Militant students at Warwick

[P. G. Tipps]

Indeed; one might likewise wonder what PGT made of them, so I wonder if he will tell us?

I'm not aware such brave people who brought down the Berlin Wall did anything else than struggle against the ruling Marxist thugs whom your forum buddy may well have supported?

I suspect that's the view of the great majority of Germans as well.

For the umpteenth time I am agin demos against democratically-elected governments not necessarily brutal dictatorships ... have you not even grasped that point yet?!!

[MrGongGong]

For the umpteenth time I am agin demos against democratically-elected governments not necessarily brutal dictatorships ... have you not even grasped that point yet?!!

So I guess you are OK with a demo against the current UK government then?
It might not be a "brutal dictatorship" but it sure aint "democratically-elected"

[P. G. Tipps]

In what? In not condemning violent acts in such demonstration, Mr Barrett clearly did not condone them either and he has clarified his regret at their occurrence when they do occur, so I don't see what your problem is here.


I hadn't been asked; only you, it seems, expect that everyone should either overtly condemn it or overtly endorse it and only you appear to take omission of mention of it as endorsement of it, though by what kind of logic you do this I have no idea.


Mr Barrett did not condone it as such and, as I have already told you, he has made his position on it quite clear, as indeed have I; I therefore have no need to take up the matter with him and I do so with you only in an attempt to put you right on it.

You are really extremely fond of Mr Barrett, aren't you, ahinton .... ? :--)

[Richard Barrett]

For the umpteenth time I am agin demos against democratically-elected governments not necessarily brutal dictatorships

What you actually said way back in this thread (umpteen times) was "I could never see the point of useless protest marches with participants mouthing silly slogans in unison and waving political flags and banners" - "Marching down streets bawling and shouting because one doesn't get one's way is, at best, the behaviour of a child and, at worst, that of a thug and hooligan!" - and indeed "I'm not aware that marching down the street shouting and bawling political rhymes and slogans has forced any government to change course either. In fact it may well encourage it to be seen not to give in to the "mob"" But now you say it depends on what sort of government it is. So demonstrating is OK if it's against a repressive government, yes? Many would say that would apply for example to the Thatcher government, given its treatment of trade unions to name only this.

[MrGongGong]

Please do provide any evidence at all that I have ever 'expressed support' for thuggish actions by 'state forces', or, better still, stop spouting the first bit of nonsense that comes into your head.
.

Don't be silly, scotty ... as wrong as current Israeli policy may well be, to seriously compare this to the rampaging, totalitarian likes of a Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia is, frankly, absurd. Israel is a democracy where the people can peacefully demand change at elections.

Seems to be in the area I was thinking about.

(BUT the prefects have said we aren't allowed to talk about I*rael)

[P. G. Tipps]

Seems to be in the area I was thinking about.

(BUT the prefects have said we aren't allowed to talk about I*rael)

Thanks for wasting your time frantically searching the dungeon and brilliantly confirming my point!

[P. G. Tipps]

What you actually said way back in this thread (umpteen times) was "I could never see the point of useless protest marches with participants mouthing silly slogans in unison and waving political flags and banners" - "Marching down streets bawling and shouting because one doesn't get one's way is, at best, the behaviour of a child and, at worst, that of a thug and hooligan!" - and indeed "I'm not aware that marching down the street shouting and bawling political rhymes and slogans has forced any government to change course either. In fact it may well encourage it to be seen not to give in to the "mob"" But now you say it depends on what sort of government it is. So demonstrating is OK if it's against a repressive government, yes? Many would say that would apply for example to the Thatcher government, given its treatment of trade unions to name only this.

If the 'repressive government' is legally and democratically elected there is a whole world of a difference between that and a brutal repressive dictatorship where the people have no opportunity of real change.

But you are after revolution not democracy so I wouldn't expect you to agree!

[MrGongGong]

If the 'repressive government' is legally and democratically elected there is a whole world of a difference between that and a brutal repressive dictatorship where the people have no opportunity of real change.

But you are after revolution not democracy so I wouldn't expect you to agree!

Who's "legally and democratically"
and (even though I don't think we have a "repressive dictatorship") do you really think we, in the UK, have an "opportunity of real change" ?

I don't

[ahinton]

I'm not aware such brave people who brought down the Berlin Wall did anything else than struggle against the ruling Marxist thugs whom your forum buddy may well have supported?

I don't have any forum buddies so please give that one a rest. Got the message? No, probably not, but not for want of effort on my part.

As I said before, you seem to think that demonstrations, violence and all if need be, are OK as long as it's against "ruling Marxist thugs"; I had thought that "thuggery" was unacceptable to you bt now I think that I understand that it all depends upon who the thugs are and whom and what they represent.

I suspect that's the view of the great majority of Germans as well.

Suspect what and why? Have you lived in Germany and has your suspicion grown out of such experience?

For the umpteenth time I am agin demos against democratically-elected governments not necessarily brutal dictatorships ... have you not even grasped that point yet?!!

The "point" that I have not "grasped" yet is what you consider to be a "democratically-elected government"; even if you believe that the electoral process in UK, for example, is flawless, it remains an inescapable fact that no one actually voted for the coalition that has been UK's government for almost 5 years; did you or anyone that you know vote specifically for a Tory/LibDem coalition with the two parties represented in the proportions that they have been since May 2010? What will you believe about the "democratically elected" status of any "government" that might try to ply its wares after protracted negotiations between the three parties involved in trying to put one together have arrived at their joint inconclusion?

[ahinton]

You are really extremely fond of Mr Barrett, aren't you, ahinton .... ? :--)

I referred to him because you did and I answered you as I did in a way that you habitually avoid doing; for the record, I have never even met Mr Barrett but, far more importantly, this discussion is not about him any more than you want to make it look as though it is so when it appeas, for whagever reason or none, to suit you to do so. He has had his say and, whilst I disgree with him on a number of matters, he does at least say what he means and has something to say with which one can agree or disagree. You say that you don't post in order to do yourself any favours, which is all very well, but you would nevertheless do yourself some if only you would enter into discussions with those with whom you might agree or disagree in a far more equitable way that you usually do.

[ahinton]

What you actually said way back in this thread (umpteen times) was "I could never see the point of useless protest marches with participants mouthing silly slogans in unison and waving political flags and banners" - "Marching down streets bawling and shouting because one doesn't get one's way is, at best, the behaviour of a child and, at worst, that of a thug and hooligan!" - and indeed "I'm not aware that marching down the street shouting and bawling political rhymes and slogans has forced any government to change course either. In fact it may well encourage it to be seen not to give in to the "mob"" But now you say it depends on what sort of government it is. So demonstrating is OK if it's against a repressive government, yes? Many would say that would apply for example to the Thatcher government, given its treatment of trade unions to name only this.

Agreed (if I might be allowed to agree with you without risking inviting superciliously nauseating input about that from PGT) - but I would add that the example of the Thatcher government that you cite here is one against which many besides trade union members would have and indeed did rail (which I don't doubt you appreciate by adding "to name only this").

[ahinton]

Who's "legally and democratically"
and (even though I don't think we have a "repressive dictatorship") do you really think we, in the UK, have an "opportunity of real change" ?

I don't

Nor do I - although I think that there might even have been a little more opportunity for that during Thatcher's day than there is now when it is beyond doubt that the government of the day has not been democratically elected, any more than was the Brown government that preceded it in that no one voted in a government led by him.

[P. G. Tipps]

Nor do I - although I think that there might even have been a little more opportunity for that during Thatcher's day than there is now when it is beyond doubt that the government of the day has not been democratically elected, any more than was the Brown government that preceded it in that no one voted in a government led by him.

I fear you fail to understand the nature of the UK democratic system, which no doubt explains your clear confusion on the matter, if I may be so outrageously bold enough to say so!

The electorate does not appoint leaders that is the job of MPs and party members. We have a constituency system where we simply elect individuals whether they belong to a party or not. It is up to a majority of these MPs of whatever or no party to form a government which of course is the regular practice in PR systems on the continent. If no majority is forthcoming the largest group can attempt to run a 'minority' administration, all eventually rubber-stamped by Queenie, of course. That is the way our democracy works so whether the eventual Prime Minister turns out to be Brown, Black, White or Green is wholly irrelevant as far as the legitimacy of the democracy is concerned ....

The system itself was endorsed overwhelmingly by voters in a 2011 referendum so there is absolutely no case to claim that the people haven't had a chance to change not just the government but the very system itself.

Whatever one thinks of the system ... and PR is a perfectly valid alternative democratic option ... the fact that the current set-up has had the very recent backing of a huge majority of the electorate could hardly be seen to be more clearly 'democratic'!

[MrGongGong]

The system itself was endorsed overwhelmingly by voters in a 2011 referendum so there is absolutely no case to claim that the people haven't had a chance to change not just the government but the very system itself.

Nonsense
There was no option to vote for PR

Having so much faith in a system that clearly doesn't work for a large percentage of people in the country is rather foolish IMV

You seem to be saying that because some people go and put a cross on a piece of paper to elect a person who will, in the vast majority of cases, believe in exactly the same things as all the others on the ballot paper, then the fact that this process has happened means that ALL demonstrations are wrong?

[french frank]

Nonsense
There was no option to vote for PR

Having so much faith in a system that clearly doesn't work for a large percentage of people in the country is rather foolish IMV

You seem to have so much faith in PR that it would have delivered a different result from FPTP in 2010.

The way to ensure meaningful change is abandon pluralism: have just two parties which are offering different policies (broadly opposite on the old left/right axis). As soon as you have a 'plethora'(!) of parties you sre likely to get fuzzy results, surely?