6 April 2026 Bill Cooke and Andy Watson: Do we need electoral reform?
Speakers: Andy Watson was born in Birkenhead. After leaving school, he attended KGV College in Southport, then the Liverpool John Moores University, and later the University of Central Lancashire. Andy came to live in Warrington in 1997. For over twenty seven years Andy has worked for a major UK Bank. He has been married to Carole for nearly twenty three years. Bill Cooke is president of the Warrington Lit & Phil and author of eight books, the most recent being H G Wells and the Twenty-first Century (Liverpool University Press, 2023).
Brief Synopsis: Since the late 19th Century, the United Kingdom has used a Winner-Takes-All Electoral System known as First Past The Post (FPTP), mainly with single-member electoral districts. Andy will argue that FPTP is flawed and will make the argument that we should make the switch to a system of Proportional Representation (PR). Bill Cooke will make the case for the retention of the present system.
Full talk synopsis:
Speaker: Andy Watson and Bill Cooke
Subject: Discussion: Do we need electoral reform?
Andy Watson spoke in support of Proportional Representation:
Supporters of proportional representation argue that it produces fairer and more democratic outcomes than the UK’s current First Past the Post (FPTP) system. Under PR, seats in parliament more closely reflect the share of votes each party receives, reducing the number of “wasted votes” and ensuring that more voters feel represented. Advocates say this would increase political engagement and turnout, as individuals would be less likely to feel their vote has no impact in “safe seats.”
PR is also seen as encouraging a broader range of political voices, allowing smaller parties to gain representation and contribute to debate. This can lead to more diverse policymaking that better reflects the electorate’s views. Additionally, supporters argue that PR discourages extreme regional divides, since parties must appeal to a wider national audience rather than focusing on swing constituencies.
Another key argument is that PR promotes cooperation and consensus politics. Coalition governments, which are more common under PR, may require compromise and negotiation, potentially leading to more stable and widely accepted policies. Overall, proponents believe PR would modernise UK democracy by making elections more representative, inclusive, and reflective of the public will.
In rebuttal Bill Cooke spoke in favour of First Past the Post:
Critics of proportional representation often point to real-world examples, such as New Zealand, to argue that PR does not always deliver on its promises. Since adopting a proportional system in the 1990s, New Zealand has frequently experienced coalition governments and kingmaker parties with disproportionate influence. Smaller parties can hold the balance of power and extract concessions that may not reflect the preferences of the majority of voters. This can lead to backroom negotiations and policies that were not clearly endorsed during elections.
In contrast, the UK’s First Past the Post system tends to produce strong, decisive governments capable of implementing their manifestos without prolonged negotiation. This clarity allows voters to hold a single party accountable at the next election. FPTP also maintains a direct link between MPs and their constituencies, ensuring local representation remains central to the political system.
Furthermore, while PR aims for fairness, it can result in fragmented parliaments and political instability, as seen in several countries with frequent elections or shifting coalitions. Supporters of FPTP argue that its simplicity, stability, and ability to deliver clear outcomes make it better suited to the UK’s political culture, even if it sacrifices some proportionality in representation.
2 March 2026 Tom Salvini: Is collective excellence our only solution?
Biography: Tom Salvini worked in IT for many years before becoming a consultant on bringing organisations with diverse viewpoints to work effectively as a team.
Brief Synopsis: In a critical observation of the problems bedevilling society, Tom will argue that only collective pursuit of excellence will avoid blundering into more division and discord.
Full talk synopsis:
Speaker: Tom Salvini
Subject: Is collective excellence our only solution?
The March lecture at the Lit & Phil was from Tom Salvini on ‘Collective Excellence’. When excellence is spoken of it is usually in the context of individual excellence, so it was a new departure for someone to consider the question in the plural. Salvini’s talk was a wholesale recapitulation of Immanuel Kant’s thought, recast in contemporary terminology.
Mr Salvini began by isolating what he saw as the three problems that hinder any achievement of excellence: understanding the scale of the problem, being aware of our blind spots, and focusing on our shared humanity. Once we put our own perspective in cosmic perspective, we are more able to see the limitations of our knowledge. Aware of the limitations of knowledge, we are more willing to accept that we have blind spots and that we should factor them in when we pass judgment. And assuming everyone else is limited in similar ways, we can place more focus on local connections and perspectives that overcome differences or render them irrelevant.
A particularly helpful illustration was given with the mobile phone. Mr Salvini unearthed the successive layers that go to make a mobile work. Our use of the interface of the phone needs no knowledge whatever of the complex goings-on beneath the screen. Our life is a lot like that as well.
From his considerations, Mr Salvini drew three main conclusions. One, most of us hold beliefs that are likely to be wrong in one context but right in another. Two, we are inclined to confuse the surface screen we see with the full reality. Three, science and religion are not as far part as is often thought. They are, in Stephen Jay Gould’s words, non-overlapping magisteria.
From this Mr Salvini concluded collective excellence to mean we must be true to ourselves and somewhere we can fit in. Excellence means tapping into our physical and mental strengths and this becomes a collective excellence when we appreciate others are likely to be as flawed as we are. Of the core virtues, Mr Salvini suggested a greater stress on duty is the most pertinent. In this way, bounded by duty and aware of the perspectives of others having as much potential validity as one’s own, collective excellence can be arrived at.
2 February 2026 Daniel Hurt: Why philosophy matters in medicine
Speaker: Dr Daniel Hurt is a GP registrar at Stockton Heath Medical Centre and will shortly qualify as a General Practitioner. He first became involved in philosophy while studying at the University of Cambridge, where he ran the main student philosophy society for several years.
After moving from Saddleworth and founding another group, he now leads the Halton Amateur Philosophy Society. His interests range from the philosophy of medicine and psychiatry to broader questions in metaethics and the philosophy of religion. Having previously worked at Warrington and Oldham hospitals, Daniel is now settled in Sandymoor with his wife and their two young children, and values opportunities to bring people together in thoughtful discussion.
Brief Synopsis: This talk examines what it means to be healthy and how medicine can risk turning normal life into illness. We will explore competing definitions of health and the challenges of overdiagnosis and medicalisation. We will consider how diagnostic labels can clarify or complicate people’s lives, shaping both understanding and identity. Finally, we will look at how belief, expectation, and the doctor–patient relationship influence healing through placebo and nocebo effects.
Full talk synopsis:
Speaker: Dr David Hurt GP Registrar at Stockton heath surgery.
Subject: Philosophy matters in medicine
He saw philosophy as a battle against bewilderment. Why do we do diagnosis, can it cause harm, is it linked to people’s expectations?
The prevalence of ill health has increased by the age of 65 by which time the majority of people will have some diseases. The World Health Organisation defined health as a state of complete physical and mental wellbeing. How realistic is this for the great majority of people? It is difficult to distinguish between normal processes and disease. MRI hugely extends the number of conditions that can be picked up. The WHO manual of diagnosis identifies 50,000 to 85,000 conditions.
A diagnosis can be either explanatory or diagnostic, with many in the grey zone in between. Part of the purpose of diagnosis is to provide explanations to patients, and this seems to be what the majority of patients want.
Diagnosis of issues such as mental health or autism and many other conditions is particularly difficult. It is important that the patient does not lose agency if they are going to have a chance to improve their condition.
Deciding whether a particular improvement is because of any treatment is difficult. In the placebo effect a person’s physical or mental health ca improve after receiving a sham treatment. The nocebo effect causes harmful or negative side effects from inert treatments due to negative expectations. Placebos are thought to have an effect in 80 % of cases of depression, 50% of cases of lower back pain and up to 30% in Parkinsons.
The speaker illustrated the power of the nocebo effect by the story of a builder who jumped off a roof and through a nail. He was in terrible pain until it was discovered that it had missed his foot.
In many cases, the patient has gone to the doctor at the worst point of the illness, and the healing power of the body cures it without intervention.
.
1 December 2025 Rachael Wiseman: Are you a metaphysical animal?
Speaker: Rachael Wiseman is a Reader in Philosophy at University of Liverpool. She writes on ethics and philosophy of mind and action, and is an associate editor at the British Journal for the History of Philosophy. Along with Clare Mac Cumhaill, she is the author of Metaphysical Animals: How four women brought philosophy back to life and directs the website www.womeninparenthesis.co.uk.
Brief Synopsis: This talk tells the story of four incredible women philosophers who met at Oxford during World War II and who developed their philosophy in response to the practical problems faced by a generation coming to terms with the holocaust, atomic weapons, and accelerating social and technological change. Central to the philosophy of Iris Murdoch, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley and Elizabeth Anscombe, is the idea that we are metaphysical animals. This talk will explain and explore that idea, while also presenting a hidden history of twentieth century intellectual culture, one to which the contributions of women and refugee scholars are central.
Full talk synopsis:
Speaker: Dr Rachael Wiseman
Subject: Are you a Metaphysical Animal?
The third meeting of the 2025-2026 season featured Dr Rachael Wiseman, Reader in Philosophy at University of Liverpool. Along with Clare Mac Cumhaill she is the author of Metaphysical Animals: How four women brought philosophy back to life. The talk was entitled ‘Are we metaphysical animals?’ Dr Wiseman argued, in a way pioneered by Mary Midgley, that we are just another species of animal, albeit one that can ponder its place in the scheme of things other animals don’t do. The talk then went through the different interpretations of this insight by four women who rose to prominence in the years after the Second World War. Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch and Mary Midgley. Each of these women had a different area of interest in philosophy and each advanced different responses to our status as metaphysical animals. Anscombe took the road of formal Catholicism. Iris Murdoch moved toward a position not far removed from Neoplatonism, while Foot and Midgley were, broadly understood non-religious humanists.
The unusual circumstances of the war provided the backdrop for these women to break through and achieve prominence. While the men were away fighting or in intelligence work against the Nazis, the women had more space in the universities to express ideas without being talked down by the men. By the time the men returned, the women were established. Each one went on to significant careers. Iris Murdoch soon tired of the formal setting of academic philosophy and found her niche in novels, some of which stand as landmarks in post-war literature. Anscombe’s work was the most obscure and has lasted less well, notwithstanding its brilliance. Foot’s work on moral philosophy, most notably the Trolley Problem, has ensured her a lasting legacy. And Mary Midgley, the wittiest and most caustic of the group, took on the mantle of what the nineteenth century called being a ‘smiter of humbug.’
In their different ways all four women advanced variations of moral realism, the idea that morality does represent some real state in the world and not simply the name we give to our preferences. And all four saw philosophy as a form of intellectual plumbing. As we call plumbers in to fix problems with our piping, so philosophers have a role in fixing breaks and tears in our conceptual infrastructure.
3 November 2025 Andy Green ‘Warrington in poetry, prose, rhyme and song’
Speaker: Andy Green is a writer, broadcaster and local history enthusiast, who is actively involved in promoting Warrington's arts, culture and heritage scene. A self-proclaimed lover of 'all things Warrington', Andy served as Chairman of Warrington History Society from 2018 to 2024, making him the longest serving Chair in the Society's history. Since 2017, he has been co-presenting Radio Warrington's Culture Show every Thursday evening (repeated on Sunday mornings) interviewing musicians, poets, actors, historians, dancers, painters, curators, local dignitaries, archivists and more. "Everyone has a story to tell", says Andy, "and helping people to tell their stories, or sharing their work for others to enjoy, is a great privilege."
Brief Synopsis: An entertaining multi-media talk looking at some of the poetry, prose, rhyme and song inspired by the town of Warrington or written by its townsfolk over the years. The talk features material from the 16th century to the present day and provides an interesting perspective on the town's history, as seen through the eyes, pens and music of some of Warrington's most talented creatives. The talk features Lancashire's oldest known ballad, words from a woman who in 1779 was described as one of Great Britain's nine living muses, and extracts from what was, when published, Britain's longest poem, all of which have firm Warrington connections. It's not all highfalutin however: beer, rugby league, spousal disagreements, industrial accidents and peep shows all are mentioned.
Full talk synopsis:
Speaker: Andy Green
Subject: Warrington in Poetry, Prose, Rhyme and Song
By way of introduction, Andy quoted his love poem Where the Old Fish Market Once Stood, a tribute to Warrington landmarks and personalities – Golden Square, the Barley Mow, Eileen Bilton, Boteler, Beamont, Priestley, Charlie Lee. He then played a recital of Lancashire’s oldest ballad, Warrikin Fair (1548) and his own updated version, explaining outdated local vocab such as kippo (big stick), udgit (fool) and Denty Snig poe (eel pie).
In the mid 1700s, Anna Laetitia Barbauld, daughter of the Academy minister John Aiken, was a popular writer, critic and children’s educationalist. She spent 16 years in Warrington before marrying and moving south. Her book Lessons for Children was ground-breaking. Andy read her poem The Invitation. Her political poem Eighteen Hundred and Eleven in which she criticised the country’s action in the Napoleonic war was considered unpatriotic and she fell from favour.
Contemporaries of Barbauld included John Fitchett (1796-1838), remembered for his book on the murder of Sir John Butler at Bewsey Old Hall in 1522, for his epic poem on King Alfred (the longest poem in English literature) and for his Address to a Warrington Theatre commemorating the opening of the Theatre Royal in 1818.
Arthur Bennet (1862-1931) former mayor of Warrington, wrote seven volumes of poems and songs, often in praise of the town’s hospitality, e.g. Heaven in Warrington. Warrington Ale by the Minor Birds, a folk group founded in the 1960s by Norman and Jack Froggatt, also celebrated the local beer.
In 2008, Stan Smith, one of the ‘Smiths of School Brow’ published Family Fortunes. In prose and verse this tells the history of five generations of his family and its involvement in Warrington’s industry. Andy quoted poems such as Marriage Lines (about fustian cutting), Hidden from History (cotton weaving at Cockhedge Mills), Unintended Consequences (the cycle store at the old Tudor cottage on Church Street) and Wire (about Stan’s uncle Arthur who worked as a wiredrawer).
In 1882 a Widnes newspaper printed a poem in which Warrington’s rugby team was likened to wolves (hence the current name?)
More recent events have been immortalised in song, such as the 1993 Warrington bombing which inspired Zombie by the Cranberries. During Covid, Andy wrote a video piece Warrington Reunited as part of a project for Culture Warrington to promote local arts; in The Hills of Golden Square Norman Froggatt amusingly describes the shopping precinct.
In breaking news, a song about Buttermarket Street by the 1970s Warrington country band The Poachers has been picked up by Nashville folk group Lost Hollow and is riding high in the country charts. They are topping the bill at the Masonic Hall in November.
6 October 2025, Bill Cooke: Can we be optimistic about the future?
Speaker: Dr Bill Cooke is president of the Warrington Lit & Phil, author of eight books and editor of the peer-reviewed journal The Wellsian. He has just finished a manuscript on the theme of optimism and pessimism.
Brief Synopsis: The pace and scale of events are leading many people to a pessimistic assessment of our prospects. And yet there is a large body of literature assuring us we live in the best of times, where violence and poverty have fallen to levels unparalleled in history. So should we be optimistic or pessimistic about the future. Bill Cooke offers a new way to look at this conundrum.
Full talk synopsis:
Speaker: Dr Bill Cooke
Subject: Can we be optimistic about the future?
Bill began his Presidential Address by posing three overarching questions:-
1. Is optimism in philosophy still fit for purpose?
2. Must pessimism be seen in entirely negative terms?
3. Does a positive approach require one to be optimistic?
and posited that in each case the answer was NO. From the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century to the present day, humanity has assumed that it can exercise a degree of control over its environment – hence the prevalence of optimistic philosophical views during this period. In contrast, recent-day evidence that potential solutions such as quantum mechanics have now reached the limits of their scalability greatly reduces confidence in their successful application to issues such as climate change and the speed of change in AI.
Optimism smacks of a sense of entitlement which is illogical and unsubstantiated. It is prone to the best-case fallacy, extrapolating from past progress and jumping to the unwarranted assumption that it will continue in a linear fashion.
Bill made a distinction between two varieties of pessimism : cold and warm. Cold pessimism is entirely negative, often little more than thinly disguised self-interest and would appear to be a series of moods rather than a set of arguments. Like both optimists and cold pessimists, warm pessimists assume the worst case, but differ from them in formulating realistic action plans, monitoring progress against them and taking corrective action as necessary.
Warm pessimism thus occupies the middle ground between cold pessimism and optimism. All too often these two are seen incorrectly as polar opposites rather than points on a continuum, which militates against meaningful dialogue between them over this potentially fertile middle ground.