The NUS President’s mea culpa today that he and his careerist cronies have been “spineless” in their approach to students taking direct action is a simple bid to grab back his status as leader and curb activity into more “constructive” (read: ineffective) avenues.

Apt name, Porter. From the start of the student struggles he’s been carrying the sputtering flame of “reasonable” dissent on his shoulders. Nice neat rallies, fun for all the family and of about as much use as a Stop The War march in stopping the government from doing what it wants.

His role has been totally overturned and he himself utterly ignored since he misjudged the mood of the mass in deriding the Millbank occupiers on November 10th, sparking a picture of his smiling mug going viral online with the word “despicable” underneath — a refence to his snivelling media appearance. Since then his “vote out the Lib Dems” (in 2015) campaign has fallen flat on its face while he and the NUS have been left behind by the spontaneity and speed of events.

For Porter, this is a major problem. Part of the role of NUS president is to funnel student dissent into safe channels and wherever possible, into a vote for the Labour Party they are seeking to get a future job from. So today he’s had a go at getting back in the driving seat, telling occupiers at University College London that:



For too long the NUS has perhaps been too cautious and too spineless about being committed to supporting student activism. If I’m going to be critical of myself, perhaps I spent too long over the last few days doing the same. Quote:

Good start there Aaron, go on...



I want to be clear and unambiguous right now — where there is non-violent student action, the NUS should and the NUS will support that because what we are facing is utterly disgraceful. Quote:

Ah, see that does raise a couple of questions. What do you regard as “non-violent?” Would that exclude, for example, people putting a few windows through at a party headquarters? Spray-painting “pig” on a cop-car perhaps?

One of the big bugbears of the liberal press in the last few weeks has been precisely along these lines, attempting to drag the meaning of the word “violent” away from “hurting people” to “damaging property” and restricting its legitimacy to the less overtly brutal of police beatings. If I’m pushing (non-violently) against a kettle and then get smacked in the face by an overenthusiastic PC Bob, am I allowed to act in self-defence in your eyes Aaron? Or is that too radical?

The word liberal is key here, because that is what Porter is hoping to represent to the powers that be, nice liberal protests under his more sanitised banner. His language has shifted to the left and towards the word “action” (he’s still not big on the “direct” bit), but he remains the stooge of the Labour Party - itself a body long bereft of its spine.

The worst thing that could happen to the student protests now would be if people fell back into the habit of letting this mendacious little creep act as their spokesperson. Only by continuing to ignore his gabbling and taking the power to - and responsibility for - changing things will this wave continue to roll and drown our government.

Edit: Ah the Guardian has now picked up on this (haha beatcha ) and oh look, doesn't he just fall over himself to delineate between "good" and "bad" protesters?