students surrounded him, chanting “Aaron Porter we know you, you’re a fucking Tory too!”
During his election campaign, Porter had recognised that the wider public “overwhelmingly” opposed higher fees, and promised to “fight to ensure that politicians listen”. But come December, Porters response to the threat of higher fees was less committed; his only response was to write to Simon Hughes, the advocate for access to higher education, to “politely request an explanation of how tuition fees will be doubled rather than tripled in most cases”. Failure to fight against the fee rises has angered students across the country, resulting in constant doubts about his suitability for the role.
The next president will undoubtedly have a difficult task – to unite the student population, including the many radicals within the movement, against a background of higher tuition fees and government cuts – making it “more vital than ever that we [the NUS] are united and reinvigorated”. Porter recognised his successor would need “a thick skin”, but also hoped that they would “be able to represent the broad mainstream of student opinion – and to avoid the tuition fee campaign being exploited by vocal extremists.”
