Viewport width =
October 14, 2009 | by  | in News Online Only |
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

VUWSA at war with itself. Confusion reigns

UPDATE!

VUWSA President Jasmine Freemantle has confirmed that the motion, “That VUWSA actively supports the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill,” is void following yesterday’s Student Representative Council (SRC) meeting.

Freemantle told Salient this morning (Thursday) that the VUWSA solicitor “has confirmed that the motion was void.

“The meeting was closed, and as outlined in the constitution, could not be reopened.”

Freemantle also said the SRC meeting planned for this Friday will be postponed.


A motion has been passed that has seen it become VUWSA policy to “actively support” Roger Douglas’ Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill.

The motion, “that VUWSA actively supports the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill”, was passed by a majority of ten votes at Wednesday’s Student Representative Council (SRC) meeting.

“The passing of this motion is a significant breakthrough for the many students who feel that VUWSA is not receptive to or representative of their views,” ACT on Campus Vice President Peter McCaffrey said.

The SRC had been called to discuss the recently released Tertiary Education Strategy (TES), as well as the voluntary student membership (VSM) issue.

The meeting has been described by some students as a “clusterfuck”.

It took 40 minutes for the one motion to be passed, as a number of “stalling tactics”, including multiple quorum counts and points of order, were employed by parties on both sides of the VSM debate.

The motion, which was supported by members of ACT on Campus, Young National, as well as a number of politically unaffiliated students, was finally passed with a vote of 45–35.

At one point the meeting was deemed closed because it was claimed quorum was not met. The meeting continued regardless under a new Chair, Hugh McCaffrey (who is of no relation to Peter). Once it was confirmed the required quorum of 50 was reached following yet another count of hands, the meeting was properly resumed.

“It was the biggest SRC I’ve seen in my four years at university, and yet they claimed that they didn’t have quorum, because it wasn’t the right kind of people who showed up,” Peter McCaffrey said.

Peter McCaffrey says there were multiple procedural problems with the meeting.

“VUWSA had no idea of its own rules, and the rules they knew they deliberately ignored.”

As well as the age-old quorum issues, Peter McCaffrey said motions were allowed in the middle of votes, and speakers continually interrupted the meeting’s proceedings.

Alex Sorenson, President of the Massey Wellington Students’ Association, who was also present at the SRC said that the meeting “was hijacked by one group of people and both sides of the debate were fuelled by emotion.”

This “muddied the procedural functionality of the meeting,” she said.

Clandestine SRC breaks rules

It has been brought to Salient’s attention that VUWSA will hold another SRC meeting this Friday at 11am in the Mount Street Bar.

Notification of the SRC meeting was placed on the VUWSA noticeboard on Wednesday afternoon. [Photographic evidence to the right. JJW]

Notice of Friday's SRC

The notice says that the meeting will be held “pursuant to part IV s. 2 (3-4) of the VUWSA Constitution.”

However, part IV s. 2 (4) of the VUWSA Constitution says that “such special meeting shall be held no sooner than three (3) office days and not later than ten (10) office days after the date of receipt of a requisition [for a meeting], or resolution by the executive.”

Fewer than 48 hours will have passed between the notification of the SRC, and the meeting actually being held, directly contravening the procedures outlined in the constitution.

Comment was still being sought from VUWSA President Jasmine Freemantle at the time of publication.

Stay tuned for more updates.

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

About the Author ()

Editor for 2010, politics nerd, panda fan and three-time award-winning student journalist.

Comments (59)

Trackback URL / Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jemima says:

    Doesn’t the ‘clandestine meeting’ just give legitimacy to the original motion?

    It was a knee jerk reaction by silly silly people – this plays right into ACT’s argument as to why students associations should be voluntary.

    Fail fail fail

  2. Bill says:

    The meeting was declared closed before the motion was voted on as it failed to acheive a quorum in a count (by a show of hands).

    A meeting cannot be re-opened after it has been closed. It is unfair to do so, as some students would have left after the meeting was closed. I know of students who did exactly that.

    This article is incorrect to say that the motion ‘passed’. I suggest that it is amended.

  3. Clint Heine says:

    Yes it does Jemima. But student associations have done for this for years – and VUWSA keep on delivering the goods for the pro VSM organisations.

    VUWSA should have been preparing for VSM even if it didn’t eventuate – but have spent too long fighting it that they are practically killing VUWSA for future students.

    Ironically it’s the Workers Party and other hardcore left wingers who are making VSM more popular.

  4. Weasel words billy boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. Jackson Wood says:

    Bill: The Salient reporter at the SRC was under the impression the meeting was still going on through all the sniping by the opposing sides.

    Ms Freemantle has not deigned to comment to us about the matter.

    As Ms Freemantle is the official, and, under whichever VUWSA policy, the only spokesperson that can comment on such matters to Salient—which explains the use of a fairly lame pseudonym when your comment came from the VUWSA IP address—, we await with baited breath her comments on the matter.

  6. Alpha says:

    If the 35 students who voted against the motion realised that they were going to lose, they should’ve left the room, thereby leaving 45 students (all pro-VSM), but not enough for quorum. Bit of thought, please.

    Shame on the secretive nature of this meeting though. [I]Real[/I] democratic that is.

  7. Tom says:

    They did in fact neglect to put their hands up for the quorum counting – the number of votes was substantially more than the number of people counted for quorum each time.

    I am not sure if this is permitted, it doesn’t seem as if it should be.

  8. Tom M says:

    That is to say, most of them neglected to. Obviously at least 5 put up their hands – that may well have been just the VUWSA exec members that were present.

  9. peteremcc says:

    Quorum was consistently 62-65 people.

    This was about 58 VSM supporters and a few honourable CSM supporters who refused to play games and try to make the meeting inquorate by pretending not to participate.

    The “official” vote was 45-35, in reality it was more like 60-30, but at that point we let it slide because after 40 minutes we’d finally passed the motion.

    Also, all the stalling and quorum calls were from the CSM supporters. VSM supporters were trying to get the motion passed, why would we try and delay the meeting?

  10. Hoolian says:

    I heart this article

  11. oliver says:

    democracy – win!

  12. Cam says:

    With respect Bill, you are an idiot. Even if the meeting were closed because quorum was not reached, the constitution allows 30 minutes from the start time of the meeting (i.e. 2pm) in order to reach quorum of 50 people. So even if at 2:12 there were only 45 people (a patent lie anyway), then the meeting cannot be formally closed until 2:30 anyway (see Part VI, s2(6) or the Constitution, should you not believe me….even then you won’t follow it (that does seem to be the ‘cool’ thing to do amongst you VUWSA supporters)).

    Moreover, I really don’t think you are in a postion to declare things to be ‘unfair’. if you want to play that petty game, though, then look at the actions of the majority of the CSM/VUWSA supporters (they are essentially the same thing) – they refused to be included in the quorum counts (in an effort to disband the meeting), but then they were more than happy to come and vote on the motion when they realised it wasn’t going their way. Now that is “unfair”.

    But really, what more can we expect from a group of Marxists/an organisation rife with incompetency.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I love it how committed these people are to the democratic process.
    A few weeks ago it was Milkshakes McCaffrey obstructing and stalling an SRC with pointless quorum counts and other crap resulting in him having his speaking rights removed by a baying mob. Yesterday it was CSM supporting exec members obstructing the meeting with pointless quorum counts and other crap and being made to shut up by a baying mob (in collared shirts).

    It’s like dog fighting but without any sympathy for the participants.

  14. Daniel J Miles says:

    “It’s like dog fighting but without any sympathy for the participants.”

    Best analogy ever.

  15. Susan Nicholson says:

    Legend

  16. Jiminy says:

    VUWSA behaves like a childish oligarchy. All their behaviour does is make them seem like the pathetic bullies they are. This is going to drive more people to support VSM than if they’d just let it lie – everyone could see it was a right-wing stunt. Now Freemantle and her dubious interpretation (who is this VUWSA solicitor?) look like fascists. When we get VSM, I know who i’ll blame.

  17. 123 says:

    VUWSA are making this all so easy for the likes of Roger Douglas and his ACT buddies. Do you really think they care about this motion? No, they want to make you look incompetent and corrupt.

    And you’re playing right into their hands.

    I’d laugh if it wasn’t all so sad.

  18. smackdown says:

    just a nice beach something happy like a beach

  19. BBB says:

    It’s a bit hypocritical that after years of decrying SGMs as a farce, ACT is now openly praising them – simply because they got a motion passed for the first time ever. Indeed it would be laughable.

    That is, if it were true.

    Their motion wasn’t in fact passed by a SGM; it seems, rightly or wrongly (I don’t know as I wasn’t there), the meeting was officially closed before someone called the vote on the VSM motion.

    Once a meeting is closed it can not be reopened (even if it becomes quorate again), because people who came to vote would have quite reasonably left when the meeting was declared closed. This is fairly standard meeting practice; ie not allowing the sneaky passing motions after telling everyone to go home, meeting’s over.

    Sure the meeting sounds like it was a bit of a shambles and possibly reflects poorly in the current VUWSA crew. But they’re not the be-all and end-all of VUWSA; do not judge over 100 years of service to students on one poorly run SGM. Wake up and smell what else you’ll loose with VSM. It’s a lot more than crappily run SGMs.

  20. Jemima says:

    ” do not judge over 100 years of service to students on one poorly run SGM.”

    LOL. Have you had your head in the sand. It has been one poorly run organisation for at least the past three years. If not longer.

  21. Alex says:

    I personally would like to see a constitutional change some time in the future that states that those who are in the room and do not put their hands up for quorum do not get voting privileges afterwards.

    Yesterday a group of people sitting on the couches were actively trying to bring the quorum count under 50 so that the people who had taken time out of class and study to come in to democratically vote on something that was important to them ended up wasting their time.

    Now VUWSA wants us to take more time out of our busy lives to do it all again because the VUWSA person who did the quorum count was CORRUPT. I can confirm there were upwards of 90 people in the room, how the VUWSA person got the 45 number beggars belief given that 80 people officially voted in the motion soon afterwards and about a dozen down the back just wanted to drink beer and be left alone which still gave us quorum.

    I would also like to point out that there was no independent quorum counter during the first count which came back as 45. It was only when Hugh McCaffrey was voted in as the new Chair for the meeting that an independent quorum counter was assigned with the official VUWSA quorum counter and we saw the numbers rise above the 50 needed.

  22. 123 says:

    BBB,

    Actually from memory ACT supporters passed a few motions back in about 2004-2005 – one of which was to thank Richard Prebble for his years of service. And yes, it (and others) were passed by by the SRC.

    I don’t think they can be attacked for showing up and voting (ie they didn’t hijack it) – it reflects pretty poorly on the apathy of Vic students that more weren’t there to counter it.

  23. Jemima says:

    IF you want to talk hijacking the enviro/social justice kids did that at the last SRC when they voted that VUWSA become fair trade.

    SRCs are bunk. VUWSA is bunk. Long live a world free from Cosgroves and Freemantles.

  24. Mike Collins says:

    I was the President of ACT on Campus at Victoria in 2004. I can confirm we (combined with the Young Nats), turned up en masse to a SRC meeting and passed 5 motions – including getting VUWSA to thank Richard Prebble for his Parliamentary service, and that VUWSA renounces communism.

    Then, the same tactic of the lefties was employed. A number would not raise their hands for quorum counting (indeed were advocating that people keep their hands down). They of course then proceeded to vote against the motions we proposed. I must say though that there were a few honourable lefties who ensured they would be counted in the quorum and welcomed our presence as being active in democracy – even if they disagreed with what we were saying. It seems things have got worse from that point of view.

    Well done to the current students in AoC, YNats and other non affiliated students who have made VUWSA once again look as incompetent as they generally have been for years. Great way of advancing the VSM cause.

  25. Alex says:

    123: You’re correct, in 2004 the students passed two motions, one that “VUWSA thanks Richard Prebble for his years of service” and the other that “VUWSA denounces communism”. The motions ended up in the DomPost.

  26. BBB says:

    BTW, you VSMers seem to have forgotten to mention that you moved the VSM motion be put to the vote without any debate! Do you think that might have had anything to do with a panicked quorum count?

    Though the whole problem is the Vic hand-up hands-down thing. That’s just dumb. Either you’re at the meeting or not. You can choose to vote or not, but if you’ve physically there there then you should count for quorum. That would put an end to the stupidity of people being able to be not present for quorum count, but still being able to vote.

    Oh hey, and you VSMers also forgot to mention that you tried the whole quorum count thing yourselves only last week at Otago.

    On that occasion you seem to have neglected to send out press release slagging yourselves off for exactly the same behavior you’re slagging off today.
    Is that because it was a miserable failure (with 5 or 6 of about 200 people leaving), or is it because you’re hypocrites?

  27. Adam says:

    “It’s a bit hypocritical that after years of decrying SGMs as a farce, ACT is now openly praising them – simply because they got a motion passed for the first time ever. Indeed it would be laughable.”

    BBB, I’m pretty sure no VSMer is openly praising the SRC meeting systems, even after this. The whole point is that VUWSA policy changed at the behest of 45 people – that is, an organisation that represents around 20,000 students had its policy changed by less than one percent of the student body that it represents. Furthermore, this only happened after a veritable clusterfuck of stalling, dishonesty from those in attendance who disagreed, and deviating from the rules VUWSA expressly set out for itself in its Constitution. And to put the corrupt cherry on the colossal fuck-up sundae, the vote is now being declared invalid against the words and intent of the VUWSA Constitution and despite video evidence to the contrary.

    I believe Peter ‘Slushie not Milkshake’ McCaffrey has said it before – this wouldn’t happen under VSM. The entire point is that this body, which supposedly represents the entire student body, in reality only represents a bare minimum of it, be they the usual gang of Workers Party members and left-wing radicals or the once-in-a-blue-moon inspired rallying of libertarians and VSM supporters. Who’s calling the shots isn’t necessarily the point here – the point here is the principle of the thing.

    As others have said on this message board – the VSMers are playing a tune on their fiddles, and VUWSA are dancing right along with it. The lols are plentiful, ripe and delicious.

  28. BBB says:

    Adam. The policy didn’t change at the behest of 45 people.

    In fact it didn’t change at all. ACT’s media release claiming it did is a lie.

  29. Hoolian says:

    If that’s true BBB – then what about this video? It tells a very different story

    Part 1 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQZgPljtHuA

  30. Tao says:

    I didn’t participate in this mess (math grads rarely have time for political intrigue). I don’t support ACT on Campus, but I do support the VSM. I think its naive to portray this as an ACT vs VUWSA issue when the general consensus among non-politicized students is so overwhelmingly in support of VSM.

    I have to congratulate ACT on Campus for bothering to set this little gimmick up, not because its going to have any impact on the passage of VSM, but because it further illustrates why VSM is important – the fact that student unions like VUWSA so regularly get hijacked by an incompetent fringe minority.

  31. Electrum Stardust says:

    So the solution is to ‘privatise’ VUWSA so that it becomes even less representative and accountable, and to let these “incompetent fringe” ‘wannabe poiliticans’ an even freer hand to ‘play among themselves’? I mean, seriously?

  32. peteremcc says:

    Thanks Tao, but ACT on Campus can’t take the credit.

    A few of the people were ACT on Campus members, but there were also Young Nats, Young Labour and Young Greens.

    However, the majority of our supporters were just independent students that hate VUWSA and like freedom.

    Electrum:

    “play among themselves” – yep. at the moment they’re playing with us.

  33. Sarah Bedingfield says:

    Most of the CSM supporters who refused to participate in the quorum count but originally came to take part in the SRC, refused to take part because Peter used the process to silent student’s voices. He was within the rules to do that, but why should I then be part of a meeting in which I can not speak to the motions or speakers in support of VSM have their speaking rights taken away. It is perfectly within the rules for me to leave the meeting. Of course I stayed around to watch the farce continue…

  34. Adam says:

    “Adam. The policy didn’t change at the behest of 45 people.

    In fact it didn’t change at all. ACT’s media release claiming it did is a lie.”

    BBB, the wise Mr. Hoolian’s video link says otherwise. There’s a particularly delicious moment when Seamus (who still has not taken Freya to teh lake) makes the statement that when quorum is lost, they have thirty minutes to regain quorum before the meeting is closed, which is rather the opposite to what Jasmine’s parroting now. What’s even more hilarious is Seamus’ ‘interpretation’ of the part of the Constitution that outlines that – Part IV Section 2(6) – is even more generous than the reality, the reality being –

    “The quorum for all meetings of Council shall be fifty (50) members provided that if
    such quorum is not present within 30 minutes of the time appointed for the meeting, no business may be discussed or dealt with, and the meeting shall lapse and be void for all purposes.”

    I believe the above video evidence makes it clear that there was quorum within 30 minutes of the appointed time – just because quorum ‘lapsed’ once, it was ‘recovered’ within the time period, so Jasmine’s got her Constitution all wrong.

    What say you, BBB?

  35. Martha Focker says:

    BBB – at Otago the OUSA people were ready to pounce at their SGM as the VSM motion was already advertised to be debated. As SOON as the VSM motion was discussed, the meeting became inquorate as the anti VSM crowd left.

    If this is your style of democracy then I am very worried for this country if you ever have a job doing anything remotely important.

  36. Stephen Whittington says:

    Sarah, moving to a motion was necessary, given the attempts, including by the Chair I am informed, to contact their freedoms – some of whom were not even students – to turn up and vote for CSM.

    I also note that Peter McCaffrey has previously had his voting rights removed, despite this being unconstitutional.

  37. Stephen Whittington says:

    Err, by freedoms I obviously meant friends.

  38. Amy says:

    Martha, that interpretation is complicated by the fact that the VSM discussion wrapped up at 1.50 – ie. just when people on both sides of the debate with 2pm classes had to leave. The people who called quorum and left just as the VSM discussion was starting, however, had no such excuse…

  39. ukiwi says:

    Good to see that chaos is still rampant amoungst NZ student associations. Having just watched the video of VuWSA’s meeting on you tube all I can say is that you have shown the world why my generation of students fought for VSM when Micheal Laws first bought it to parliament in the 1990’s.

    I would like to send my encouragement to ACT on Campus and the Young Nats, keep the pressure on guys, the lefties can’t live in lala land forever. I live and work in the UK these days and over here we have VSM and it works extremely well with Student Unions actually representing the majority of students in an accountable fashion as well as providing services students want on a ‘free for members, user pays for non-members’ basis.

    Keep up the good work all you VSM’ers and you never know, with sesible government I might even move back to Godzone one day.

  40. Electrum Stardust says:

    Surely the real question is not whether these ‘wannabe politicians’ should be allowed to “play with us” or “play among themselves”, but rather: “Who are student politicians supposed to serve in the first place?” (Answer: ALL students, not just those who are rich enough to pay a higher premium.)

    Anyway (speaking of “play”), in the event that ‘ACT’s Bill’ becomes ‘ACT’s Act’ (amidst overwhelming indifference and self-centredness), a name change may be needed. Since the “Student” in “VUWSA” will no longer reflect reality, VUWSA might as well be renamed “ACT II: On Campus”; tagline: “Exit stage left”.

  41. Daniel says:

    Jasmine Freemantle’s actions are more filthy and more blatant than Ahmadinejad’s. I’m sure that if she was the communist dictator of New Zealand she would have all the people at that meeting shot by firing squad. The evidence is clear, it’s on youtube at Act on Campus’s youtube channel.

  42. Alpha says:

    I just realised that if VUWSA adopts this as an official policy, then VUWSA will be misrepresenting me. All this talk of misrepresentation, and all ACT On Campus (et al.) want to do is spread more misrepresentation?

    I don’t get it. I was under the impression that one could leave VUWSA by approaching the association President, and proving, on an ideological basis, why one does not want to be involved with the association. Surely if one believes that they are misrepresented, then one has the ideological grounds to leave? If it’s a refund that you want, then reform that aspect of the opt-out process.

    And does anyone else think that if a majority of students actually bothered to vote in these elections (it’s not hard), then claims of misrepresentation would diminish?

  43. Michael Oliver says:

    Yeah, student politics sure is somethin’, eh.

  44. Nigel says:

    Electrum, two things:

    “So the solution is to ‘privatise’ VUWSA so that…”

    Privitisation applies to businesses, not organisations. It’s already a private entity, and it’s not trying to draw a profit, and couldn’t, under the terms of its constitution.

    ” “Who are student politicians supposed to serve in the first place?” (Answer: ALL students, not just those who are rich enough to pay a higher premium.)”

    First of all, the point of CSM is that everyone has to pay regardless of whether you’re “rich enough” or can barely scrap the dollars together to buy lunch. Secondly, a VSM elected committee would have an interest in keeping the fee low as the voluntary support of the majority of the university, rather than just a couple hundred of those “rich enough” would give them both a larger budget and mandate to work with.

  45. Klaus says:

    Yeah, cause student media is just as dignified. Funny thing is the first thing to go under VSM would be most of Salient’s funding. Now that would be a shame.

  46. Stephen Whittington says:

    @ Alpha:
    \
    OMG! You have realised wgat it is like for VSM students!

  47. Martha Focker says:

    Brilliant Alpha, welcome to how the majority feel!!

    Misrepresentation is exactly what you described for not only pro VSM students, but MOST students. Fucktards like you and your compulsory loving mates have alienated students for years – so when VSM does come into force, most students will be giving you the big middle finger. And you can’t blame VSM or ACT for that – it would be VUWSAs fault for fucking the association.

  48. Electrum Stardust says:

    Wow, thanks for your very earnest analysis, Nigel. But surely you noticed that the word was enclosed in inverted commas (duh)?

    The question to ask is what else would go under “VSM” / ESM (“Exclusive”, i.e. “Members-only”), other than Salient’s funding. Surely the best way is to make sure that VUWSA is put under more scrutiny by the entire student body, not less (i.e. by only a tiny fraction, with their own agendas)? (Other details like how much each student pays, ways of opting out etc. can be discussed, of course.)

    At the end of the day. it’s about what it means to be a “fellow student” at Vic. Like most other truly important things in life, this is not quantifiable in money terms. But of course nobody cares nowadays…

  49. Alpha says:

    @ Stephen and Martha:

    There were two more paragraphs which you ignored.

  50. Stephen Whittington says:

    I know of no ideology that says that Joel Cosgrove is an idiot. Had I used that as my reason, then I would not have been able to leave. The fact that the bases on which you to choose to leave are determined by law means that we have no choice. By analogy, do you think that people were not drafted into the military by force because there was an exception for those who had genuine religious belief that war was evil?

    In regard to voting, we should not have to increase turnout. But, even if turnout was 100%, there would still be misrepresentation because students do not speak with one voice. Even if 60% of all students wanted to pay for Workers Party printing costs (as has happened in the past – I can send you the minutes if you want), it should still not be happening with my money.

  51. Adam says:

    Electrum – what’s your point? VUWSA’s meant to be under the scrutiny of all the students now, and all it’s doing is pandering to a radical left viewpoint that a fine minority of students hold (though, admittedly under Freemantle, she has taken one or two steps to rectify that, and in return, she’s been kicked out of the Workers Party because they thought she was just going to be a puppet). Meanwhile, VUWSA struggles to get quorum at most SRCs and the majority of students don’t get anything from VUWSA other than $150 sucked out of their bank accounts every year.

    So, we’re left with two options – either this completely unrepresentative system continues, and students are forced to continue shelling out money year upon year without seeing the benefits other than Salient and maybe a half-hearted appearance by VUWSA at meetings about raising fees; or, we bring in VSM, and then VUWSA is put under more scrutiny to be representative of more than just a Workers Party or ACT on Campus fringe, because if it doesn’t become representative of the entire student body, it will die. The current CSM system tacitly condones VUWSA’s current misrepresentation of the student body. VSM does not. It’s not about VUWSA becoming controlled by a fringe group like it is now – it’s about VUWSA surviving through representing everyone and removing politics from the equation.

  52. Madas says:

    I really feel for JF… when VUWSA goes down she will be rembered as the one who let it fail… Despite the fact this generation of students… are simply not ideaologically driven, (just talk to them and you’ll see, pragmatists to the core and leadership should pay attention to the constituency mood)…the writing really has been on the wall for over 10 years. The funny thing is the lack of planning, where is the contingency fund? Student Associations were here (VSM legislation) in 1999… and nothing has been put in place? Is this a cynical belief that the associations will be able to manipulate their constitutions to ensure survival, or just plain head in the sand blind stupidity… either way you have to wonder if something preferable can come out of this mess.

  53. Orange says:

    I think this clouds the real issue – how in the world have students become so moronic that ACT on Campus can manage to drum up enough people to pass motions at Student Exec meetings. At the latest Christchurch meeting, they had one member turn up. One.

    I mean….this is the party that denies climate change, pro-smacking, privatise ACC, cut taxes for the rich, allowed the demonic David Garrett into Parliament. Something is seriously wrong where young people support this bullshit. Seriously depressing. Good on VUWSA for pissing them off; they deserve it for committing treason against the collective student soul.

  54. Lime says:

    RIP democracy, killed by VUWSA and Orange (and Bill)

  55. Adam says:

    Orange – just because ACT may be bad in all those ways, doesn’t mean they can’t manage a rare moment of lucidity or two. And just because people support VSM, doesn’t mean they suddenly become rabid ACT supporters.

  56. Hank Scorpio says:

    there really isn’t a single person who looks good in any one of those three vids just hammers home the idea that students are an unorganised rabble more interested in petty bullshit than doing anything of substance

  57. Magonagal says:

    Hahahahahahahah. These vids are just hilarious. Couldn’t have provided Roger Douglas with better ads if these had been scripted and staged.

  58. Orange says:

    Say what you want about National Socialism, at least its an ethos.

  59. smackdown says:

    vuwsa is so bad someone bin it

Recent posts

  1. An (im)possible dream: Living Wage for Vic Books
  2. Salient and VUW tussle over Official Information Act requests
  3. One Ocean
  4. Orphanage voluntourism a harmful exercise
  5. Interview with Grayson Gilmour
  6. Political Round Up
  7. A Town Like Alice — Nevil Shute
  8. Presidential Address
  9. Do You Ever Feel Like a Plastic Bag?
  10. Sport
1

Editor's Pick

In Which a Boy Leaves

: - SPONSORED - I’ve always been a fairly lucky kid. I essentially lucked out at birth, being born white, male, heterosexual, to a well off family. My life was never going to be particularly hard. And so my tale begins, with another stroke of sheer luck. After my girlfriend sugge