This year’s Membership Services Conference featured two pivotal plenaries that captured the zeitgeist of contemporary SUs and the challenges students face.
As delegates gathered for what organisers noted was the 10th anniversary of the conference, the sessions tackled fundamental questions about how SUs operate in an era of political change and institutional crisis.
Opening remarks highlighted the conference’s evolution over the past decade. Sessions have become increasingly interdisciplinary, more blending between disciplines, with advice and campaign sessions joined together, and governance and wellbeing topics integrated in ways that would have seemed unusual in 2015.
The evolution reflects a movement grappling with complex, interconnected challenges that resist simple categorisation.
The opening plenary, “How does the student movement become a powerful force for change under a Labour government?”, brought together a diverse panel including Greenpeace, a local councillor, an SU CEO and NUS. Chaired by Mems Ayinla from Sheffield SU, the discussion revealed both the opportunities and challenges facing SUs in the current political landscape.
After over a decade of Conservative rule that saw “over 10 sector secretaries of state for education and God knows how many junior ministers,” the arrival of a Labour government with a substantial majority has created new dynamics for student campaigning. However, the panel was quick to dispel any notion that change would come automatically.
As Parliamentary staffer and local councillor Nabeela Mowlana cautioned, “This isn’t a naturally radical Labour government. This is a Labour government that has chosen its own path.”
The reality check summarised a crucial theme – the need for persistent, strategic advocacy rather than passive expectation of change.
The panel drew unfavourable comparisons with the transformational early years of the 1997 Labour government, which delivered devolution, the Human Rights Act, and the Good Friday Agreement.
Today’s Labour administration appears more cautious, facing “a lot more complicated things to deal with within the world” than their predecessors.
Strategic campaigning
The panel emphasised that effective lobbying requires deep understanding of your target audience. Vic Langer’s (Greenpeace) illustrated this perfectly – when campaigning for the UK to sign a global oceans treaty, rather than deploying aggressive tactics against Foreign Secretary David Lammy (described as “notoriously thin-skinned”) they opted for humour and creativity.
Their banner reading “Lammy, don’t dally” with a cartoon turtle, accompanied by light-hearted social media content, generated positive engagement within the Foreign Office and ultimately secured the commitment they sought.
The approach demonstrates the importance of tone in advocacy. As Langer explained, “We really wanted to take the message to David Lammy, but we didn’t want him to recoil, and we wouldn’t want him to feel targeted.”
The result was not just a successful campaign, but also access to officials who had previously been unresponsive to traditional lobbying approaches.
Advocacy networks
Key principles emerged for effective campaigning under the current government –
frame issues as voter concerns, not just student issues.
Students aren’t a separate class of citizens – they’re tenants, workers, and parents. As Mowlana emphasised,
When students have housing issues, I think you sort of put it to the council as student housing, like it’s a separate thing, and yet you have purpose-built student accommodation. But that’s not what you’re lobbying the council about. You’re lobbying the council about broken-down houses on Ecclesall Road. And actually, that’s not just a student issue. That’s a renters’ rights issue.
The reframing requires genuine community organising. Mowlana stressed that
student organising is just not sexy… it is getting on Excel and making a spreadsheet and making a list of who’s where and where they sit on these different issues and who aligns with you.
This unglamorous but essential work creates the foundation for effective advocacy.
Build coalitions and maintain relationships across political divides. Sarah Kerton (Middlesex SUI CEO) noted the importance of relationship-building even with unlikely allies, citing examples of student leaders developing productive working relationships with Conservative politicians during the previous government.
Under Labour, these skills become even more valuable as politicians are more likely to share underlying values with student concerns, but still require convincing to take action.
Demonstrate electoral significance. What ultimately drives politicians, Mowlana argued, is the need to win elections.
You’ve got to make sure that you are demonstrating the strength of the student movement… That’s what drives politicians.
It requires presenting clear data about student voter numbers, constituency majorities, and the political impact of student concerns.
The challenge of disillusionment
The panel grappled extensively with widespread political disillusionment among young people, particularly following the introduction of votes at 16.
Amira Campbell (President, NUS) acknowledged this challenge:
For a lot of student leaders right now, we’ve got very used to not being listened to, and very used to… a certain style of change-making… we belong to a generation where a lot of us were kids and babies when there was last a Labour government in power.
The generational shift requires SUs to act as bridges between disillusioned students and political systems. Campbell argued for acknowledging why students feel disillusioned rather than simply urging engagement:
The reason why people… feel disillusioned with the system… means that more and more young people are moving away from [mainstream politics], and for good reason, right? And so what we need to do is tackle the core of those issues.
The solution involves demonstrating how collective action addresses individual problems.
Sometimes we need to turn around and go, collectivism is the solution to your individual problems, right? Not just collectivism is the right way for us to do things… but the thing that will solve what you are facing, personally and individually.
Data and storytelling
An interesting tension emerged around the relative importance of data versus personal stories in advocacy. While robust statistics about student voting patterns and demographic data remain crucial for demonstrating political significance, human stories continue to move politicians in ways that spreadsheets cannot.
Sarah Kerton challenged an over-reliance on data, noting that current political shifts often defy statistical logic:
There is no statistics that says that Reform is taking Labour voters, they’re taking Conservative voters, and Labour [wins] votes at 16… instead, they’re obsessed with a voter base that isn’t theirs, and that’s storytelling.
The most effective advocacy combines both approaches – robust data that demonstrates political significance, reinforced with authentic student experiences that illustrate the human impact of policy decisions.
As Kerton observed, “Who here hasn’t had their vice-chancellor or someone see you coming like, ‘oh, students told me you need this'” after a single powerful conversation shifted perspective.
The discussion also revealed the importance of institutional knowledge in effective advocacy. NUS’s national lobbying day before the general election demonstrated how coordinated action could amplify individual union efforts.
By organising meetings with 74 MPs using “the same agendas, the same language, same groupings,” it created a unified front that individual unions couldn’t achieve alone.
This coordination is particularly valuable given the number of new MPs following the election. Many politicians are themselves navigating new roles and systems, creating opportunities for student representatives who can offer support and expertise alongside their advocacy asks.
Crisis as catalyst
The second plenary, “Representing Students in a Time of Crisis”, examined how student unions navigate institutional challenges – from course closures to financial crises. The panel included Rob Samuels from Bangor SU, Hannah Alcock from Christchurch SU, Diya Rattanpal from SOAS SU, Charlotte Corrish from the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, Alex Stanley (NUS VP Higher Education), and Deio Owen (NUS Wales President).
Hannah Sketchley from NUS UK chaired the session, framing it around “what we do when things happen to us and where we find the opportunity.”
The panel painted a sobering picture of contemporary higher education. Rob Samuels from Bangor SU described a university losing “over 200 jobs” as part of financial restructuring, while needing to end long-established practices like free club and society membership.
Hannah Alcock from Christchurch SU recounted supporting 200 student midwives transferring from another institution after accreditation was withdrawn, with students facing personal crises around mortgages, childcare, and career progression.
These aren’t isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern. As Alex Stanley from NUS observed, “You’re trying to solve sort of national, systemic issues on a very localised level,” placing SUs in an impossible position as “the last line of defence for many students.”
The scale of current challenges has fundamentally altered the role of student officers. Stanley, reflecting on his experience as Education Officer at Exeter, noted that despite wanting to focus on “teaching quality, the way that we teach, the way that we learn as students,” much of their time was spent “trying to put more money back into students’ pockets” through initiatives like community fridges and addressing library fines.
Crisis has forced a fundamental recalibration of SU-university relationships. At Bangor, the financial pressures created tension when officers began challenging university decisions more directly than had been customary. As Rob recounted, university staff expressed surprise at this “unionistic” approach, revealing how comfortable relationships had obscured the union’s core representative function.
The realisation has led to more structured approaches to engagement. Bangor is developing a “dialogue framework” with their university – a shared understanding of when different levels of student consultation are appropriate. This framework distinguishes between feedback, full consultation, and co-creation, providing clarity for both parties when challenging decisions arise.
The framework is deliberately owned by the university rather than the union, preventing it from being dismissed as “the students’ union thing” that the institution can ignore. This strategic approach recognises that sustainable advocacy requires institutional buy-in, even when that advocacy becomes challenging.
Charlotte Corrish from the Office of the Independent Adjudicator emphasised the crucial but often overlooked role of student governors in crisis situations. When institutions face closure or major restructuring, empowered student governors can ensure student protection isn’t merely a tick-box exercise but a strategic priority embedded in decision-making from the outset.
It’s a really great opportunity for everyone to ensure that student protection isn’t just a check box, but actually a strategic planning priority,” Corrish explained. However, she warned that governors are sometimes being undermined by staff or excluded from confidential discussions. “We’re starting to hear situations where governors are being stopped [from] getting advice from their staff, or being told that they have to keep things very confidential.”
Research conducted by the OIA with SUMS Consulting revealed that “providers that put sort of student protection at the heart of their governance really make better decisions and have better outcomes for their students when the worst happened.” The evidence reminds us o the importance of ensuring governors have appropriate support and early involvement in strategic conversations.
Despite the challenges, panellists identified significant opportunities emerging from crisis situations. Diya Rattanpal from SOAS highlighted how external pressures can actually strengthen collaboration between unions and universities at operational levels, even when senior relationships become strained.
There’s this push between myself and my counterparts in the casework team, in the support team, in the wellbeing team, where we’re like, ‘Okay, well, why don’t we start having these discussions and get that wraparound care for students?’
This grassroots collaboration demonstrates how shared commitment to student welfare can transcend institutional tensions.
The key lies in removing barriers to engagement and integrating union activities more deeply into university life. SOAS has successfully negotiated for the union to lead on delivering OfS condition E6 (sexual misconduct) training, turning regulatory compliance into an opportunity for student-led community building.
Rather than the university taking that, we kind of fought for that to be with the union, and the union is handling the [sexual misconduct] response and the training and the workshop.
The integration has created a virtuous cycle:
Students have already kind of started coming in saying, ‘Yeah, we’d love to get involved.’ We’ve had applications going through [from] a group of students like, ‘Yeah, I want to lead on this project, because it’s something that I stand behind and believe in.’
Community partnerships
Several unions reported success in strengthening their position through community partnerships during crisis periods. Bangor’s “hot meals project,” providing food for local residents while developing student volunteering opportunities, exemplifies how unions can demonstrate value beyond campus boundaries.
Those opportunities, just for students to develop those skills, but giving something back to local communities, potentially funding opportunities come with that.
The project has become so popular that all of its clubs and societies want to get involved with it. It’s seen as a bit of an honour to help out.
This community engagement serves multiple purposes – developing student skills, addressing local needs, accessing additional funding streams, and demonstrating the union’s value to external stakeholders who might support them during institutional difficulties.
Hannah Alcock emphasised that community building doesn’t require significant resources:
When we’re talking about community, we’re not talking about bells and whistles, we’re literally talking about opportunities to engage.
The focus should be on “removing the barriers to engagement,” including scheduling events to accommodate commuter students and integrating union activities with academic timetables.
Supporting officers and building movements
Both sessions yielded crucial insights for union staff supporting elected officers through challenging times, revealing the complex dynamics between professional staff expertise and student leadership.
The emotional toll of crisis management cannot be understated. Officers often enter their roles expecting to deliver transformational change but find themselves firefighting individual cases or managing institutional decline. This disconnect between expectations and reality can lead to disillusionment and burnout.
Staff play a crucial role in helping officers understand their impact within longer-term movements for change. As Mowlana reflected on her own officer experience, receiving credit for a million-pound scholarship fund that was actually “the work of the officer before me,” the key lesson is that “we very much do stand on the shoulders of giants.”
That panel identified a need to “reshape what a good officer looks like” beyond the traditional focus on “big splash” wins that can be plastered across social media. Staff must help officers recognise that laying “a few more bricks so that someone else can eventually build the wall” is valuable work, even when immediate victories seem elusive.
Stanley emphasised the importance of helping officers understand how their roles are evolving: “Whatever your role is, whatever your portfolio is, it sort of shapes itself around the cost of living and around how students are experiencing that.” This shift from aspirational policy work to crisis management requires different skills and expectations.
Across both plenaries, speakers also emphasised the value of transparent communication with students, even when the messages are difficult. During Bangor’s transition to charging for clubs and societies, officers faced “pretty brutal” meetings with angry students. However, by being “open and honest about the rationale” and allowing genuine feedback on implementation, they maintained trust even through difficult changes.
The principle applies equally to representing students during institutional crises. As Diya noted:
…students will be out there with their pitchforks and their torches until you just have a conversation with them and offer them a coffee, and then the minute they know what’s going on around them, they become very reasonable.
The panel warned against well-intentioned attempts to shield students from difficult realities.
Sometimes we try and think we’re doing what’s best for them and protecting them… and I don’t think we deserve the right to do that… What we can do is what we should be… not everything is on our shoulders.
Supporting officer development
Staff expertise becomes crucial in helping officers navigate complex situations while maintaining their representative function.
Diya talked of the importance of open communication between staff and officers:
If we’re not willing to have those conversations with them, and if we’re not willing to be super honest with them and super open with them… we’re not allowing them to do the job to the best of their ability.
This is particularly important given the increasing complexity of union roles. As Rob noted, many staff now wear multiple hats due to cost-cutting:
You will hear it when people are introducing their roles, it’s ‘something and something and something and something’ because we have done multiple jobs ourselves.
The coaching role becomes essential in helping officers maintain perspective and celebrate incremental progress.
Helping them to recognise all the things they are doing and celebrate their successes, get them to reflect on how things could be done differently… can reinvigorate them.
Staff also play a crucial role in strategic planning and institutional memory. Alex Stanley highlighted how staff can help officers “stick to strategy” and understand “what student unions look like when we come into role… the different parts different people play in big, powerful machines that we are.”
Amira Campbell emphasised the importance of understanding individual officer strengths and matching them to appropriate tasks:
Some of the core of it is really understanding… who was going to be the best person in the team to sit in that meeting with a Labour councillor… and who needs to be the person out there gathering loads of students to make sure they come to the hustings event.
This approach recognises that
….not all of it’s for everyone. Not everyone wants to do the media interviews, not everyone wants to sit down in the meeting [with] the Council, and not everyone wants to go around talking to as many students as possible.
By playing to individual strengths while ensuring comprehensive coverage of necessary tasks, SUs can be more effective while reducing pressure on individual officers.
Both sessions highlighted the perpetual tension between systemic problems and local solutions. While officers cannot solve national issues around higher education funding or political disillusionment, they can create meaningful change within their sphere of influence.
The key seemed to be helping officers understand how their local actions contribute to broader movements.
Whether developing more effective protest guidelines, creating student-led responses to regulatory requirements, or building cross-community partnerships, local wins can model broader change while delivering immediate value to students.
Corrish encouraged SUs to think beyond immediate crisis response:
You’ve got a really great opportunity to collect a body of evidence about how these things are impacting individual students and students collectively… some of those stories and impacts would be really useful nationally, as well as for your union.
This systematic collection of evidence serves multiple purposes – supporting individual student cases, informing union policy positions, contributing to national advocacy efforts, and building the case for structural reforms that address root causes rather than symptoms.
Looking forward
The conference’s plenaries painted a complex picture of contemporary student unionism that demands sophisticated responses to intersecting challenges. Political opportunities exist under Labour, but require advocacy that combines data with storytelling, builds unlikely coalitions, and maintains persistence over electoral cycles that stretch far beyond individual officer terms.
Meanwhile, institutional crises demand that unions become more strategic about relationships, more creative about community building, and more honest about both their power and limitations. The organisations thriving in this environment are those that embrace their representative function fully – challenging institutions when necessary while building the internal capacity to deliver alternatives.
The discussion revealed a movement in transition, moving away from the more siloed approaches of the mid-2010s toward integrated responses that blend campaigning with service delivery, governance with wellbeing, and local action with national advocacy. This evolution reflects both the complexity of contemporary challenges and the movement’s growing sophistication in addressing them.
As organisers noted when reflecting on ten years of conference agendas, recent years have seen increased focus on “strategy, staff wellbeing, collective practice, community-centred development and advocacy.” This shift toward “membership first, focused content” suggests a movement that understands the importance of building sustainable foundations for long-term change.
The challenges ahead are significant – maintaining hope and agency in the face of structural constraints, building student power in systems not designed for student success, and balancing immediate crisis response with transformational long-term vision. However, the insights emerging from these discussions suggest a movement with the analytical tools and practical experience to navigate these complexities effectively.
As SUs and their students face an uncertain future, the opening sessions of MSC 2025 demonstrated that the movement possesses both the strategic thinking and practical solidarity necessary to not just survive but thrive in challenging times. The question is not whether student unions can navigate the current crisis, but how effectively they can transform challenge into opportunity for building the democratic, community-centred institutions that students deserve.
