So the Government's restructuring regime for HE in England contains this dig "The funding of student unions should be proportionate and focused on serving the needs of the wider student population rather than subsidising niche activism and campaigns"

Unbelievable nonsense really. SUs deliver remarkable bang for buck. Given the massively important role they've played in the pandemic is it too much to ask for a bit of recognition rather than this culture wars twaddle?

The good news of course is that SUs are registered charities and if there was concern about campaigning outside of "students as students" objects the commission would be intervening, but it isn't / hasn't.

And the irony is that if we are looking for value, efficiencies and savings then transferring functions and services to SUs would make the most sense.

It's the bad politics of it that gets me every time. Why would you alienate thousands of student leaders like this busting their arse to deliver for students on a pittance of funding? Why is that a sensible political strategy? Paging @CSkidmoreUK who appeared to get it.

To apply for the restructuring regime providers have to submit various things including a "costs plan" that includes efficiencies and synergies; with a particular focus on the pay of senior leadership, pension costs, marketing spend...

... funding for student activism and sabbaticals and costs of administration or bureaucracy". Apart from all the obvious issues with autonomy, it's amazing to me that the gov would focus on control of SU officer spend rather than, say, ensuring spend on mental health or hardship

The idea that universities are indirectly splurging vast quantities of money up the wall on SU officers is... remarkable. I mean literally - five sabbs costs less than the fees of five international students in most unis.

You could flick the heating on a day earlier in the winter and cancel that saving out 100 times!