[Sussex] Putting the World to Rights

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff

Thanks for the quick response, here is mine.

On 13 January 2003 at 13:22 Geoff Teale wrote:
> 1. No I did not take offence  - I was merely trying to 
>    indicate that it is possible to have a healthy level of cynicism
>    but still hold ideals and strive for them with positive actions.
>    In the mid 1990's it seemed impossible than anyone could seriously
>    challenge Microsoft's dominance in the IT market - but people like
>    RMS and Linus still held their ideals (maybe less so in Linus's case)
>    and look where we are now.

Agreed - a sense of proportion in cynicism is a good think.

> 2. Debate on any subject is wothwhile and the broader that 
>    debate the better - but it is wrong to assume that the view
>    point of the masses is the right one, people en masse are too
>    easy to manipulate.  

I never said that view point of the masses is the right one, nor did
I say that people on masse are easierly manipulated.  All I do say is
that "if a large enough body of people revolt governments can fall".  
I think history bares me out.

> 3. If you think the house of lords hold no power then ask yourself
>    why we don't currently have an outright ban on fox hunting - 
>    sometime political power is not that which is officially present.
>    The power to delay legislation and send it back for more discussion
>    can seriously weaken the strength of legislation, moreover the
>    Lords are one of the highest powers in the court system - they have
>    considerable power.

First of all I was talking political power.  The legal power is different
and I don't see then as the same sort of power;  I maybe wrong, but that's
how I see it.

As to why fox hunting didn't get banded:

  a). It was a free vote and there are was a lot of lobbing from the 
      Green Wellie Brigade,

  b). As I remember it Lords keep amending the bill and the Commons kept
      amending it back, and

  c). There was a major crises at the time and the Government (aka Tony) was
      made to look foolish on the amount of time the Commons was spending 
      on such a trivial issue.  I don't think we need to debate how much
Tony
      like good press.

> 4.  EU law depends on the UK pro-actively agreeing to parts of, however,
>     in certain areas control has been ceded totally or is controlled by
>     international politics - do we really think our government wants lots
>     of fishermen to loose their jobs in the UK.  I don't think so, but to
put
>     British jobs above the conservation of north sea cod would yeild
serious
>     political repercussions in Europe - the question of whether it is
"right"
>     or "better" to lean one way or the other depends on whether you're a
>     fisherman or a cod (or and environmentalist).

Granted, but again this is EU law not EU politics.  I like to keep Law and 
Politics separate (were I can).

> 5.  Te age of the USA leading the world in terms of defining popular
tastes
>     is coming to and end, ...

Agreed - nothing more to say.

Steve