[
Quote:
b]When faced with an option that might be unpalatable to a vociferous minority, how far should an organisation go in excluding the majority?[/b]
I certainly wouldn't consider these things a simple question of numbers, but of course this should go without saying. For example, if a majority want a fare increase or the majority want quotas retained then to me that's not really relevant - it's about doing what is right.
If you ask a cartel if they want it maintained, then by definition the answer will be yes, but of course market rigging is illegal. So in the taxi trade the simple numbers for and against shouldn't be the end of the story, although of course the numbers should be considered.
The problem is that some LAs effectively do treat a simple majority as the end of the story. But, for example, if the local Hack Ass is in favour of quotas, that tells us nothing, because they tend to represent the vested interests.
And even if all in the trade get their say, just because a majority agree then that's not the end of the story - that would be like saying that apartheid would be justified if the whites were in a numerical majority.
Quote:
Are organisations who advocate the philosophy that "Councils know best" being hypocritical if they change horses in mid stream when things don't go their way.
Absolutely!
One of the best examples was the NTA statement of about a year ago, which was fundamentally contradictory on the question of local democracy.
But the best on was the T&G diatribe re Guildford:
Old hands, experienced in the curious forms of democracy practised in council chambers, would have found it hard to recall a more blatant demonstration of political dogma than that witnessed on the night. While the mainly Lib Dem opposition members put up a valiant fight using genunine and well researched argument and advoctating Managed Growth, the Tory 'sheep' most sat in silence displaying a lethal cocktail of arrogance, ignorance and possibly tinged in a few cases with just a hint of guilt."
"They did their 'civic duty' by sticking their mits in the air, (even those that appeared in need of a nudge to stay awake) and another retrodgrade decision amounting to a dereliction of duty and an abrogation of responsibility went into the minutes book." Quote:
Do councils ever know what is best or do they always work to a political agenda?
I suppose some do, but I suspect there's everything from nepotism and corruption to base political motives (eg simply avoiding negative healines) at work.
But when some LAs say that they prefer the status quo just to avoid upsetting [the vested interests] then that's pathetic.
Quote:
How much weight should a council give organisations who have a vested interest in applying a particular policy, especially if that policy is designed to work against the public interest?
Clearly weighing up all the competing interests is a difficult task.