By Cat Rylance.

Students discuss their strategy

Around 80 students met today at the University of Manchester Students’ Union to discuss where we should go next after Wednesday’s NUS demonstration. This number was a significant improvement on the 15 or so who have been attending the anti-cuts meetings this term. The prospect for occupation was quickly raised by three to four SWSS members who stressed the benefit of keeping up momentum after yesterday’s demonstration, exploiting the media interest in student activism and hopefully triggering a spread of occupations across the country similar to those witnessed over the incursion into Gaza in 2009. The call for occupation was taken up by the majority of the room, around 60, who left to stage a sit in outside the finance director’s office in the John Owens building.

As we made our way up the stairs to the heart of management operations, administrative workers in the Old Quadrangle waved and cheered to us through the window.

On arrival we moved quickly to business.

The first point of discussion was to clarify our response to the media who, we rightly suspected, would show an unusual amount of interest in the action. Anticipating their questions about the violence (read property damage) at the Conservative Party Headquarters during yesterdays protest, the group voted to state that we would stand by students and defend those arrested.

Next we drafted our four simple demands. ‘Open the books’ to students so that we would know where and when all current and projected University of Manchester cuts will fall. Open the doors of the John Owens building to allow free access in and out of the occupied space. No repercussions for those involved in the action. For the Vice Chancellor, Nancy Rothwell, to put out a statement condemning the higher education cuts and the raise in tuition fees.

Our request for an audience with the Vice Chancellor and the Finance Director was, of course, denied. Instead they suggested the highly reasonable alternative that we all leave the building and they would then grant an audience to three ‘ringleaders’ (their word’s not mine). Their proposal was roundly rejected and we returned one of our own – we would not send representatives on behalf of the group, we make decisions together in a democratic fashion and if the Vice Chancellor will talk to us she will talk to us all, in the same way we talk to each other, respectfully and democratically.

We were told they would consider a response. This gave us time for thought and some tensions began to appear, soon exacerbated by the arrival of two police cars. The police delivered us a patronising ‘good cop’ speel, finished with the threat of arrest if we attempted to prevent those people in the finance office from leaving the building. Oddly, we continued our discussion on tactics while the police were present.

The difference was essentially between the direct action/consensus decision-making group who wanted to block the doorways in a non-violent attempt to prevent people leaving the finance office, and what amounted to the majority of the group who objected to this tactic on the basis that it would mean keeping the university admin staff detained as well. It went to a vote (thankfully) and the majority voted not to block people from leaving. Some of those consensus decision-makers accepted the majority decision, others left.

After almost four hours numbers had dwindled and those protesting outside were unable to get in. It was decided that the occupation would serve better as a flash ‘sit-in’ rather than a long drawn out occupation. When we received our evasive reply from management we left to join the protesters outside.

Our Student Union’s in house Liberal Democrat (Academic Affairs Officer, Kate Little), tweeted this soon after the action:

“I’m out of the office two days and idiots start occupying”

Evidently she is taking her nod from Aaron Porter and the other scabs in the NUS, who yesterday condemned the student’s actions at Conservative Headquarters as ‘despicable’. Hopefully, however, she will not forget that she, and the rest of the executive, is mandated by General Meeting policy to support student occupations over education cuts.

Obviously there are questions that come out of today’s action: Was it premature? Should we have left so early? What should we do next?

The strength of the action today was its ability to utilise the media attention that the student movement gained yesterday, we gave interviews to most major newspapers and made sure that the issue of higher education cuts stayed on their agenda. Perhaps our action also gave confidence to other students and workers.

Evidently many people were disappointed that the action did not achieve more or that we left before our demands had been met. Although the reality is that this occupation could not have achieved anymore than it did, we could not have gained an audience with the Vice Chancellor and we could not have forced her to meet our demands. The politics, organisation and numbers simply were not there to conduct an effective and sustained occupation.

The energy was there to occupy today and it was the right thing to do, it was a motivating experience but from here we must put in the hard work. Direct action can be very effective – but without the long slow process of building a solid, organised, politicised group of more than 15 people, who openly discusses and develop an expansive political strategy beyond building for the next action – its impact will be limited.

Click here for a copy of VC Nancy Rothwell’s inspired reply to the occupiers.