Talk:Venstres Ungdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The sentence deleted by user Mikkelpickles 20th. dec. 2005 15.40 should have been kept in the article the sentence deleted: The combination of these characteristics makes Venstres Ungdom unique among Danish political youth organizations.

Angelbo 17:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I've restored the former version. --Valentinian 22:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording of Mikkelpickles it the case of organizatorical structure, VU is primary a bottom up organization. where as SFU is two organizations in one, a national chapter and a group of local chapters, that can be seen in the fact that the mebership fee is collected two times pro anno, once for the local chapter and once for the national organization. I can not bee any more specific without the articles of association (Danish: Vedtægter). But before the reform of DUF (Dansk Ungdoms Fællesråd, an organization that organize all youth organizations in Denmark) SFU had a top-down organization where the national leadership could exclude members and could overthrow local leadership comittees. SFU then changed its organization in order to adept to the rules so they could continue to recive national grants from DUF. Socialist Youth Front is a new organization and also wants part of the DUF grant (millions of DKK). therefore organized themself after the regulations in order to maximize thier grant substituions. Hence my point that Socialist Youth Front and SFU is mimicking VU and not the other way around and the edits by Mikkelpickles should have been put the the other two articles instead.

I am a member of VU as seen on my user page, but who is mikkelpickles??? --Angelbo 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The thing that incited me to edit the article was the fact that it sounded like VU was geting "credit" for something that was not correct. The organizational model of VU may have been unique at its founding or in a historic period, but then that should have been written instead. The argument that VU's organizational model is unique is simply not true today, as the 2 other organisations that I added (and possibly more) are in fact very similar in structure... in regards to SUF even down to the number of leadership members elected in National Congress and in local regions (I am a member myself).

In regards to DUF grants, then SUF have recieved grants for 5 years now, and the organizational strucure has nothing to do with DUF, as the earlier incarnation, Rebel, had a totally diffent structure without any elected leadership at all, and still recieved DUF grants for many years.

About the "bottom-up" issue, I find it hard to disagree on the fact, that VU is only partly bottom-up, as there is still a top leader elected at National Congress.

A final remark - I am not interested in a political battle, my motivation purely revolves around making the 'pedia as accurate as possible.

Mikkelpickles 12:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No Mikkel, the organization is "bottom-up". The chairman of VU has no powers at all. He *is* elected by a vote among VU members present at the National Convention, but he merely functions as the external face of the organization. Besides, how can it be anything but bottom-up when every single VU member can attend the National Convention and vote as he please? Everyone present has one vote, and VU does not use delegates. The Chairman has no powers to dictate policy; policy is decided by the National Convention. Policies adopted by the National Convention have a life span of three years, btw, unless a different policy is adopted before that time. Implementation and interpretation of the decisions of the National Convention is done by the National Committee. It is a central part of VU ideology that the organization is organized bottom-up. I've written almost all of this article, and I've had a large number of VU members read it. No-one objected to the bottom-up part. It is even clearer if you view the structure in legal terms. Unlike e.g. Conservative Youth, the National Organization of VU does *not* own its member branches, nor its county branches. The local branches own the County branches and the Country branches and local brances own the national organization. I've spoken to many of the leading members of VU, and I've never heard of other political organizations with a similar structure. If they exist, I'm very interested, btw. In the case of Venstre, the National Organization owns its member branches. This is one of the main differences between VU and Venstre. Besides, I've been a member of VU since 1997. --Valentinian 21:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)