Great VSM News
This is excellent news.
Australian Labour has put freedom ahead of self interest and said it will not overturn, if elected, voluntary membership of student associations.
Australian student associations used to forcibly collect $155 million a year from students. Even in NZ the combined budget of the student associations is several times larger than the Business Roundtable.
Aussie Labor is looking at a charge, funded by loans, for student facilities and services. This could be a backdoor attempt, but it’s still a welcome step forward.
Ironically I was meeting some people on Sunday to discuss VSM, with Heather Roy having a private member’s bill “in the ballot” to bring this fully in here. National supported VSM in the late 90s and I hope they will do so again, when in office.
Hat Tip: Back in 15
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 am
It’s crazy this debate still goes on.
I remember back at Waikato in 94 campaigning for VSM and being spat at by the left loonies and associated hangers on. The high point being when defeated on a vote at council on a related topic the President decided to have a “re-vote” in 30 minutes once they’d dragged more supporters in. Jackboot democracy in action.
Ahhh … memories.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
The socialists/ commies know how important it is to retain influence in the academia. They’re thinking of all those impressionable young minds they get to fuck up with their one sided doctrinal propaganda.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Why does the left need to be coercive? Are their ideas inferior?
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
You have to understand Mr Spock that letting people make choices on their own is inherently bad. It is well known that your average Joe or Jane will make bad choices relating to their individual situation if we just let them make those choices on their own. Centralised organisations are in possession of much more information about what things are good, and should make decisions for everyone. It is just more efficient that way.
Of course, compulsion shouldn’t apply to most of the middle class folks who vote for left wing governments, as clearly they are able to make decisions for themselves. Compulsion should be targeted at the poor people, who we are saving from themselves.
Students sort of fit that category – people who are obviously too stupid to make decisions for themselves. Clearly only student union reps are smart enough to make decisions for students, if you just let students do their own thing (for example, support the political party that they like) they’d probably just go and get drunk and never get organised enough to have protests. Student activism is definitely a public good that should be funded by all students, as are wymmyns spaces and the like that were all the rage when I was at university.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
“Why does the left need to be coercive? Are their ideas inferior?”
One must suspect that the reason why student assosciations don’t want VSM is because they know they don’t provide students with much value for money, and know if given a choice many students would choose not to join.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
The big difference being that the students associations are unions with (I’d estimate) about 100,000 members and the business round-table is a far-right lobby group with (at best) a couple of dozen actual members.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Can anyone explain why compulsory membership in student unions does not violate freedom of association in the Bill of Rights? Are they exempted?
In the mid-90s when I was in university, the unions would take $90 each year and use it to subsidise beer at the student pub and candy at the tuck shop, among other things. You could opt out of paying the fee, and now I wish I hadn’t, and in principle you could be barred from entering the pub or the tuck shop. I vaguely recall that actually happening at least once.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Danyl totally misses the actual big difference in his desire to smear the BRT as “far right”.
The difference is every member of the BRT, has chosen voluntarily to join it, and fund it.
Not so with most student associations.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
That’s one difference, it’s so obvious I didn’t feel it needed to be spelled out but thanks for doing so anyway.
The other significant difference – one that you seem curiously oblivious to – is that one is about 10,000 times larger than the other, so comparing budget sizes is not terribly relevant.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
It is relevant, for the left constantly expresses fears concerning what influence the BRT might have on NZ’s political direction. Its probably nothing to the influence of the student unions, who besides having a huge budget, also have access to the minds of young people during the most intellectually vulnerable time of their lives. Ever seen the movie “Indoctrination U”??
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Indoctrination U.
A fascinating excerpt from the book that preceded the film-
http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/indoctrinationu/?excerpt
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I am not too sure the Nats have placed too much emphasis on this at all. However any moves towards that would be greatly appreciated.
Since when was the BRT far right? What utter nonsense.
I remember when NZUSA were spending an awful amount of time and money promoting to all students that we must vote Alliance. That was the same year they got booted out of Parliament.
Ben, people could opt out though conscientious objection but the process itself was a joke as people still had to pay the levy and were at the whims of an association whether or not that banned you from their buildings. Note that the amount of students using that as a way out were very close to zero.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I think I heard it from the same guy spreading that rumour that the sun was hot.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Danyl – could you elaborate on what sort of policies qualify as far right and what qualifies as far left?
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
“I think I heard it from the same guy spreading that rumour that the sun was hot.”
Excellent, that’s damn funny. Thanks Danyl.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:59 pm
I’ve always found it odd that so many people will try and portray organisations like the BRT, ACT and the CIS as “far-right”, and then use the same description for racist organisations like the British National Party, National Front (both French and NZ), and of course, the Nazis.
The contrast couldn’t be any more stark. Largely, the former are centre-right groups in favour of the free market, against government ownership and interference, pro-socially liberal policies and pro-immigration.
Of course, the latter are, in the same way as those who would usually identify themselves as on the left of politics, in favour of state ownership, control, and intervention.
BRT far-right??
What the f**k is far-right??
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Let’s take a simple example.
Far-left: compulsory unionism (Soviet Russia, NZ)
centre-left: voluntary unionism (UK, Aus, NZ Nats policy)
centre: unionism voluntary in most sectors, not permited in critical sectors (Spain, US)
centre-right: unions incorporated into corporate management structures (e.g. japan)
far-right: compulsory membership of facist political parties
The fact of the matter is that the National party is Centre-left; ACT is a centre party – and the Labour party is far-left. It’s just that NZ politics are so skewed by corruption that most people don’t notice
Frankly, ACT’s policy of a couple of years ago – to deregister all unions and ban any kind of organised labour – is much more likely to contribute to the economic growth of NZ that any of their other polices (including privitisation of schools & hospitals, and the benefit removals)
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Be careful now, you’ll get RedBaiter all excited if you start suggesting there is anything other than a left-right continuum, with him at centre-right and everyone else (probably including the BRT) at far left.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:36 am
Danyl – did you care to offer anything further to your non-answer or should we just put this down to a case of “you don’t know”?
Sinner, I didn’t know that was an ACT policy to do all that, but I would agree with it!
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:44 am
Since you sprinkle the terms around on yuor blog like confetti I find it surprising you’re so confused about their meaning. I guess it’s a nice way for you to distract the conversation from my original point: that your original comparison between student unions and the BRT is disingeniuous and false.
Anyway, to answer your question: in economic terms (which are the only ones the BRT is interested in) left and right are distinguished by three main factors:
State intervention in the economy
Size of the State
Equality over freedom
People who want total state control of the economy, an all-powerful state (nationalised property and industry, ect) and absolute equality are on the far left side of the spectrum and referred to as communists. People on the far-right want no state intervention (sell all the schools, hospitals, state-owned assets ect), minimal state (usually just police, army and courts) and value freedom over equality.
The BRT are pretty candid about what kind of political economy they want for New Zealand – it’s firmly on the far-right of the political economic spectrum.
And to expand upon my original point – the BRT is not a very representitive organisation. It lobbies for a very small number of super-rich individuals. The Employers and Manufacturers assocition is the group that represents the vast majority of New Zealand businesses, not the BRT. The EMA are the people who actually engage with the government and try to force concessions from them while the BRT are braying into the wind about selling off all our hospitals and privatising the National Parks.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:25 am
All that typing Danyl and still you got the BRT wrong.
If they are far right I’d hate to get your analysis on where Anderton or the Greens lie on your spectrum. Left of centre? Sheesh, and I suspect you’ll put Comrade Stalin about centre left right?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 am
Anyone spot the error in the Dom Post story on Student Choice’s call for VSM?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:13 am
“Anyway, to answer your question: in economic terms (which are the only ones the BRT is interested in) left and right are distinguished by three main factors:
State intervention in the economy
Size of the State
Equality over freedom”
Danyl,
Odd that those three things you mention, it is often parties many would call “far-right” (BNP, NF, Nazis etc) that espouse state intervention by a large state, and equality for all citizens being paramount rather than freedom.
Does that mean these groups are far-left?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 am
As you already know, the left-right axis is two dimensional and economic issues is only half of the picture. The other issue of different runs down the social liberal/conservative line.
The fascists they advocated a strong state but also a strong private industry. The state acted as the main buyer and seller in the economy but property and capital remained in private hands. This puts them in the centre of the economic axis, but their social policies (church, kitchen, children ect) put them far to the right in terms of the liberal/conservative divide.
And I think it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that the Nazis were in favor of ‘equality for all citizens’. They seemed to practise the opposite.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 am
“And I think it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that the Nazis were in favor of ‘equality for all citizens’. They seemed to practise the opposite.”
Not at all, provided one fit into the little Aryan box Nazis deemed necessary to be a good citizen.
But that’s getting a little off the point.
Do you then regard ACT and the CIS as “far-right”?? These groups do not appear to fit into your classification as far-right on social issues.
Are you saying that fascist groups are “far-right” socially, and centrist economically; while groups like the BRT, ACT and CIS are centrist socially (the latter two in particular), and “far-right” economically??
So it would be fair to say that these groups have absolutely nothing in common and it would be quite unfair to tarnish them both with the same “far-right” brush??
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 am
Not really. Even if one were Aryan there was massive state imposed gender and sexual orientation inequality.
Anyway . . .
Andrew, if you look closely you’ll see that I anticipated this line of debate and carefully framed my description of the BRT in economic terms:
We can carry on debating the political economy of fascism and the accuracy of the left-right axis all you like but it doesn’t detract from my original point that in terms of political economy the BRT (and CIS, and ACT) are far-right.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
If you believe the left-right axis is so inaccuarte, why do you use the loaded term “far-right”. The point is Danyl that you referred to the BRT as a “far-right lobby group”, a tactic often used by the left (although not necessarily by you) to associate it with what most people see as far-right politics- fascism.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Ahem
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Precisely.
You’ll notice that each and every one of those posts relates to “far-right” politics in the way I have described it, most people when thinking “far-right” think “fascist”.
I will repeat what I said in my last post-
“The point is Danyl that you referred to the BRT as a “far-right lobby group”, a tactic often used by the left (although not necessarily by you) to associate it with what most people see as far-right politics- fascism.”
Geddit??
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
The point is that it’s a little rich for you to be telling me off for using ‘loaded’ terms like far-right when you use identical language on your own blog. I see you also have a ‘far-left’ category.
It’s a real shame that ACT has wound up sharing the landscape of it’s political nomenclature with the Nazi party, but that’s not really my problem and I’m not going to stop using a universally recognised terminology just to indulge the worlds couple dozen surviving ACT supporters.
I’d also add that the far left, such as the Greens and Progressives presumably have the same cross to bear about being thrown into the same category as Stalin and Pol Pot. Again, kind of sad but not really my problem either.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“It’s a real shame that ACT has wound up sharing the landscape of it’s political nomenclature with the Nazi party,”
..as has any group that has strayed from obeisance to the Marxist scriptures promoted by the left and their mainstream media agents.
Funny that, when Nazi is short for national SOCIALIST WORKER’S party.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/772824/posts
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:22 pm
“It’s a real shame that ACT has wound up sharing the landscape of it’s political nomenclature with the Nazi party”
Say what? And there goes the remaining shreds of your credibility. That was too easy.
Back to topic don’t you think Danyl? I still am wondering why you think compulsory membership is worth defending. And, just in case you didn’t, why then all the nonsense attacking the BRT? God it must get awfully busy in that head of yours.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Student associations are another example of the many wings that the Labour Party has built up in society. Unions are another, and Labour party getting involved in local government politics are another. All of the compulsory elements should be abolished, and governmental parties should be banned from local government politics.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I agree Swampy. It seems that the left have realised theat they must try and get elected into every little part of our lives. It is their way of getting control over the people.
The sad thing is many of them wear these committee roles like a form of badge of honour when most people think they are just busybodies with nothing better to do. Next time take notice of the left winger when rattling out their past committees and boards that they have been on. Pretty pathetic.
June 20th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
ydblfcrjv zdgutrj zlyjpsvfb dqufsa scyplak imfqkhge vmbsync
June 20th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
ydblfcrjv zdgutrj zlyjpsvfb dqufsa scyplak imfqkhge vmbsync
June 20th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
ydblfcrjv zdgutrj zlyjpsvfb dqufsa scyplak imfqkhge vmbsync
June 20th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
ydblfcrjv zdgutrj zlyjpsvfb dqufsa scyplak imfqkhge vmbsync