University degree required to join the police

[V8 Fettler]

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

You are confusing the election of a politician with the election of a party. You're also forgetting that the distrusted Tories have been voted in on several occasions over the last two hundred years or so.

You would appear to be the one confused by the democratic process in this country.

People do not vote for a politician; they vote for a party. There is a choice of two in effect in England (and Wales). So people do not vote for particular policies as this would be impossible. As parties do not produce binding policies, no one votes for a particular one. No one knows what the government will do.

As for your suggestion of two hundred years, I think you will find that it hasn't even been 100 years since this country became anything like a democracy. I, and many others, would suggest 1928 is the cut-off date.

Up until then there were scarcely parties as we know them. Crossing the chamber was common. It wasn't until the third reform act that there was anything like voting as we know it, but even then it stopped at the posher suburbs. Disraeli's suggestion the second RA gave the vote to anyone in the massive, and majority, working class was pure spin. A modern politician.

The great, much rejoiced, mother of all parliaments was nothing more than a group of pressure groups pushing their own agendas, rather like now in some ways.

There is no requirement for a by-election if a sitting MP crosses the house to another party, hence the previous election of that particular MP was the election of that MP, not the election of the party of which he was a member at the time of the election.

No-one knows what the government will do? Do you mean that no-one knew that various Tory governments were going to privatise state industries, cut union power and attempt to cut public sector expenditure? Those intentions were clear in 1979 and are just as clear today. It's bizarre that you should think it's some sort of mystery.

You're moving the goalposts by wandering off down the "How democratic is parliament?" route. It's about the election of untrusted Tory MPs to parliament irrespective of details of voter's enfranchisement.

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

Why are you dwelling on trust, again?

Because it is directly relevant to the original point I addressed which you picked up on. The point was that, .the current government are probably more trusted than the police', if you recall.

V8 Fettler said:

You're not going to get that support by relying on the trust of a fickle public.

The occupation data shows consistency since 1983. I wouldn't call that fickle.

V8 Fettler said:

At the risk of stating the very obvious: senior Tory politicians have been elected to parliament in general elections where the Tory party has not been elected into power.

Yes, but they are part of the party people want to be in power, and the only way to get a party in power is to get high MP numbers. Senior politicians also enhance the point of people voting in areas because it has always been done that way. There was a reason Ed Miliband was the MP for Doncaster. Because people there will never vote for anyone other party. Their trust and confidence etc in Miliband is pretty much irrelevant. The same applies the other way.

You were implying that the poll was invalid / less valid because it showed people had a low trust of senior Conservative politicians but they were still voted in.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

Why are you dwelling on trust, again?

Because it is directly relevant to the original point I addressed which you picked up on. The point was that, .the current government are probably more trusted than the police', if you recall.

V8 Fettler said:

You're not going to get that support by relying on the trust of a fickle public.

The occupation data shows consistency since 1983. I wouldn't call that fickle.

V8 Fettler said:

At the risk of stating the very obvious: senior Tory politicians have been elected to parliament in general elections where the Tory party has not been elected into power.

Yes, but they are part of the party people want to be in power, and the only way to get a party in power is to get high MP numbers. Senior politicians also enhance the point of people voting in areas because it has always been done that way. There was a reason Ed Miliband was the MP for Doncaster. Because people there will never vote for anyone other party. Their trust and confidence etc in Miliband is pretty much irrelevant. The same applies the other way.

You were implying that the poll was invalid / less valid because it showed people had a low trust of senior Conservative politicians but they were still voted in.

The "original" point - which you keep missing - is that trust is not an essential requirement of support.

The fickleness is where the general public will indicate a particular view to pollsters and yet take a divergent view in the voting booth.

Perhaps the denizens of Donc preferred the content of the election manifesto on which Miliband stood to the manifestos of the other candidates who also stood in the same constituency.

[Derek Smith]

V8 Fettler said:

There is no requirement for a by-election if a sitting MP crosses the house to another party, hence the previous election of that particular MP was the election of that MP, not the election of the party of which he was a member at the time of the election.

No-one knows what the government will do? Do you mean that no-one knew that various Tory governments were going to privatise state industries, cut union power and attempt to cut public sector expenditure? Those intentions were clear in 1979 and are just as clear today. It's bizarre that you should think it's some sort of mystery.

You're moving the goalposts by wandering off down the "How democratic is parliament?" route. It's about the election of untrusted Tory MPs to parliament irrespective of details of voter's enfranchisement.

I wasn't moving anything, merely pointing out that you have a confused idea of what we vote for in elections. We do not vote for policies. We vote a particular party in. The party is free to change its manifesto. For a rather simple one. let's take:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFVDOrF2Nrc

There are thousands of such examples.

The government did not say it would cut the police by 40%. Obviously not as it would have cost them votes. Members of the previous government stated quite clearly that they would not increase university fees. This was a move which increased costs for the taxpayer so again against what was promised.

The idea that most people vote for their specific MP is rather a sweet delusion. As I say, the people vote for a party. From what I can gather, they have since we became a democracy. They do not vote for specific policies because they are not listed before the vote.

[DonkeyApple]

Devil2575 said:

DonkeyApple said:

University degrees are pretty worthless today.

No they are not.

They are an essential qualfication in many cases. Try getting a job as a chemical engineer without a degree.

Going to university is generally a good thing, aside from the ludicrous levels of debt.

In general it does tend to increase tollerance as people are exposed to others from different walks of life etc.

However unless you actually need a specific qualification then I'd struggle to justify the time, effort and cash required to obtain it.

Edited by Devil2575 on Monday 16th November 17:25

Yes they are. You are being deliberately argumentative again.

If you refer to my op then you'll see the large caveat right at the start.

If we take your qualification just as an example, what percentage of UK employment requires it? Almost none is the answer. Same with mine.

Now, if you look at the broad UK employment sphere that is generally repeated. The majority of jobs in the UK do not require a specific degree or a degree at all.

You do touch on a relevant value in that the environment can serve broaden horizons and that wraps well into the general argument that as traditional employment for 16-18 year olds continue to shift offshore then trying to shift the average age of those leaving full time education higher so there is greater maturity is a necessary action but what this thread is more focused on is whether a degree is required for the police force or any of the careers/industries that comprise the largest element of the U.K. Workforce and the answer, when looking at traditional degrees, is very clearly no.

One of the huge upsides to having more people take degrees is that it increases their expectations and ambitions but the big question is whether the UK has enough employment roles that meet those requirements. In my personal professional experience it has not been beneficial. 95% of our industry employment is just traditional clerical work and the direct experience of modern graduates is that they are more transient than traditional school leavers, more expensive, more troublesome and absolutely no better at doing the work.

Outside of you professional environment, if you look around your local environment at the core employers you will notice that the vast majority of jobs do not have any need for an employee to be degree educated.

[Devil2575]

DonkeyApple said:

Yes they are. You are being deliberately argumentative again.

If you refer to my op then you'll see the large caveat right at the start.

If we take your qualification just as an example, what percentage of UK employment requires it? Almost none is the answer. Same with mine.

Now, if you look at the broad UK employment sphere that is generally repeated. The majority of jobs in the UK do not require a specific degree or a degree at all.

You do touch on a relevant value in that the environment can serve broaden horizons and that wraps well into the general argument that as traditional employment for 16-18 year olds continue to shift offshore then trying to shift the average age of those leaving full time education higher so there is greater maturity is a necessary action but what this thread is more focused on is whether a degree is required for the police force or any of the careers/industries that comprise the largest element of the U.K. Workforce and the answer, when looking at traditional degrees, is very clearly no.

One of the huge upsides to having more people take degrees is that it increases their expectations and ambitions but the big question is whether the UK has enough employment roles that meet those requirements. In my personal professional experience it has not been beneficial. 95% of our industry employment is just traditional clerical work and the direct experience of modern graduates is that they are more transient than traditional school leavers, more expensive, more troublesome and absolutely no better at doing the work.

Outside of you professional environment, if you look around your local environment at the core employers you will notice that the vast majority of jobs do not have any need for an employee to be degree educated.

95% is a very specific number. Can you back that up? I work in industry and 95% of the people who work here are not employed in clerical work and i'm not just refering to the engineers either.

I agree that the Police don't need a degree, but just because they don't need one doesn't mean that one would not be beneficial. As for your comment about graduates being more troublesome etc than traditional school leavers I'd also like to see some evidence for this.

While I'm not entirely convinced about the value of the numbers of people currently going to university, I don't think that means that the degrees they are obtaining are pretty worthless.

[DonkeyApple]

Devil2575 said:

95% is a very specific number. Can you back that up? I work in industry and 95% of the people who work here are not employed in clerical work and i'm not just refering to the engineers either.

I agree that the Police don't need a degree, but just because they don't need one doesn't mean that one would not be beneficial. As for your comment about graduates being more troublesome etc than traditional school leavers I'd also like to see some evidence for this.

While I'm not entirely convinced about the value of the numbers of people currently going to university, I don't think that means that the degrees they are obtaining are pretty worthless.

I work in finance, almost all employment is middle/back office clerical. No need for a specific degree. Re troublesome, hugely, to the point that the CV bin fills rapidly based in some very simple criteria in our business. Graduates have a natural expectation to progress either through management or to the front office historically and so the mismatch of expectations and the reality that most finance clerical work is exactly that, uniform clerical work and the result has been troublesome employees who because they have a degree expect to be promoted but are working in traditionally non degree work where there is no such mechanism. And you can see this in other industries, especially retail.

As I mentioned earlier, your industry is anomalous as an employer and you know this so just citing your, very small sector and making out this is a norm is incorrect. As I suggested, if you look around your non working environment you will see all too easily that the bulk of employment in the UK has no need of degree level qualified staff.

[Devil2575]

DonkeyApple said:

I work in finance, almost all employment is middle/back office clerical. No need for a specific degree. Re troublesome, hugely, to the point that the CV bin fills rapidly based in some very simple criteria in our business. Graduates have a natural expectation to progress either through management or to the front office historically and so the mismatch of expectations and the reality that most finance clerical work is exactly that, uniform clerical work and the result has been troublesome employees who because they have a degree expect to be promoted but are working in traditionally non degree work where there is no such mechanism. And you can see this in other industries, especially retail.

As I mentioned earlier, your industry is anomalous as an employer and you know this so just citing your, very small sector and making out this is a norm is incorrect. As I suggested, if you look around your non working environment you will see all too easily that the bulk of employment in the UK has no need of degree level qualified staff.

You're citing your industry as the norm and saying that your experiences match what happens elsewhere. What is the basis for this? As for my industry being anomolous, you only say that because you don't live in the same part of the country as me. There are plenty of employers like mine in this area. If I look at the jobs of the parents of other children at the primary shool my kids attend there are plenty of people that need a university degree and plenty that don't.

[Foppo]

Degree can't do any harm the more you learn the old story.Nephew of mine studied for a degree and later on took a bussines course.He is a director of a radio television company speaks a few languages and doing very well.

That doesn't stop anybody making a fortune or rising to the top job without a degree.I left school at sixteen and worked hard to provide for a family.More education might have gave me a easier live.Don't know.

[DonkeyApple]

Devil2575 said:

DonkeyApple said:

I work in finance, almost all employment is middle/back office clerical. No need for a specific degree. Re troublesome, hugely, to the point that the CV bin fills rapidly based in some very simple criteria in our business. Graduates have a natural expectation to progress either through management or to the front office historically and so the mismatch of expectations and the reality that most finance clerical work is exactly that, uniform clerical work and the result has been troublesome employees who because they have a degree expect to be promoted but are working in traditionally non degree work where there is no such mechanism. And you can see this in other industries, especially retail.

As I mentioned earlier, your industry is anomalous as an employer and you know this so just citing your, very small sector and making out this is a norm is incorrect. As I suggested, if you look around your non working environment you will see all too easily that the bulk of employment in the UK has no need of degree level qualified staff.

You're citing your industry as the norm and saying that your experiences match what happens elsewhere. What is the basis for this? As for my industry being anomolous, you only say that because you don't live in the same part of the country as me. There are plenty of employers like mine in this area. If I look at the jobs of the parents of other children at the primary shool my kids attend there are plenty of people that need a university degree and plenty that don't.

I'm not though, am I? You live in a relatively sparsely populated area and work in a very low employment arena so your personal example is very anomalous. Whereas, financial services is a significant UK employer and appropriate to look at as it generally has amongst the highest education requirements of the U.K. service industry.

That is also why I said we need to look at the UK as a whole and the overall employment sector and when we do we see just from looking around us that the majority of jobs while requiring intelligent and diligent staff simply do not need people to be university educated.

The service sector dominates the UK economy and for example, a dominant sector like financial services or retail is mostly comprised of what you would traditionally refer to as clerical jobs.

Even if we look away from the South East and to the North the figures will only be skewed in certain areas and that will most likely be the lovely legacy of the decline of British manufacturing and the corresponding rise in lower level unemployment.

The fact remains that not only does someone not need a degree to work in retail sales, communications, financial services, NHS, armed services, local authories, call centres, civil service, armed services or even manufacturing for the majority of the roles within those sectors but there is an ethical question as to whether encouraging people who will only ever be low to middle income earners with rather large debt is even appropriate.

And if we go back to the original topic of the police force, the traditional PC should be trained at the tax payers expense and not be expected to finance their own work education. They are an essential service and simply not paid enough to warrant sticking them with the bill for their education. Or worse, if this idea is not about privatising police training but about only accepting applicants who have been to university then this is total madness as there are far more suitable young people in the UK who don't have degrees and locking them out on those grounds instead of filter all applicants from all walks of life in their personal ability and suitability is downright, morally and ethically wrong. Let alone a recipe for long term disaster. Can anyone actually imagine anything worse than a police force comprised solely of graduates?

[Devil2575]

DonkeyApple said:

The fact remains that not only does someone not need a degree to work in retail sales, communications, financial services, NHS, armed services, local authories , call centres, civil service, armed services or even manufacturing for the majority of the roles within those sectors but there is an ethical question as to whether encouraging people who will only ever be low to middle income earners with rather large debt is even appropriate.

Can anyone actually imagine anything worse than a police force comprised solely of graduates?

I've bolded three there where I know it depends on what the job is. I'd imagine that you might want at least some people in the NHS who have a degree qualification. Communications again it's going to depend on the Job. Same for local authority. I know someone who has a very specific job in the local authority for which she obtained a specific degree in order to enable her to do it. I'm sure there are jobs in all the catagories you listed that require a degree.

I suspect someone on a low income would never actually pay back any of the debt anyway, what is the cut off? 21k?

I guess it depends on what you call middle earners. An engineer in my company would start on £36k a year and get to about 48k after 5 years. Oil and gas pay a little bit more but some pay less, £28k starting in some cases. However the job requires a degree. Do you think it unethical to require people to pay out for a degree when they are only going to earn £28k a year initially? Even at the end of their career there is no guarantee that they would be earning more than £40k in some companies. There is no guarantee of progression.

It's even worse if you work in chemistry where wages are lower still. You aint going to get a job working in a research lab without a science degree but wages are not that high. Is this unethical?

The issue here is the cost of a degree, and maybe the way forward is for employers to fund more employees through degree courses themselves.

Could I imagine anything worse than a Police force of graduates?

I don't know what you have in mind when you make that statement so I don't know.

Do I think that all Police officers should have a degree, no, that would be silly. Do I think it would be bad if they all did, no.

In the days when only the middle and upper classes went to University then it might have been an issue, but these days the middle class is much broader than it used to be and people from working class backgrounds also go.

[DonkeyApple]

Devil2575 said:

DonkeyApple said:

The fact remains that not only does someone not need a degree to work in retail sales, communications, financial services, NHS, armed services, local authories , call centres, civil service, armed services or even manufacturing for the majority of the roles within those sectors but there is an ethical question as to whether encouraging people who will only ever be low to middle income earners with rather large debt is even appropriate.

Can anyone actually imagine anything worse than a police force comprised solely of graduates?

I've bolded three there where I know it depends on what the job is. I'd imagine that you might want at least some people in the NHS who have a degree qualification. Communications again it's going to depend on the Job. Same for local authority. I know someone who has a very specific job in the local authority for which she obtained a specific degree in order to enable her to do it. I'm sure there are jobs in all the catagories you listed that require a degree.

I suspect someone on a low income would never actually pay back any of the debt anyway, what is the cut off? 21k?

I guess it depends on what you call middle earners. An engineer in my company would start on £36k a year and get to about 48k after 5 years. Oil and gas pay a little bit more but some pay less, £28k starting in some cases. However the job requires a degree. Do you think it unethical to require people to pay out for a degree when they are only going to earn £28k a year initially? Even at the end of their career there is no guarantee that they would be earning more than £40k in some companies. There is no guarantee of progression.

It's even worse if you work in chemistry where wages are lower still. You aint going to get a job working in a research lab without a science degree but wages are not that high. Is this unethical?

The issue here is the cost of a degree, and maybe the way forward is for employers to fund more employees through degree courses themselves.

Could I imagine anything worse than a Police force of graduates?

I don't know what you have in mind when you make that statement so I don't know.

Do I think that all Police officers should have a degree, no, that would be silly. Do I think it would be bad if they all did, no.

In the days when only the middle and upper classes went to University then it might have been an issue, but these days the middle class is much broader than it used to be and people from working class backgrounds also go.

dont forget that the NHS has far more clerical staff than frontline, where obviously a degree is typically required. That is why I included it in the list as it is one of the largest employers in the UK. Likewise with the other pair you've highlighted. And again, the industries you have cited as examples where degrees are almost prerequisite are low employers in contrast and can be considered anomalous in the UK, even more so as they require specific degrees. but that is the exact point, the number of jobs in the UK that require a specific degree level qualification is in reality tiny.

[Rovinghawk]

DonkeyApple said:

where obviously a degree is typically required.

Bear in mind also the difference between required & actually necessary to do the job.

[Devil2575]

DonkeyApple said:

...the number of jobs in the UK that require a specific degree level qualification is in reality tiny.

I'd dispute the use of the word tiny.

The majority of jobs don't but i'd wager there are at least over 1 million jobs that do.

There are over 150,000 doctors alone in the UK.

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

The "original" point - which you keep missing - is that trust is not an essential requirement of support.

Here's the original sequence:

V8 Fettler said:

La Liga said:

Rovinghawk said:

It's sad to say that the current government probably has greater public trust than the police. You might wish to address that.

And you've "probably" just made that up because it's what you want to be the case.



Plc vs Gov.

But who was voted in at the last general election? Was it not the senior Tory politicians?

1) RH said the current government is probably trusted more than the police.

2) I presented data indicating otherwise.

3) You quoted me suggesting that because senior Tory politicians were voted in that somehow undermined my data.

Nothing to do with 'trust vs support'. You've introduced that element as smoke and mirrors because you well know that individual politicians may not be trusted but their party can still be voted in, thus your original point (your original quote) is invalid.

[V8 Fettler]

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

There is no requirement for a by-election if a sitting MP crosses the house to another party, hence the previous election of that particular MP was the election of that MP, not the election of the party of which he was a member at the time of the election.

No-one knows what the government will do? Do you mean that no-one knew that various Tory governments were going to privatise state industries, cut union power and attempt to cut public sector expenditure? Those intentions were clear in 1979 and are just as clear today. It's bizarre that you should think it's some sort of mystery.

You're moving the goalposts by wandering off down the "How democratic is parliament?" route. It's about the election of untrusted Tory MPs to parliament irrespective of details of voter's enfranchisement.

I wasn't moving anything, merely pointing out that you have a confused idea of what we vote for in elections. We do not vote for policies. We vote a particular party in. The party is free to change its manifesto. For a rather simple one. let's take:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFVDOrF2Nrc

There are thousands of such examples.

The government did not say it would cut the police by 40%. Obviously not as it would have cost them votes. Members of the previous government stated quite clearly that they would not increase university fees. This was a move which increased costs for the taxpayer so again against what was promised.

The idea that most people vote for their specific MP is rather a sweet delusion. As I say, the people vote for a party. From what I can gather, they have since we became a democracy. They do not vote for specific policies because they are not listed before the vote.

The voting system for electing MPs in the UK relies on voting for a particular person in a particular constituency, it does not rely on voting a party into power in that particular constituency. If it were the latter then that party could retain power in that particular constituency if the sitting MP was sacked, died or resigned, but that clearly isn't the case and an election is required in those three scenarios. http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-v...

How people chose to interpret their democratic rights is up to them, perhaps they throw some dice.

Cameron's interview shows the perils on relying on words said "off the cuff"; general election issues should be set out using a measured approach in a formal document, which will annoy the media types who seek drama where there should be none.

Re: university fees, the LibDems deceived the British public by issuing a manifesto prior to the 2010 election and then claiming that it was was null and void following the coalition with the Tories. The public's response to this opportunist deceit was clear to see at the 2015 election.

The Tory party manifesto of 2015 stated that they would continue with the process of police reform, did you think that this meant reversing the cuts?

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

The "original" point - which you keep missing - is that trust is not an essential requirement of support.

Here's the original sequence:

V8 Fettler said:

La Liga said:

Rovinghawk said:

It's sad to say that the current government probably has greater public trust than the police. You might wish to address that.

And you've "probably" just made that up because it's what you want to be the case.



Plc vs Gov.

But who was voted in at the last general election? Was it not the senior Tory politicians?

1) RH said the current government is probably trusted more than the police.

2) I presented data indicating otherwise.

3) You quoted me suggesting that because senior Tory politicians were voted in that somehow undermined my data.

Nothing to do with 'trust vs support'. You've introduced that element as smoke and mirrors because you well know that individual politicians may not be trusted but their party can still be voted in, thus your original point (your original quote) is invalid.

The "voting in" of senior Tory party politicians undermines the view that public trust is directly related to public support where it matters: at the ballot box. Your views are restricted by your reliance on graphical data, you would do well to see the bigger picture of why the police fail to generate wider public support in the battle against the cuts.

[Derek Smith]

V8 Fettler said:

The voting system for electing MPs in the UK relies on voting for a particular person in a particular constituency, it does not rely on voting a party into power in that particular constituency. If it were the latter then that party could retain power in that particular constituency if the sitting MP was sacked, died or resigned, but that clearly isn't the case and an election is required in those three scenarios. http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-v...

How people chose to interpret their democratic rights is up to them, perhaps they throw some dice.

Cameron's interview shows the perils on relying on words said "off the cuff"; general election issues should be set out using a measured approach in a formal document, which will annoy the media types who seek drama where there should be none.

Re: university fees, the LibDems deceived the British public by issuing a manifesto prior to the 2010 election and then claiming that it was was null and void following the coalition with the Tories. The public's response to this opportunist deceit was clear to see at the 2015 election.

The Tory party manifesto of 2015 stated that they would continue with the process of police reform, did you think that this meant reversing the cuts?

That is plainly wrong. People in the main vote for parties. There is no sensible option. I vote for a person in the main but the result of this is that 'my' candidate falls by the wayside and, in my present constituency, a lazy oaf gets in.

PH itself shows that people support parties in the main and not individuals.

The suggestion that Cameraon's remarks were unplanned is a little wide of the mark I believe. Listen again. They were a politician's weasel words. As if a senior politician would say anything on TV that is not pre planned. The idea in nonsensical.

There has been no reform of the police. Non at all. There have been cuts on cuts on cuts, but no reform. The police need reform, the servicing officers on here cry out for it, but the government, as have governments before, ignore them.

I've read all the tory manifestos. Nowhere did it say that the number of police officers would be cut by around 40% nor that there would be no more patrolling officers, I can assure you of that.

V8 Fettler said:

The "voting in" of senior Tory party politicians undermines the view that public trust is directly related to public support where it matters: at the ballot box. Your views are restricted by your reliance on graphical data, you would do well to see the bigger picture of why the police fail to generate wider public support in the battle against the cuts.

You deny the stats and then twist logic. If there is just two parties in the frame, both of which are bad as one-another, then voting for one over the other merely shows preference at that time. That it obvious. Further, the tories were voted in by <33% (from memory) of the electorate. I trust you are not going to twist that was a vote of confidence.

Get over the fact that people trust police much more than politicians. They trust journalists more than politicians.

You need to accept that this is despite an anti-police tirade from the government and right wing papers and other media outlets as well as anti-police sentiment from labour and the left leaning media outlets.

I reckon that at the next election the labour party, or the biggest party in opposition, will support expanding the police as a vote winner.

The public has an effective choice of two. It can either shown its distrust by not voting or it can vote for those they see as marginally better. The only alternative is to do what I do and waste my vote in the main by opting for someone whom I think might do a good job.

[Devil2575]

V8 Fettler said:

The "voting in" of senior Tory party politicians undermines the view that public trust is directly related to public support where it matters: at the ballot box. Your views are restricted by your reliance on graphical data, you would do well to see the bigger picture of why the police fail to generate wider public support in the battle against the cuts.

What are you talking about?

There is data to show that the Police are more trusted than politicians. If you wish to assert that it is unreliable you need to actualy provide some evidence to support this rather than just waffling on about people voting.

You'd do well to actually back up your argument with data.

[V8 Fettler]

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

The voting system for electing MPs in the UK relies on voting for a particular person in a particular constituency, it does not rely on voting a party into power in that particular constituency. If it were the latter then that party could retain power in that particular constituency if the sitting MP was sacked, died or resigned, but that clearly isn't the case and an election is required in those three scenarios. http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-v...

How people chose to interpret their democratic rights is up to them, perhaps they throw some dice.

Cameron's interview shows the perils on relying on words said "off the cuff"; general election issues should be set out using a measured approach in a formal document, which will annoy the media types who seek drama where there should be none.

Re: university fees, the LibDems deceived the British public by issuing a manifesto prior to the 2010 election and then claiming that it was was null and void following the coalition with the Tories. The public's response to this opportunist deceit was clear to see at the 2015 election.

The Tory party manifesto of 2015 stated that they would continue with the process of police reform, did you think that this meant reversing the cuts?

That is plainly wrong. People in the main vote for parties. There is no sensible option. I vote for a person in the main but the result of this is that 'my' candidate falls by the wayside and, in my present constituency, a lazy oaf gets in.

PH itself shows that people support parties in the main and not individuals.

The suggestion that Cameraon's remarks were unplanned is a little wide of the mark I believe. Listen again. They were a politician's weasel words. As if a senior politician would say anything on TV that is not pre planned. The idea in nonsensical.

There has been no reform of the police. Non at all. There have been cuts on cuts on cuts, but no reform. The police need reform, the servicing officers on here cry out for it, but the government, as have governments before, ignore them.

I've read all the tory manifestos. Nowhere did it say that the number of police officers would be cut by around 40% nor that there would be no more patrolling officers, I can assure you of that.

V8 Fettler said:

The "voting in" of senior Tory party politicians undermines the view that public trust is directly related to public support where it matters: at the ballot box. Your views are restricted by your reliance on graphical data, you would do well to see the bigger picture of why the police fail to generate wider public support in the battle against the cuts.

You deny the stats and then twist logic. If there is just two parties in the frame, both of which are bad as one-another, then voting for one over the other merely shows preference at that time. That it obvious. Further, the tories were voted in by <33% (from memory) of the electorate. I trust you are not going to twist that was a vote of confidence.

Get over the fact that people trust police much more than politicians. They trust journalists more than politicians.

You need to accept that this is despite an anti-police tirade from the government and right wing papers and other media outlets as well as anti-police sentiment from labour and the left leaning media outlets.

I reckon that at the next election the labour party, or the biggest party in opposition, will support expanding the police as a vote winner.

The public has an effective choice of two. It can either shown its distrust by not voting or it can vote for those they see as marginally better. The only alternative is to do what I do and waste my vote in the main by opting for someone whom I think might do a good job.

I've explained to you how the system is designed to work with a supporting link, are you claiming that the system is designed to work in some other manner? How people choose to vote is a matter for them, perhaps "pinning the tail to the ballot paper"?

Reliance on weasel words from talking heads can be reduced by making decisions based on formal, written documents, not meedjia shows where point scoring is more important than accurately stating intentions.

If people choose not to vote then that is their decision, although a big flaw in the current process is the lack of a box marked "none of the above".

Again, you're confusing trust with support. It's important to understand the difference.