Militant students at Warwick

[ahinton]

Crikey ... that's quite remarkable ... though, on a point of order, I think it was you who first mentioned 'string players' on this thread whereas MrGongGong merely referred to a Mozart String Quartet.

Still, I don't wish to appear too pedantic, ahinton ...

OK - if you must!

[Beef Oven!]

95% of doctors disagreeing with the outcome might indicate that the "democratic process" was almost nonexistent. On the other hand a fifth of coalition MPs have links to the private health care industry which is perhaps indicative of why that might be the case.

Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that 95% of doctors are unhappy with the Cons/LibDem health policies because they believe that MPs have links to private health firms?

[Richard Barrett]

Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that 95% of doctors are unhappy with the Cons/LibDem health policies because they believe that MPs have links to private health firms?

If I had meant to say that I would have said it. I'm sure that many doctors do think that way, but I was referring to the reasons and motivations behind the Tories' health policies and why they've been carried out in the face of such an overwhelming weight of opinion on the part of people who know what they're talking about.

[P. G. Tipps]

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

Isn't the BMA just another 'self-interest' group like any other trades' union or, to hopefully avoid knee-jerk accusations of political bias, the IoD ...?

http://bma.org.uk/

If I were a doctor no doubt I'd be one of the '95%' but the government has a higher and broader responsibility than simply looking after the interests of doctors and their careers.

There is another 'self-interest' group which is surely also worth listening to ...

http://www.patients-association.com/

[ahinton]

Isn't the BMA just another 'self-interest' group like any other trades' union or, to hopefully avoid knee-jerk accusations of political bias, the IoD ...?

http://bma.org.uk/

If I were a doctor no doubt I'd be one of the '95%' but the government has a higher and broader responsibility than simply looking after the interests of doctors and their careers.

There is another 'self-interest' group which is surely also worth listening to ...

http://www.patients-association.com/

Might what you appear to be implying here be that consulting any group of people, irrespective of their knowledge and expertise, is a waste of time and money because any such group would by nature be a "self-interest" one intent only on providing advice and recommendations commensurate with that self-interest?

[MrGongGong]

Might what you appear to be implying here be that consulting any group of people, irrespective of their knowledge and expertise, is a waste of time and money because any such group would by nature be a "self-interest" one intent only on providing advice and recommendations commensurate with that self-interest?

There is also the assumption that everyone only bases their actions on self interest.

simply looking after the interests of doctors and their careers.

Not everyone in the world is motivated by simply furthering their "career" , we have much to learn from free improvisation.

[P. G. Tipps]

Might what you appear to be implying here be that consulting any group of people, irrespective of their knowledge and expertise, is a waste of time and money because any such group would by nature be a "self-interest" one intent only on providing advice and recommendations commensurate with that self-interest?

Certainly not 'a waste of time' and government consultation is essential with all the interested parties but, yes, the 'self-interest' aspect of each party or group must always be borne in mind.

The government of the day must then decide on what it thinks is the best way forward for the population as a whole.

Don't you agree ...?

[P. G. Tipps]

Not everyone in the world is motivated by simply furthering their "career" , we have much to learn from free improvisation.

Well if you care to look at the BMA link I provided you will see that the BMA is very interested in the careers of doctors ... second button on the left near the top for instance!

[Beef Oven!]

Isn't the BMA just another 'self-interest' group like any other trades' union or, to hopefully avoid knee-jerk accusations of political bias, the IoD ...?

http://bma.org.uk/

If I were a doctor no doubt I'd be one of the '95%' but the government has a higher and broader responsibility than simply looking after the interests of doctors and their careers.

There is another 'self-interest' group which is surely also worth listening to ...

http://www.patients-association.com/

Well, the reason why 95% of doctors didn't disagree with the new consultants contract when the government implemented it, had something to do with the fact that they did very well out of it indeed! The BMA were very involved with those proposals and the implementation!

I think RB can be naive about these things, when he wants to.

[ahinton]

Certainly not 'a waste of time' and government consultation is essential with all the interested parties but, yes, the 'self-interest' aspect of each party or group must always be borne in mind.

The government of the day must then decide on what it thinks is the best way forward for the population as a whole.

Don't you agree ...?

I might like to feel able to agree if only that were possible, but what of the "self-interest" of government itself or of those whose interests government seeks to foster over and above those of other parties?

Take, for instance, the example that I provided earlier of the report published on Parliament's website that government had invited in advance of the then forthcoming Financial Services Act 2012 (to replace the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) and the transition from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) / Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA); if that's not a case of government seeking, obtaining and publishing a consultative document from qualified independent professionals ("independent" in the sense that the provider of the document was an international law firm, not a UK financial services organisation with a possible agenda-driven axe to grind) and then ignoring its every criticism of the status quo and its every recommendation for change, I don't know what is!

If you believe that this demonstrates that the "government of the day" decides "on what it thinks is the best way forward for the population as a whole" once it has received such consultative documents, I can only assume your unfounded optimism to be born of complacency; had Parliament in this particular instance felt the document to be fundamentally flawed throughout, if could have sent it back to the law firm concerned and either ordered them to do it again or rejected it altogether but, as you can see, it did neither of those things - what it did instead was publish it, so that anyone reading it and checking the outcome would be able to tell that it rode roughshod over its entire contents, presumably in order to try to protect its own interests and those of other parties that it sought to likewise protect at all costs.

To be more specific about just one point in that document, what kind of message do you suppose that government sends to "the population as a whole" when enshrining in law that, whilst genuinely disaffected citizens are entitled to sue the police, armed forces, other industry regulators, the NHS, the Serious Fraud Office and many other major institutions for damages when they have been wronged by them, none may do so in respect of a small handful of institutions that it specially selects for an immunity privilege such as Bank of England, The Pensions Regulator and the financial services regulatory organisations? Whatever message it is, its negativity is exacerbated by the sheer bravado that it evidences in inviting a consultative report that deplores the granting of such statutory privileges and then taking not a blind bit of notice of the report's contents.

Well, Mr Tipps; what's your take on that?...