-
The NUS mediates and contains student political power
- The National Union of Students functions primarily as a mediating institution that contains and moderates student political power rather than enabling it. Genuine political action does not arise from representation within existing institutional frameworks but from moments where students collectively challenge those frameworks. Instead of enabling this kind of action, the NUS often operates as a structure that channels student demands into forms that remain acceptable to political institutions. In doing so, it transforms student politics into lobbying, communication, and social media activity rather than meaningfully amplifying collective struggle. Disaffiliating from the NUS would therefore remove an organisational layer that currently contains student politics and would allow students to organise and act directly with one another across campuses without a national body moderating their demands.
-
The NUS does not truly represent students
- The campaign also challenges the assumption that the NUS can meaningfully represent the political views of students across the country. The idea that a national organisation can speak on behalf of millions of students assumes that political opinions can be reduced to a simplified consensus. In reality, student politics is far more complex, and attempts to create a single representative position often result in the dilution of radical or critical perspectives. Internal democratic structures within the NUS have weakened over time, with policy-making becoming increasingly centralised among a small group of national officers rather than being shaped directly by students’ unions themselves. In this sense, the NUS claims legitimacy as a representative organisation while increasingly concentrating decision-making power away from the students it claims to represent. It is increasingly hierarchical, and disenfranchises student subjectivity and power. Disaffiliation is therefore a rejection of a system that substitutes genuine collective participation with a narrow model of representation.
-
Students’ money should not fund a bureaucratic national structure
- Goldsmiths Students’ Union currently contributes approximately £25,000 each year in affiliation fees, with additional costs arising from travel, conferences, and participation in national events. This money effectively sustains a national bureaucratic structure whose real and political impact is limited. At a time when universities are facing deep structural crises and students themselves are experiencing financial pressure, it is increasingly difficult to justify sending tens of thousands of pounds away from the local student community. Redirecting these resources toward student workers, campaigns, and local initiatives would ensure that funds raised from students are reinvested directly into the student body rather than maintaining an external institution whose real benefits remain unclear.
-
The NUS has failed to respond to the crisis in higher education
- The campaign situates the debate about NUS affiliation within the broader transformation of universities in the United Kingdom. Across the sector, universities are undergoing restructuring programmes, staff redundancies, and course closures, while students are increasingly expected to take on large amounts of personal debt in order to access education. These developments reflect the wider neoliberalisation of higher education, in which universities are increasingly run according to corporate logics and market priorities. The campaign argues that this moment should have been an opportunity for strong national student organising to challenge the direction of the sector. Instead, the NUS has largely focused on narrower policy issues while failing to lead significant campaigns addressing the structural conditions shaping universities today. This absence of political leadership raises fundamental questions about whether the organisation still fulfils the role that a national student movement should play.
-
National structures historically moderate student movements
- Moments of significant political change often occur when students organise outside the boundaries set by established institutions. However, national bodies such as the NUS frequently attempt to bring these movements back within institutional channels, encouraging moderation and compromise rather than confrontation with the structures producing injustice. The campaign points to past moments in student activism where national leadership publicly criticised or distanced itself from more radical forms of protest. This dynamic demonstrates how institutional representation can become a mechanism for managing dissent rather than enabling transformative change. Leaving the NUS would therefore remove a structure that many activists believe has historically constrained the possibilities of student organising.
-
Student movements already organise without the NUS
- The most meaningful collaboration between students across universities already occurs outside the structures of the NUS in practice. Networks formed through occupations, protests, and grassroots campaigns demonstrate that students are fully capable of building connections and coordinating actions without a national organisation mediating those relationships. These forms of collaboration often operate through horizontal networks where students share resources, strategies, and support directly with one another. The NUS, by contrast, introduces a hierarchical structure into these relationships. Instead of students engaging with one another directly, their voices and demands are mediated through national leadership structures that ultimately determine the direction of campaigns and the positions taken in the name of students. This hierarchy can restrict the spontaneity and autonomy that often drive student movements. In this context, the role of the NUS becomes largely symbolic, as the practical work of organising is already happening independently. Disaffiliating would therefore simply acknowledge the reality that student movements already exist and operate beyond the framework of the national union.
-
Disaffiliation can reclaim student political agency
- Disaffiliation is not a withdrawal from student politics but an opportunity to reclaim political agency. Leaving the NUS would remove an institutional structure that currently mediates student political activity and would create space for new forms of organising to emerge. Rather than replacing the NUS with another national body, the campaign proposes developing networks of collaboration based on horizontal relationships between students, unions, and activist groups. In this model, students would communicate directly with one another, coordinate campaigns collectively, and determine their own political priorities without a national organisation shaping or constraining them. Disaffiliation is therefore presented as a creative political act that opens the possibility for a more autonomous and radical student movement.