December
Everyone present debated which person they would most like to invite to Christmas Dinner. Potential guests included Father Christmas, Margaret Thatcher, Agatha Christie, Data from the Star Ship Enterprise, Family members, Religious Figures and the Local Handyman. Many questions were raised, sad and happy memories were evoked and there was also much laughter before Jesus Christ and Birth Families emerged as the joint winners. Following the debate the members enjoyed a festive potluck supper and raffle.
November
Sadly this month's debate had to be postponed because the proposer was unwell. The small number of people who braved the weather to attend discussed some topical issues as well as the potential programme for the forthcoming year. The planned debate will be rescheduled for 2024.
October
A short AGM preceded the debate. Topics that were discussed by members included whether extra tax should be raised to fund the NHS, if the world ought to be worried by the prospect of Donald Trump returning to power in 2024, recent changes made to level education and out of control dogs and their owners. All of which resulted in a diverse range of comments being made.
September 2023
For the September debate, Garren Osborne proposed the motion: "Transition Towns are the way to go and Clacton needs to be one” contending that as a society we need to move from using fossil fuels and damaging industrial processes towards a cleaner and safer environment. However, he considered that a multi- faceted strategy was warranted as politicians and corporations were unlikely to be able to provide a one-stop solution to the problem. One approach taken could be encouraging communities to work and trade locally wherever possible and he believed that Clacton with its unique geographical position and climate made it an ideal candidate for driving this system forward.
Opposer Chris Lane was not against the proposal in principle but did hold reservations about its viability stating that the UK would need oil and gas for at least the next decade because currently there are no practicable alternatives. Furthermore, he asserted that when lifestyle changes hurt people’s circumstances or pocket, they were unlikely to succeed arguing that buying locally would be much more expensive for the consumer and with the high percentage of socially deprived in the area it would just be setting Clacton up to fail.
Following many varied and thought provoking responses from the floor, the motion was won by 5 votes to 2 but there were 5 abstentions.
August 2023
A small but enthusiastic number of people turned up to discuss various items of topical interest. Those present felt that Doctors should not get a substantial increase of pay, tenants do not need any more rights against landlords and Clacton is not doomed to a slow decline. However they did believe the Conservatives could be re-elected and dogs should be allowed in restaurants with the agreement of the manager. All topics prompted lively discussion from the floor
July 2023
At the July meeting members took turns to debate a variety of topics including what Macron should do about the French riots, the amount of corruption in the Honours system, whether the NHS is fit for purpose and the pros and cons of artificial intelligence. There were many thought provoking and interesting comments made from the floor.
June 2023
For the June debate, Lorry Greenall proposed the motion: "Breakfast is the Best Meal of the Day” citing a variety of research that clearly demonstrates the health benefits and improved nutrition experienced by those who ate it on a regular basis. She asserted that a sensible bowl of morning porridge is as important for focussing the brain and helping concentration as it is for physical exertion. She also considered that unlike other meals, the simplicity of breakfast enables a wide variety of tastes to be satisfied very quickly. This means everyone can happily eat together while planning their day making it a happy time well spent with the family.
Opposing the motion Mary Lane contended that most people eat processed foods, high in sugar for their first meal of the day and that is not good for them. She argued that minimal effort goes into pouring out a bowl of cereal compared with the effort and expertise required when providing both lunch and dinner. She also considered people could not linger over breakfast as they had to rush off to work or school. As the best element of any meal is being able to eat at a leisurely pace with friends and family, lunch and dinner were better options.
After many interesting comments from the floor the motion was lost by 6 votes to 3.
May 2023
For the May debate, Gail Chapman proposed the motion: "The Monarchy should be Abolished” stating that it had originally stemmed from the need to keep the peace between warring clans. Now with virtually no Empire and a diminishing Commonwealth it is out of tune with modern living and therefore redundant. In addition, she believed that the conduct of some members of the Royal Family meant it could no longer be considered a credible role model for the rest of society. She argued that British people should neither live in the past nor pander to an establishment which lives in luxury whilst they struggle to pay their household bills.
Opposing the motion Lee Knight contended that the Brexit vote demonstrated just how much people wanted their rules and traditions back under their own control. He also felt that skeletons in cupboards were part of the human condition and should not be problematic. Royalty has played a quintessential part in shaping the traditions and legends of history and all it portrays so the British should fight to retain it. The Monarchy is not only vital for providing continuity for the Nation but also promotes patriotism through the pomp and ceremony of a public pageantry which encourages tourism and is envied worldwide.
This prompted many lively and diverse responses from the floor before the motion was won by a narrow margin.
April 2023
At the April debate Jean Cheek proposed that: "Trial by Jury should be abolished" Derek Cheek was the opposer. There was much hilarity between this husband and wife duo and many interesting comments from the floor. However the motion was overwhelmingly carried.
March 2023
For the March debate, Helen Rees proposed the motion: "Essential Services should be Nationalised” stating that the government had taken control of privatised services in the 1940s for the public good and to improve the lot of the poor in society. She considered that when Thatcher and others introduced more competition through privatisation, the only people to benefit were those with money or the time to compare available options. Furthermore, these companies still expected the state to rescue them when they failed. She asserted that the essential services needed to be reinstated because they would provide for a fairer society as well as ensuring the food chain was not jeopardised.
Opposing the motion Chris Lane contended that all services were essential to the economy and the breakdown of any one would be crippling. Arguing that no one system was perfect, North Korea was cited as being a place where everything was nationalised yet it still had a stunted economy and worsening food shortages. He felt that public oversight and regulation was needed to limit profits and ossification and saw the creation of a mature balanced flexible situation vital to allow growth in this complex modern interdependent world. Public and private partnerships were promoted as potentially the way forward.
This prompted a diversity of responses from the floor and the motion was won by a narrow margin.
February 2023
For the February debate, Mary Lane proposed the motion: "The House of Lords should be Abolished” citing that it symbolises so much of what is wrong with our country: i.e., institutionalisation, lack of accountability, cronyism, inequality and open corruption. She felt that the sooner it was reformed the better but conceded that most democratic countries seemed to find it necessary to have a second chamber. She advocated therefore, that any replacement should exclude life and hereditary Peers and consist solely of independent expert advisers who could represent UK people in line with the government’s levelling up agenda.
Opposing the motion Paul Jackson contended that the House of Lords is vital for scrutiny and modification purposes. He argued that it is cheaper to run than the House of Commons and a party-political alternative would be less representative of the people. Also, errant members can now resign or be expelled. Furthermore, he thought that the House of Lords was constantly evolving to become more egalitarian and considered that many current members were already specialists in their own field, with a large number not affiliated to any particular political party.
This prompted some thought-provoking responses from the floor and the motion was won by 4 votes. There were 3 abstentions.
January 2023