Militant students at Warwick

[ahinton]

Militancy? Students? Warwick? Anyone?...

There's surely no need for militancy or war or getting on anyone's wick in order to enable discussion of the thread topic?

[P. G. Tipps]

By "accepting" it, I meant, of course, that I "accepted" that you had the grace to make it; you can be quite hard work sometimes....

My clearly light-hearted grovelling 'apology' to Mr GongGong over the definition of a word was meant to add a touch of humour to the proceedings. It was certainly not meant to be taken at all seriously, which, quite obviously, you appear to have done, even though you were in no way involved?

As for you finding myself being 'hard work' I, on the contrary, find you a delightfully enigmatic character and an irreplaceable member of this forum.

Did I say so? There are times when the question that you ask are almost as bizarre as the statements that you make.

No you didn't say anything beyond the somewhat head-scratching statement that those who don't vote should have the same 'human rights' as those who do.

I simply wondered what on earth you meant by that and could only come to the logical (if 'bizarre') conclusion that I did.

I still don't know what you did mean because you still haven't provided any sort of clarification, bizarre or otherwise!

[MrGongGong]

Who is it that 'asks people who know'?
Who are the people who know?
What is it that the people who know, know about?

And do you think that this will lead to greater democracy, and knock constitutional monarchies of the #1 & #2 spots of the top democracies in the global democracy rankings?

What "top democracies" ? (again)
Who's "top"?

and why do you assume we need more "democracy" anyway?

[ahinton]

My clearly light-hearted grovelling 'apology' to Mr GongGong over the definition of a word was meant to add a touch of humour to the proceedings. It was certainly not meant to be taken at all seriously, which, quite obviously, you appear to have done, even though you were in no way involved?

Oh, I've not taken it all that "seriously" - and I was "involved" at least to the extent of being a forum member who has read and contributed to this thread.

As for you finding myself being 'hard work' I, on the contrary, find you a delightfully enigmatic character and an irreplaceable member of this forum.

Well, perhaps I should work harder, then - but, in the interim, should I take what you've just written "at all seriousuly"? Just curious...

No you didn't say anything beyond the somewhat head-scratching statement that those who don't vote should have the same 'human rights' as those who do.

I simply wondered what on earth you meant by that and could only come to the logical (if 'bizarre') conclusion that I did.

I still don't know what you did mean because you still haven't provided any sort of clarification, bizarre or otherwise!

I said that they have; I recall saying nothing about whether they should. The point is that they have the same entitlement to vote and, in a democracy, "so-called" or otherwise, the entitlement to vote in local and national elections is a human right.

[Beef Oven!]

What "top democracies" ? (again)

1.Norway
2.Sweden
3.Switzerland
4.Finland
5.Denmark

Who's "top"?

Most political scientists that study democracy and people like The Global Democracy Ranking - sound theoretical basis, strong methodology and credible conclusions

and why do you assume we need more "democracy" anyway?

Because until you and Antonio Pappano come up with something better, it is the fairest system of government, available off the shelf.

[MrGongGong]

Thanks for the clarification

There's nothing wrong with democracy BUT all I was suggesting was that it's not always the best way of deciding important things. (again)

I would also question your statement that "it is the fairest system of government"

fairest for whom?

I don't see much evidence of fairness increasing in the UK

[P. G. Tipps]

I said that they have; I recall saying nothing about whether they should. The point is that they have the same entitlement to vote and, in a democracy, "so-called" or otherwise, the entitlement to vote in local and national elections is a human right.

Well, it's certainly a legal right for those of a certain age.

But you said ... 'it remains true that those entitled to vote but do not do so remain a part of the same democratic (or otherwise) electoral process in UK and they have the same human rights as all other UK citizens'.

I'm sure everyone is agreed on that but I remain unsure what the point of your statement is in relation to how we decide on the "best" electoral sytem?

Those who don't vote have already exercised their 'human right' not to vote, surely, and nobody is excluding them from the system, only themselves declining to be part of it?

[ahinton]

Well, it's certainly a legal right for those of a certain age.

But you said ... 'it remains true that those entitled to vote but do not do so remain a part of the same democratic (or otherwise) electoral process in UK and they have the same human rights as all other UK citizens'.

I'm sure everyone is agreed on that but I remain unsure what the point of your statement is in relation to how we decide on the "best" electoral sytem?

Those who don't vote have already exercised their 'human right' not to vote, surely, and nobody is excluding them from the system, only themselves declining to be part of it?

I think that it's important to distinguish between (a) electoral systems, (b) democracy or otherwise, (c) whether or not or to what extent it might be thought possible to achieve even a two-party majority coalition in UK next time around and (d) the factor of all major parties being less distant from one another in avowed policy terms than was the case a generation and more ago; it's all too easy for some to confuse and conflate two or more of these. Even if I could put my finger on what I thought to be (a) - the "best electoral system" - the extent (if any) to which it could be agreed upon as "the best" would likely depend at least in part on factors (b), (c) and (d), all of which make it very difficult to determine what might be a "best electoral system"orr even whether there could be such, especially when so much that surrounds it is increasingly in a state of flux and uncertainty.

[Beef Oven!]

Thanks for the clarification

There's nothing wrong with democracy BUT all I was suggesting was that it's not always the best way of deciding important things. (again)

Strong democratic processes ensure that that 'appropriate' people are involved in, and are able to influence "important things". As a simple example, when the government re-organised senior doctors and consultant contracts in the NHS, the royal colleges, societies (surgeons, physicians, anaesthetists etc) and the British Medical Association were given the opportunity to be involved in and influence the decisions that were taken in regard to this far-reaching and important change in the NHS.

I would also question your statement that "it is the fairest system of government"

If you look further at the Global Democracy ranking criteria, you will se that they address the issues of involvement, participation, openness, freedom etc, which are the basic ingredients of justice, equality, empowerment and freedom - fairness?

fairest for whom?

The people, the citizens.

I don't see much evidence of fairness increasing in the UK

Your hunch is neither supported, nor rebuffed by the academic research. But instincts only take us so far, we need to refine our gut-reactions with more objective and universally applicable concepts.

[MrGongGong]

universally applicable concepts.

We need to be very careful of the idea that things are such

[Richard Barrett]

Strong democratic processes ensure that that 'appropriate' people are involved in, and are able to influence "important things". As a simple example, when the government re-organised senior doctors and consultant contracts in the NHS, the royal colleges, societies (surgeons, physicians, anaesthetists etc) and the British Medical Association were given the opportunity to be involved in and influence the decisions that were taken in regard to this far-reaching and important change in the NHS.

I wonder why it is then that 95% of doctors disagree with the Cameron government's health care policies.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Strong democratic processes ensure that that 'appropriate' people are involved in, and are able to influence "important things". As a simple example, when the government re-organised senior doctors and consultant contracts in the NHS, the royal colleges, societies (surgeons, physicians, anaesthetists etc) and the British Medical Association were given the opportunity to be involved in and influence the decisions that were taken in regard to this far-reaching and important change in the NHS.

This is a theory plucked from nowhere other than government propaganda. The Coalition's idea of consultation is telling professionals what they are going to do and ignoring virtually all counter-proposals. It was the same in education when Academies were grabbed from LEAs by the rushing through of draconian legislation. The only people who had any say from then onwards were the department of education, head teachers and amateur school governors.

[MrGongGong]

Strong democratic processes ensure that that 'appropriate' people are involved in, and are able to influence "important things"..

In your dreams matey
education (as Alpen points out) being a case in point
or Professor Nutt ?

[ahinton]

This is a theory plucked from nowhere other than government propaganda. The Coalition's idea of consultation is telling professionals what they are going to do and ignoring virtually all counter-proposals. It was the same in education when Academies were grabbed from LEAs by the rushing through of draconian legislation. The only people who had any say from then onwards were the department of education, head teachers and amateur school governors.

Indeed. Here's an example - http://www.publications.parliament.u...1574/fca38.htm. The firm that compiled this document were invited to do so by Parliament in response to Treasury Select Committee enquiries. Parliament is obliged by law to publish it. It makes many sweeping criticisms of the status quo and it was written in advance of a change in legislation wherein an industry regulator would morph from an old one into a new one (albeit at the same address and wearing most of the same grey suits). It recommends a number of fundamental changes. This was three years ago. What did government do? Ignore the lot!

[french frank]

On a very general point: if governments are to be entirely guided on all issues by 'experts', the people who 'know', you can entirely do without elections and political parties. What would people be voting for?