colleges, to ending the campaign itself for thes As for the disruption of the Execu tive meeting by IS members, that rether pales into insionificance compared with the disruption of the campion carried out by the NUS Exeoutive in flagrent violation of the decisions taken at the Manchester Conference. And when 1 walled out of the Executive in protest at the axclusion of observers from the meeting, this was because it was patently clear that one thing that hud no Tuture in Ine nands of the wud teacher unemployment over the summer 2i The demonstrations on 73/10 Jun John Webster should ask who in the LSO initiated the demonstration on 15 June and then sought to turn it into a national demo with the support of the NUS Executive, In fact he was one of the three members of the NUS ExecuThe Manchester conference voted and a nepional day of action on the 18th. But the Brosd Left-dominated Soottish and Weish Executives immaso iately announced their support for the sulting the colleges in their areas.
of the coliages that came down for the 15th stayed over for the TUC lobby compared with those who came down that mening or overnight? That would of the LSO and NUS counterposes the 15th to the 16th.
As for the London Action Coordinat ing Committee's memonstration, that was 2,000 strong and lad 75 trade unions and student unions supporting it. You yoursel de 3.500 misun in the ioroing So To march to the headauerters of the National Union of Teachers was not sectarianism. With 30,000 teachers facing unemployment, to point the finger at the leadorship of a union which reluses to implement its T969 policy on class size is precisely 1o raise the issun and the demand around which student-worker buty in action can be forced in the localities. For us, unlike the Broad