Aspirations..................................

[Dick Smith]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

However, of course, if Labour had have invoked PR as promised in their 1997 manifesto, then they would have lost after 1997.

Which is pretty illustrative of how confused and dispirited the British electorate are right now: as more than one poster has stated in this thread.

 

[/quote]

Again, you got any real evidence for either of those statements?

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Dick Smith"][quote user="Gluestick"]

However, of course, if Labour had have invoked PR as promised in their 1997 manifesto, then they would have lost after 1997.

Which is pretty illustrative of how confused and dispirited the British electorate are right now: as more than one poster has stated in this thread.

 

[/quote]

 

Again, you got any real evidence for either of those statements?
[/quote]

Independent
PR voting could have left Blair in coalition (23 June 05)
A new study showed that Tony Blair would have not won the elections if these had been held under a proportional system. The study conducted by Patrick Dunleavy, professor of politics at LSE and Helen Margett, a professor at Oxford University, revealed that the majority system currently in place leads to distortion of voters' preferences that makes a huge difference to the patterns of political representation across Great Britain.

LSE and Oxford Profs acceptable enough for you??

 

[Dick Smith]

Not really.

What were the parameters of the PR system concerned? Was it realistic, or one he whisked out of the air to prove a point? Did he factor tactical voting in or out?

And of course it could be nothing at all to do with Prof Dunleavy having a book out at about the same time?

He also predicted in 1999 that Labour might well lose the next election (in fact it won the next two).

Margetts is more usually linked to research on e-government.

Both are respectable academics, but you have to look at the system of PR that they have used as their model. It seems to be worst-case, that is it takes the position most opposite from the real result; I think you can safely assume that any government in power would not pursue that option, they would look for something that gave them an advantage. Probably a transferable vote system, with thresholds.

So your 'proof' turns out to be an opinion expressed in a newspaper press release about a book by two academics witha  bit of an axe to grind and a less-than-brilliant record of predicting elections.

Now, how about some proof of the dispirited electorate?

[Tressy]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]No. Your comic claimed that 8 people a day were shot. That is 2900 a year - shot. Which is not borne out by the figures...[/quote]

I think Dick is right here. A 'gun related crime' doesn't necessarily mean someone has been shot as was stated.

Another perhaps 'picky' point is that Labour didn't 'promise' to 'invoke PR'. They said there would be a referendum on the matter in their first term.

There wasn't, of course, (Bad Labour!), but if we are going to pick through old manifestos and how we were let down or deceived, we could be some considerable time, particularly if we are searching for promises that were never made in the first place.[;-)]

And as for Gordon Brown, well I agree with the tone and spirit of Bugbears O.P.  [:)] Imagine being Gordon Brown, right now?[:'(]

[Russethouse]

Now, how about some proof of the dispirited electorate?

How about some hope ?

[Dick Smith]

?

[Tressy]

[quote user="Gluestick"]...What is needed, IMHO is a political truce: when countries face serious strategic problems, such as war, politics is put on the back burner for the duration.

Britain urgently needs a Coalition, during which period it can sort out its urgent social and economic problems:... [/quote]

Interesting Idea![:)]

But nope, things have to be far, far worse before that'll happen again.

That said, I know politicians of all persuasions discuss reform of the Welfare State..and then run away as fast as they can.

I do sometimes wish they could get together on that one thing. It was born of a coalition, a beautiful notion - and it could be re-framed as one (probably slightly less 'beautiful', but those 'framers' were a little lacking in that wonderful attribute called 'hind-sight', weren't they?). 

But stop me now! I'm heading off into the land of fantasy and wonderment at what could be.[:)]

 

 

 

 

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]
So your 'proof' turns out to be an opinion expressed in a newspaper press release about a book by two academics witha  bit of an axe to grind and a less-than-brilliant record of predicting elections.

[/quote]

Gotcha!

[:D]

No: in fact from actually bothering to read and absorb this analysis. I purposefully refrained from mentioning this, as I wanted to set a nice little trap for you to await your inevitable scathing response: and this from one apparently seeking open and reasoned debate!

I now await your in depth and erudite reprise: after you too have carefully read and absorbed the presented data, too.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/Impact_ofUK_Electoral_Systems_report.doc

[Dick Smith]

Oh you are far too clever for me!

I shall go and live in a cave populated by people who are all bitter and twisted about England and read the Metro for my news!

No.

This alters nothing! You clearly do not understand that the world is not as you and the Daily Mail see it, but are too blinkered to accept the fact.

[Gluestick]

I don't read the Mail.

You yourself chose to denegrate two apparently learned professors and their work and called for "Proof": which, as we both know is a rare animal in academe.

And now the ball's in your court: so it's up to you to revert with some learned analysis of the paper or cite your own paper as your "Proof".

You don't escape that easily!

 

[trees 2]

[quote user="Dick Smith"] You clearly do not understand that the world is not as you and the Daily Mail see it, but are too blinkered to accept the fact.

[/quote]

Dick: could you explain why you see it as silly to accept what a newspaper says, but you will accept as the whole truth, what a government department says? Especially as that department has something to lose if the paper's statistics are true. And especially especially as that department is part of a government who keep telling us that inflation nis 2% or thereabouts, when the Mirror ran a check on household budgets last week, and found that a PROPER shopping basket, containing stuff we all HAVE to buy, costs above 10% more now than this time last year?

Sorry about the long sentence[;-)]