Enough is enough...
HALLAM-BAKER Phillip
Is it just me or have the Tories gone one too far this time? In Italy
and Japan the ruling parties have collapsed over the very question
of illegal payments to political parties. Here we have a rulling party
that choses to make such payments legal but that does not make
them honest.
Every British Citizen with a pension scheme is whether they like
it or not having money deducted from their pension to fund the Tory
party. They have no say in the investment decisions of their fund
managers who are by law prohibited from taking such payments into
account when making their decision. Moreover the Tory party has not
only accepted monies that they knew were not properly disclosed to
shareholders as required by law they actually connived in the deception
by setting up a web of bogus "institutes" to facilitate such secret
payments.
Now we have concrete proof that such monies were used to buy influence
with the disclosure that Major arranged a meeting between Gorbachev
and Lord King of British Airways specifically stating that this was
part of an agreement to resume payments which had been suspended.
It is not just Michael Mates that should resign, although he clearly
has displayed gross impropriety. The Chairman of the Party should give
John Major an ultimatum that either the accounts of the party be put
on an open basis with full disclosure of all sums of money paid or
that he will resign. There can be no other course for a man of honour.
If the Tories refuse to put their own house in order they risk having
it done for them. A mandatory duty on parties to disclose their finances
and a statutory right for shareholders to opt out of political contributions
would be no more than has been required of Trades Union support of the
Labour party. A maximum individual contribution of 2000 pounds would
ensure that the current suspiscion that political contributions buys
influence and honours is ended.
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
charless
In article <1993Jun21....@dxcern.cern.ch> hal...@dxal18.cern.ch (HALLAM-BAKER Phillip) writes:
>
>It is not just Michael Mates that should resign, although he clearly
>has displayed gross impropriety. The Chairman of the Party should give
>John Major an ultimatum that either the accounts of the party be put
>on an open basis with full disclosure of all sums of money paid or
>that he will resign. There can be no other course for a man of honour.
Don't be silly, Phill.
Today's tories will demonstrate characteristics of honour at
about the same time that porcine aviators are seen stacked in the
Heathrow holding pattern with an RB-211 under each wing.
I predict a big furore, one or two ministerial resignations, and
a royal sex scandal.
Film at eleven.
-- Charlie
--
Charlie Stross ... char...@scol.sco.com ... cha...@antipope.demon.co.uk
UNIX oriented text mangler | This is a
"As soon as you pull out the pin, Mister | Kibo
Hand Grenade stops being your friend." | attractor: help stop newsgrepping!
cs9...@cen.ex.ac.uk
>
>Every British Citizen with a pension scheme is whether they like
>it or not having money deducted from their pension to fund the Tory
>party. They have no say in the investment decisions of their fund
>managers who are by law prohibited from taking such payments into
No they dont. The money that a pension company may or may not give to the
tory party comes from the PROFITS of that organisation. If a parties
politics benifits a company, why shouldn't they be able to give a donation?
>Now we have concrete proof that such monies were used to buy influence
>with the disclosure that Major arranged a meeting between Gorbachev
>and Lord King of British Airways specifically stating that this was
>part of an agreement to resume payments which had been suspended.
What proof is this? I've never heard of it? Could you post it please so
everybody can see this 'concrete' proof.
>It is not just Michael Mates that should resign, although he clearly
>has displayed gross impropriety. The Chairman of the Party should give
>John Major an ultimatum that either the accounts of the party be put
>on an open basis with full disclosure of all sums of money paid or
>that he will resign. There can be no other course for a man of honour.
Some people may just prefer to be nameless when giving a donation to
a party. Why should they be named - to look down the Honours List to see
if the names match, I don't really think so, do you?
>If the Tories refuse to put their own house in order they risk having
>it done for them. A mandatory duty on parties to disclose their finances
>and a statutory right for shareholders to opt out of political contributions
>would be no more than has been required of Trades Union support of the
>Labour party. A maximum individual contribution of 2000 pounds would
>ensure that the current suspiscion that political contributions buys
>influence and honours is ended.
>
>
>Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
The tories get their money from business, Labour from the Trade Unions and
the LibDems would too if they had some proper support. There is no major
conspiracy between the Tories and business and Labour and the Trade Unions.
They are just getting money from the people that they represent, i.e Tories
get money from the rich, Labour get their money from the poor. Whats the
problem?
Chris
--
_____ ___ ______ __ _______
/ ___/ / /____ / ____/ /_/ / _____/ <<< University of Exeter >>>
/ /__ / __ / / / / / /____ / < C.B.T...@cen.ex.ac.uk >
/____/ /__/ /__/ /_/ /_/ /______/ <<<<<< CHRIS TICKLER >>>>>>>
Paul Bennett
>In article <1993Jun21....@dxcern.cern.ch> hal...@dxal18.cern.ch (HALLAM-BAKER Phillip) writes:
>>Every British Citizen with a pension scheme is whether they like
>>it or not having money deducted from their pension to fund the Tory
>>party. They have no say in the investment decisions of their fund
>>managers who are by law prohibited from taking such payments into
>
>No they dont. The money that a pension company may or may not give to the
>tory party comes from the PROFITS of that organisation. If a parties
>politics benifits a company, why shouldn't they be able to give a donation?
Simple. Because unless that company *anonymously* gives to the party (and by
that, I mean "in a way such that the party doesn't know who donated"), it is
inevitable that the subconcious of the guys in government who know of such
donations will prod them to avoid "upsetting" such companies.
What I suggest is that no matter how hard people honestly claim they're
acting independent of funding, their own minds may be swayed without
them realising it.
[blah about 'proof' and a call for resignations deleted]
>Some people may just prefer to be nameless when giving a donation to
>a party.
Quite right, too. But they should not allow to be "nameless" to the public,
but "named" to the party. That defeats the point of anonymity. Why would
someone want only the party to know about such donations unless they're
expecting some kind of reward?
I have a feeling there's some legal aspects which make this "100% anonymity"
impossible, so surely the only answer in all fairness is to open up the
accounts.
>Why should they be named - to look down the Honours List to see
>if the names match, I don't really think so, do you?
Oh I don't know - might be interesting :-)
[hallam talking about Trade Unions...deleted]
>The tories get their money from business, Labour from the Trade Unions and
>the LibDems would too if they had some proper support.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What do you mean? The way I see it, the LibDems have some of the best
policies around. Just a pity that in this 'materialistic' society, money
doesn't bring a party to power, but it gives it a hefty push in the right
direction. The LibDems sadly do all the walking themselves.
>There is no major
>conspiracy between the Tories and business and Labour and the Trade Unions.
>They are just getting money from the people that they represent, i.e Tories
>get money from the rich, Labour get their money from the poor. Whats the
>problem?
I don't want to rant off on ideological trips, but when the day comes when
political parties come to power because of their ideas, their policies, and
not their advertising, personalities and hype, I'll be much happier.
Perhaps all parties should be equally funded, directly by the government... ;-)
Paul.
p...@doc.ic.ac.uk
<My Views>.
Paul Taylor <pt@acl.icnet.uk>
>
>The tories get their money from business, Labour from the Trade Unions and
>the LibDems would too if they had some proper support. There is no major
>conspiracy between the Tories and business and Labour and the Trade Unions.
>They are just getting money from the people that they represent, i.e Tories
>get money from the rich, Labour get their money from the poor. Whats the
>problem?
A) Individual Trade Unions members are not obliged to pay the political levy,
there is no equivalent opt out for shareholders in a company. Tories get money
from those who they do not represent.
B) Many of those who support the Tory Party do not live here, do not work here,
cannot vote here and ought not to be allowed to sponsor political activity. The
Tories are getting money from people who they ought not to represent.
C) We do not know that there is no conspiracy. The Tory Party is not disclosing
enough information about its sources of income to reassure the public that this
is the case.
Chris Cooke
In article <1993Jun21....@dxcern.cern.ch> hal...@dxal18.cern.ch (HALLAM-BAKER Phillip) writes:
>Every British Citizen with a pension scheme is whether they like
>it or not having money deducted from their pension to fund the Tory
>party. They have no say in the investment decisions of their fund
>managers who are by law prohibited from taking such payments into
No they dont. The money that a pension company may or may not give to the
tory party comes from the PROFITS of that organisation. If a parties
politics benifits a company, why shouldn't they be able to give a donation?
Most pensions are administered by the independent administrators of pension
funds, not by "pension companies". Those pension funds are the main
investors in the UK stockmarkets, and control many of our biggest companies -
i.e. we, through our pension funds, indirectly own the companies which
finance the Tory party. Shouldn't we then have a say in what those companies
choose to spend their spare money on?
>It is not just Michael Mates that should resign, although he clearly
>has displayed gross impropriety. The Chairman of the Party should give
>John Major an ultimatum that either the accounts of the party be put
>on an open basis with full disclosure of all sums of money paid or
>that he will resign. There can be no other course for a man of honour.
Some people may just prefer to be nameless when giving a donation to
a party. Why should they be named - to look down the Honours List to see
if the names match, I don't really think so, do you?
Yes, of course. Since there's such widespread suspicion that Honours are
bought with donations to the Tory party, the only way to lay such persistent
suspicions to rest is to be open and honest about contributions. The only
reasons for wanting to hide a donation are (a) the donor is embarrassed to be
seen supporting the Tories, or (b) the donor has something smelly to hide.
Neither reason seems a good justification for secrecy to me.
--
-- Chris.
Jim Reid
No they dont. The money that a pension company may or may not give to the
tory party comes from the PROFITS of that organisation. If a parties
politics benifits a company, why shouldn't they be able to give a donation?
There's nothing wrong with what you appear to approve of, provided it
is done honestly, openly and democratically. Most company donations
to the Conservative Party fail on all three counts.
Very few companies permit their shareholders to vote on political
donations at the AGM. None give their customers the option of paying
or not paying for this political donation. If trade union members can
opt in or out of paying a political levy - which usually goes to the
Labour Party - why doesn't this apply to other (hidden) political
levies? It's only fair that I should be allowed to choose to pay less
for a pint of beer or a packet of Jaffa Cakes and thus opt out of
contributing to the donations made by the likes of Bass and United
Biscuits to the Conservative Party if I wanted to. The fact that I
can't is neither democratic or fair. Consumers should be told if a
company makes political donations and so have the choice of supporting
that policy (or not) when buying goods or services.
Secondly, most companies donate money to the Conservative Party
through "front organisations" like British United Industrialists. This
means that the donation doesn't have to be declared in the company's
accounts.
Then we have the recent scam about loan-donations. The Conservative
Party asked companies to donate money which would be repaid into the
company's accounts during its audit and then immediately reclaimed
afterwards. The donation wouldn't appear on the balance sheet or the
published accounts. This is dishonest and immoral, though legal.
Some people may just prefer to be nameless when giving a donation to
a party. Why should they be named - to look down the Honours List to see
if the names match, I don't really think so, do you?
And what colour is the sky in your world? It's hardly a coincidence
that virtually all the businessmen who have received honours turn out
to have been substantial corporate donors to the Conservative Party.
Businessmen from companies that don't make political donations to the
Tories rarely, if ever, get knighthoods or peerages. I wonder why.
They are just getting money from the people that they represent, i.e Tories
get money from the rich, Labour get their money from the poor. Whats the
problem?
The problem is that the Conservative Party has been taking money from
dodgy sources: overseas Chinese and Greek businessmen, front men for
foreign governments (possibly), crooks like ex-Sir Jack Lyons and
Gerald Ronson, not to mention fugitives from justice like Asil Nadir.
Since many of these shady transactions are kept secret, anybody person
has reasonable grounds for suspicions about these donations.
Why do these people make secret donations? Why does the Conservative
party accept them? Why isn't the party open about its dealings?
(Sorry, maintaining the privacy of the donor is not an acceptable
answer.) Doesn't the party realise how sleazy it makes itself and the
goverment look? Can't they appreciate the taint of corruption this
causes?
The other main political parties openly publish their accounts and
identify their donors. It's time the Conservatives did likewise.
Jim
Matthew Huntbach
>A) Individual Trade Unions members are not obliged to pay the political levy,
>there is no equivalent opt out for shareholders in a company. Tories get
>money from those who they do not represent.
>
campaigning, not just for handing over cash to the Labour
Party. At least that's what the argument was when the AUT held
a ballot over whether it should have a political fund. What
about those, like myself, who want their union to be actively
campaigning politically, but not through one particular
political party?
Matthew Huntbach
cs9...@cen.ex.ac.uk
>In article <C94qr...@cen.ex.ac.uk> cs9...@cen.ex.ac.uk writes:
>
>Very few companies permit their shareholders to vote on political
>donations at the AGM. None give their customers the option of paying
>or not paying for this political donation. If trade union members can
>opt in or out of paying a political levy - which usually goes to the
>Labour Party - why doesn't this apply to other (hidden) political
As a member of the NUS, there are policies that I dont support of the NUS.
The problem is that I CANT leave the NUS. I was never asked if I wanted
to join, I was just signed up. Therefore, I cant opt in or out of any
political stand that this farsical union may take.
>levies? It's only fair that I should be allowed to choose to pay less
>for a pint of beer or a packet of Jaffa Cakes and thus opt out of
>contributing to the donations made by the likes of Bass and United
>Biscuits to the Conservative Party if I wanted to. The fact that I
>can't is neither democratic or fair. Consumers should be told if a
>company makes political donations and so have the choice of supporting
>that policy (or not) when buying goods or services.
Most companies that make donations are known. If you dont like who they
give donations to, dont buy the product.
>And what colour is the sky in your world? It's hardly a coincidence
At the moment its a lovely shade of blue with not a cloud in the sky,
which makes me wonder why I'm not on the beach.
>that virtually all the businessmen who have received honours turn out
>to have been substantial corporate donors to the Conservative Party.
>Businessmen from companies that don't make political donations to the
>Tories rarely, if ever, get knighthoods or peerages. I wonder why.
The tories aren't the only ones guilty of abusing the honors system, which
is why good old Jonny M has now changed the system. I cant remember the
name or the party of the PM several decades ago who used to openly sell
knighthoods to raise money. See, its not just happened. Im sure the last
labour government cant hardly call themselves angels on this front either.
cs9...@cen.ex.ac.uk
So every time you make a donation to a cause, be it a charity or whatever,
do you expect a full page in the Times to state this, or are you just doing
it because you beleive in what the organisation is doing and that is nobody
elses business but yourown.
Jim Reid
As a member of the NUS, there are policies that I dont support of the NUS.
The problem is that I CANT leave the NUS. I was never asked if I wanted
to join, I was just signed up. Therefore, I cant opt in or out of any
political stand that this farsical union may take.
This is called democracy. Perhaps you have heard of this? Look it up
in the dictionary. (You need to learn how to spell anyway.) If you
don't like the NUS policies, you are free to campaign against them and
stand for election. If your opionions are shared by the majority of
the members, you can change these policies.
Besides, doesn't the NUS provide social and recreational services on
your campus? Do you ever use them?
Most companies that make donations are known.
Wrong. As I previously explained, many companies don't disclose their
donations by giving the money to Conservative Party fronts like BUI.
There are some donors that are well-known, but there are far, far more
who are not.
If you dont like who they give donations to, dont buy the product.
Indeed, but you're not told this. For instance, Del Monte is/was owned
by Polly Peck which was run by Asil Nadir. Until his flight to Cyprus,
it was not known that his businesses had made donations to the Tories
via offshore bank accounts.
Jim
Paul Taylor <pt@acl.icnet.uk>
>So every time you make a donation to a cause, be it a charity or whatever,
>do you expect a full page in the Times to state this, or are you just doing
>it because you beleive in what the organisation is doing and that is nobody
>elses business but yourown.
If you give money to a political party than that is a matter for everyone who
lives in the country governed by that political party. That is a fundamental
principle accepted by every truly democratic party around the world. It is a
principle that the voters in this country support and one the Tories ignore at
their peril.
If Gaddaffi gives money to the NUM, then that is considered to be a matter for
public concern. If Gaddiffi were to give money to the Tory Party than that
ought to be a matter for much greater public concern. We, the public, want to
know who is funding the political party that formed this Government. We suspect
that it is people with an agenda and with interests that are not our own. We
want to know why they are funding the Tories and what they are getting out of
it.
ag...@ucs.cam.ac.uk
>do you expect a full page in the Times to state this, or are you just doing
>it because you beleive in what the organisation is doing and that is nobody
>elses business but yourown.
So can you explain why if you make a major donation to the Tory party
you get to meet Cabinet ministers, i.e. people who are actively involved
in running the country? I mean, if it's nobody's business but your own,
why do the Conservatives need to know who the money is from?
The problem here is not one of anonymity. It is the lengths to which
the donors have gone to hide their donations from public view (including
company auditors, Inland Revenue etc.) at the same time making sure that
the Conservative Party know exactly who the money is coming from, and how
much is involved.
Jim Reid
So every time you make a donation to a cause, be it a charity or whatever,
do you expect a full page in the Times to state this, or are you just doing
it because you beleive in what the organisation is doing and that is nobody
elses business but yourown.
Yet more incoherent and semi-literate rubbish. There is a world of
difference between you sending off a cheque to a charity and a company
furtively donating hundreds of thousands of pounds to the political
party that happens to be in government. Are you really too thick or
prejudiced that you cannot see this?
Doesn't it strike you as being more than coincidence that the
companies who donate money to the Tory party (or buy up Tory MPs) seem
to do particularly well out of government contracts, honours and
relaxed government regulations? Companies like Tarmac, Trafalgar
House, Bass, Group 4, P&O and Guinness have done remarkably well for
themselves in the last 10-15 years. Is it just another coincidence
that former ministers get nice little earners from sitting on the
boards of the companies that they privatised?
It's bad enough that this sleaze goes on (and on). What makes it worse
are the government insults our intelligence by claiming that there's
no connection between these backhanders and government patronage.
Jim
Steve McKinty - SunConnect ICNC
> In article <C96I3...@cen.ex.ac.uk> cs9...@cen.ex.ac.uk writes:
>
> As a member of the NUS, there are policies that I dont support of the NUS.
> The problem is that I CANT leave the NUS. I was never asked if I wanted
> to join, I was just signed up. Therefore, I cant opt in or out of any
> political stand that this farsical union may take.
>
> This is called democracy. Perhaps you have heard of this? Look it up
> in the dictionary. (You need to learn how to spell anyway.) If you
> don't like the NUS policies, you are free to campaign against them and
> stand for election. If your opionions are shared by the majority of
> the members, you can change these policies.
He should also be free to resign from it, without being penalised or
forced to withdraw from any other organisation or situation. _That's_
democracy.
Steve
--
Steve McKinty
Sun Microsystems ICNC
38240 Meylan, France
email: smck...@france.sun.com
ag...@ucs.cam.ac.uk
>He should also be free to resign from it, without being penalised or
>forced to withdraw from any other organisation or situation. _That's_
>democracy.
The NUS is not an 'organisation', it _is_ the student body. Arguing
for voluntary membership of NUS is arguing that students should not be
represented _as students_ but should have to join (presumably) party-
political or other pressure groups to get representation. Is this
what you want?
Simon E Spero
As a member of the NUS, there are policies that I dont support of the NUS.
The problem is that I CANT leave the NUS. I was never asked if I wanted
to join, I was just signed up. Therefore, I cant opt in or out of any
political stand that this farsical union may take.
Students aren't members of the NUS; student unions are. If you want your
student union to leave the NUS, just get a motion passed at its governing
body, and if you can gather enough support, you can leave. Imperial certainly
doesn't suffer by not being in the NUS, and indeed services would have suffered
had they joined. Unlike the United States, the NUS doesn't invade you if you
try to secede.
Of course, there might be a majority at Exeter for staying, If that's the case,
then welcome to democracy.
Simon
--
Hackers Local 42- National Union of Computer Operatives, Chapel Hill section
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tar Heel Information Services - Nothing but net! | WAIS/Z39.50 spoken here
Do do do de do always Carolina | DoD #612 | Tel: +1-919-962-9107
HALLAM-BAKER Phillip
Because the Labour party is the political wing of the TUC as you know
quite well. It has the job of carrying the political aims of the trades
union movement forward in parliament.
Personally I think this is a good thing since it gives the party a far
wider base of support than the narrow intersts of the party hacks. On the
other hand there are real problems with the democracy in the trades unions
not reaching down to the roots in this area. While I think that it is a
good thing for shopworkers and mechanics etc to have a say in the politicians
who run the major parties I don't think that it is good for the trades union
barrons to exercise this power on their behalf. The current block vote
system narrows the franchise to a cabal instead of widening it as it purports
to.
Personaly I would like to see a cap on donations at 5000 pounds and make
all donations above 1000 pounds mandatorily public. Nobody should be
allowed to buy influence, not Nadir, not Maxwell. In the case of Maxwell
it was only his newspaper that stopped him getting kicked out of the party
over his employment practices at Pergamon. This is of course another area
that must be addressed. No person should be allowed to own more than a
15% stake in a national newspaper.
If people don't beleive that the Tory party is on the make let them consider
the logical outcome of their philosophy of greed. Is the grab for yourself
society that Thatcher so admired likely to be one in which there is a culture
of selfless service to the state? Are the apostles of this philosophy likely
to be selfless and scrupulous in their personal dealings when they preach a
society where wealth measures individual worth. I think not.
Phill Hallam-Baker
R.McPheat
:Doesn't it strike you as being more than coincidence that the
:companies who donate money to the Tory party (or buy up Tory MPs) seem
:to do particularly well out of government contracts, honours and
:relaxed government regulations? Companies like Tarmac, Trafalgar
:House, Bass, Group 4, P&O and Guinness have done remarkably well for
:themselves in the last 10-15 years. Is it just another coincidence
:that former ministers get nice little earners from sitting on the
:boards of the companies that they privatised?
Just wondering, how much has the tory party got from Devonport?
Steve McKinty - SunConnect ICNC
You're assuming that all students want 'representation'. I'm simply
suggesting that they should have the choice. If they wish to be
represented by another (not necessarily party-political) group, why
shouldn't they be able to choose that. Or opt for no representation at all.
cs9...@cen.ex.ac.uk
>
>If you give money to a political party than that is a matter for everyone who
>lives in the country governed by that political party. That is a fundamental
>principle accepted by every truly democratic party around the world. It is a
>principle that the voters in this country support and one the Tories ignore at
>their peril.
>
>If Gaddaffi gives money to the NUM, then that is considered to be a matter for
>public concern. If Gaddiffi were to give money to the Tory Party than that
>ought to be a matter for much greater public concern. We, the public, want to
>know who is funding the political party that formed this Government. We suspect
>that it is people with an agenda and with interests that are not our own. We
>want to know why they are funding the Tories and what they are getting out of
>it.
I dont know if anybody has seen the news lately, but there is a new scandal
about the Labour Party getting 10,000 pounds from another fugative from
justice who also happens to be living in Cyprus, although his name escapes me.
When interviewed on the telly, the Labour muppet said something along the
lines of them having to look back through their books to find out about this
case. At least the Tories KNOW which dirty businessmen are giving them money
:->
cs9...@cen.ex.ac.uk
YES. I have a mind of my own and should be free to make decisions of my own
IF I WANT. If people want to be part of the NUS, fine, I have no problem
with that. I just want to make that decision for myself.
Gordon Riddell
There are now two types of political fund.
NALGO was forced to set up a political fund after 1987 because advertisements
which appeared before the election (either Put People First or Make People
Matter) were challenged by some Conservative Party NALGO members. The ads
only induced people to think of public services when voting. As the main
union in the public sector, one would have thought within the remit of the
union in protecting its members.
A ballot was held and the fund set up with a large majority in favour. There
was no question of it being used to fund any political party.
Members can opt-out if they want and there is a section in their membership
form which allows them this option.
I can't be definite but I believe the Labour Party unions, and many TUC unions
aren't affilaited to Labour, probably ballot their members on (every 10 years
by law now) a political fund without distinguishing a general campaigning
fund separately. In effect giving members little option.
The new union UNISON (NALGO+NUPE+COHSE) has a very baroque arangement as it
needs a Political Fund but two of the unions affiliate to Labour and one does
not. I believe ther will be a ballot within 2-3 years to determine what should.
There will probably be three levels:
party political fund;
general campaign fund; and or opt-out of 1;
opt-out of both.
I doubt AUT is affilaited or would want to. But it would have to have a fund,
subject to a ballot of all members, to say anything `political'.
ag...@ucs.cam.ac.uk
>YES. I have a mind of my own and should be free to make decisions of my own
>IF I WANT. If people want to be part of the NUS, fine, I have no problem
>with that. I just want to make that decision for myself.
You have missed the point, which is that the NUS represents all students.
Or, to be precise, the NUS executive represents all students - the NUS
_is_ all students. Opting-out from NUS would mean that it could not
claim to represent all students, and it would then be in a much weaker
position. If you want to weaken the NUS then say so. Most opt-outers
I have spoken to (and there are quite a few in a place like Cambridge)
need the money that is being spent on their behalf far less than the
vast majority of students who _are_ pro-NUS. The opt-outers seem more
concerned that the NUS policy is anti-government, and don't like the
idea of a body elected by universal democracy having an anti-government
policy. So they see it as essential to destroy the democratic nature
of the NUS, which would allow it (even if still representative of the
vast majority of students) to be categorised as a trade union.
Steve McKinty - SunConnect ICNC
> In article <C9Bx1...@cen.ex.ac.uk> cs9...@cen.ex.ac.uk writes:
> >YES. I have a mind of my own and should be free to make decisions of my own
> >IF I WANT. If people want to be part of the NUS, fine, I have no problem
> >with that. I just want to make that decision for myself.
>
> You have missed the point, which is that the NUS represents all students.
> Or, to be precise, the NUS executive represents all students - the NUS
> _is_ all students. Opting-out from NUS would mean that it could not
> claim to represent all students, and it would then be in a much weaker
> position.
So what? I think you're missing the point, which is that if a student
wants to opt out, weaken the NUS, save money, prop-up/bring-down the
goverenment etc., then they should have that choice. Maybe opting out
isn't a good idea, but its a free country & the choice should be up to
the student.
ag...@ucs.cam.ac.uk
>So what? I think you're missing the point, which is that if a student
>wants to opt out, weaken the NUS, save money, prop-up/bring-down the
>goverenment etc., then they should have that choice. Maybe opting out
>isn't a good idea, but its a free country & the choice should be up to
>the student.
This defeats your own argument. If an elected democracy, from which
people can't opt out (except by leaving) is a 'free country', in what
sense is a student union that represents all students a denial of
freedom? If I can opt out of electing and funding the student union
executive, and also (somehow) arrange that I don't benefit from any
services it provides, shouldn't I also be able to opt out of electing
and funding the government (also arranging not to benefit from any
services it provides)? As the Americans say, "Love it or leave it".
You won't find voluntary student union membership among the UN's basic
rights of food, shelter, medical aid etc. Your sort of 'right' has no
real humanitarian basis and derives more from ideology. For example,
I could just as well claim that in a free country students should have
the right to be represented by people who represent students _per se_,
i.e. by a group that is actively prevented (by the definition of its
electorate) from being party-political or special-interest.
Steve McKinty - SunConnect ICNC
> In article <20s6mg$q...@uk-usenet.UK.Sun.COM> smck...@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM (Steve McKinty - SunConnect ICNC) writes:
> >So what? I think you're missing the point, which is that if a student
> >wants to opt out, weaken the NUS, save money, prop-up/bring-down the
> >goverenment etc., then they should have that choice. Maybe opting out
> >isn't a good idea, but its a free country & the choice should be up to
> >the student.
>
> This defeats your own argument. If an elected democracy, from which
> people can't opt out (except by leaving) is a 'free country', in what
> sense is a student union that represents all students a denial of
> freedom? If I can opt out of electing and funding the student union
> executive, and also (somehow) arrange that I don't benefit from any
> services it provides, shouldn't I also be able to opt out of electing
> and funding the government (also arranging not to benefit from any
> services it provides)?
If you choose to opt out of electing & funding the government, you can.
Stop working (& thus paying taxes) & tear up your election card. You will
probably lose out, but you can make that choice. You don't actually have to
leave the country.
Similarly a student who left the NUS would lose benefits provided by it,
perhaps student health care, access to Student Union buildings/services
etc. They don't (or rather _shouldn't_) have to stop being a student.
> As the Americans say, "Love it or leave it".
Quite. The trouble is you can't leave it.
>
> You won't find voluntary student union membership among the UN's basic
> rights of food, shelter, medical aid etc. Your sort of 'right' has no
> real humanitarian basis and derives more from ideology.
When did I suggest otherwise? Probably most arguments for/against
membership of any organisation which represents a body of people
are ideological, not humanitarian.
> For example,
> I could just as well claim that in a free country students should have
> the right to be represented by people who represent students _per se_,
> i.e. by a group that is actively prevented (by the definition of its
> electorate) from being party-political or special-interest.
Fine by me. If enough students feel that way they could form such an
organisation, and lobby the relevant people (government departments
etc.). I would have joined such an organisation in preference to
the NUS had it existed.
Jim Reid
If you choose to opt out of electing & funding the government, you can.
Stop working (& thus paying taxes) & tear up your election card.
Have you tried explaining this wheeze to the Inland Revenue or HM
Customs & Excise? :-) Unless you resort to barter for goods and
services, it's impossible to avoid paying tax on something - and so
contribute to the government coffers.
Besides, the right to vote in this country is made available to
non-taxpayers. Ask anybody who didn't pay their Poll Tax..... or any
of the mega-rich who bankroll the Tory Party.... :-)
Jim
Steve McKinty - SunConnect ICNC
>
> If you choose to opt out of electing & funding the government, you can.
> Stop working (& thus paying taxes) & tear up your election card.
>
> Have you tried explaining this wheeze to the Inland Revenue or HM
> Customs & Excise? :-) Unless you resort to barter for goods and
> services, it's impossible to avoid paying tax on something
Well, I didn't say it would be easy...
Steve
Alan Dyke
> NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.france.sun.com
>
> In article <ag129.112...@ucs.cam.ac.uk>, ag...@ucs.cam.ac.uk writes:
> > In article <20s6mg$q...@uk-usenet.UK.Sun.COM> smck...@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM (Steve McKinty - SunConnect ICNC) writes:
> > >So what? I think you're missing the point, which is that if a student
> > >wants to opt out, weaken the NUS, save money, prop-up/bring-down the
> > >goverenment etc., then they should have that choice. Maybe opting out
> > >isn't a good idea, but its a free country & the choice should be up to
> > >the student.
> >
> > This defeats your own argument. If an elected democracy, from which
> > people can't opt out (except by leaving) is a 'free country', in what
> > sense is a student union that represents all students a denial of
> > freedom? If I can opt out of electing and funding the student union
> > executive, and also (somehow) arrange that I don't benefit from any
> > services it provides, shouldn't I also be able to opt out of electing
> > and funding the government (also arranging not to benefit from any
> > services it provides)?
>
> If you choose to opt out of electing & funding the government, you can.
> Stop working (& thus paying taxes) & tear up your election card. You will
> probably lose out, but you can make that choice. You don't actually have to
> leave the country.
What??? And by that argument any student could decide not to join the
NUS by simply leaving University/Poly. And this would provide far
more freedom from the NUS, than not voting/paying taxes would from the
government of the day.
Your argument is totally absurd. Not only does not working not free one
from the constraints of government, but it involves making a huge
personnel sacrafice.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/ #include <std_disclaimer> Email : a...@uk.ac.aber /
\ Alan Dyke, Computer Science Department, University of Wales, Aberystwyth \
/ ---===--- Jump of a cliff ... 20000 lemmings can't all be wrong ---===--- /
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Steve Glover
Student Union organisations? I've had a brief glance at a copy, and it
looks VERY nasty...
The nice Government produced it in time for just after the end of term, with
the 'consultative period' to end just before the start of the next one.
What would be useful would be for someone with access to the document
and a scanner to post the darn' thing so that it can be properly "analysed".
--
((@@@*@@@)) All the Steve Glover
(*@|||@*) Talk (Fan programme, Intersection: 1995 Worldcon)
||| Of the (Editor, MATRIX: Newsletter of the bSFa)
\\|||// Market ( )