final power resting. will central government. These bodies powers to vet the content colises. would be required to submit a tender for their ac tivities, in competition with each other - called contract funding.
The proposals for polys and colleges form a major plank of the Tories. onslaught on local coun cils. Transferred' colleges will their land, buildings equipment previously owned by local authorities which will be handed over by the government, This proposal, hand in hand with the abolition of the metropolitan councils grants to being in the control of s. This removes universities themselves. financial independence the SUS dramatically curbed political activity.
The introduction of l 'full fees' for overseas students horbitantly high arbitrary figure - halved the number attending British educational establishments.
These facts, and the proposal to make membership of NUS 'voluntary', are designed to renove the oi a campalgning student movement able to defeat such proposals by mass mobilisations.
Along with the core curriculum in schools and The for clear the NUS Was education on trol The WaN subscribed, with participating ed away The NUS tober. be supsimilar NUS should Its backing wel as THE first impact in London of the Tory government attacks on local government has been the decision to cut the London Strategic Policy Unit.
The unit was established jointly by a number of Lon don councils following the abolition of the GLC to continue some of its London-wide functions, for example on the police, women and race.
The London boroughs financing LSPU decided just before the summer that nev wee not ll a busitiul to continue paying for the unit. This is a major blow to London, as it is now robbed of any serious London-wide planning and monitoring Over the summer it was agreed by the LSPU staff that a campaign to save LSPU was not realistic. They therefore decided to campaign for redeployment be da slall allong the London boroughs.
Redeployment of those staff in situ and many are already seeking completely alternative employment, would mean each borough taking on responsibility for around 20 to 25 staff - and probadly less Although this redeployment was originalv agreed London boroughs are none • principle, some of the dragging their feet, in par ticular Margaret Hodge an‹ Islington are refusing come to any definite agree.
Parties NALGO brancher therefore asked to support LSPU Tne Call paign passing model along following lines:
'This ward/GC/LGC/ branch etc notes the threat ding up or SPU. We sup the win port the demands of LSPU NALGO/NUJ for a collec tive redeployment agree under which each constituent borough . LSPU will take an equa share of LSPU staff. recognise the importance o this agreement being reach ed quickly and mandate ou councillors to pass a resolu and council/instruct branch officers to reach an agree ment through negotiatin channels that the Londo borough of one ninth of LSPL wil staff.
Socialist Action 25 Sept 1987