University degree required to join the police

[V8 Fettler]

Devil2575 said:

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.

You're confusing trust with support. It's important to understand the difference.

[Devil2575]

V8 Fettler said:

Devil2575 said:

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.

You're confusing trust with support. It's important to understand the difference.

No I'm not.

[Derek Smith]

V8 Fettler said:

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.

The history of this country's system of government is available to anyone with an idea of how to use Google. It was, up until arguably 1918, but definitely 1928, a system not of party politics but of interest groups. The current system developed from 1928 when all of a sudden there was, more or less, a democracy.

What that meant was that party politics, as we know it today, came about, albeit slowly. It is only a democracy in the sense that we vote a party in and they make decisions for us, now for five years! Sneaked in recently was a change so that votes of no confidence have no real effect.

It is, quite clearly, a vote for two options. Voting is not a declaration of support certainly not trust, just a question of which they prefer, or probably which they think will do the least damage to one's life.

You must accept that very few people trust MPs. So where does that leave voting? It's the only game in town. One has to play it or accept that an individual has limited influence.

What is obvious is that the police are much more trusted and trustworthy than politicians.

Where is the IPCC for MPs?

Bad apples are exposed in the police as much as they are exposed in parliament. The difference being that the police officer can be dealt with. In the case of an MP they just carry on if, like my constituency, it is a safe seat for a particular party.

You glibly suggest that you have explained how the system is designed to work.

I've explained how it works in practice.

To misquote you: 'you're confusing intent with how it actually works. It's important to understand the difference.' But you seem to ignore this.

Look to history from 1832, the first reform act (which was nothing of the sort of course) to nowadays. You will then be able to understand the limits of democracy.

It, like the present government, is far from perfect. They are both riddled with systems which are unfair, biased against certain sections of the populace, and wasteful. However, it is probably better than the alternative.

One major problem with our system of government is those who do it.

[anonymous-user]

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.

Who was talking about support from RH's original point and my original reply to him you quoted (a question you'll ignore)?

You replied to two people specifically talking about trust and made no mention of "support" in your reply. This is because your suggestion of Tory politicians still being voted in despite the indications they aren't well trusted was originally intended to suggest that the data was wrong because people would have to trust them to vote them in.

If it weren't, and were a wider point about support, then why would you not mention it since it was clearly something different to what you were replying to?

Was the reader meant to have a crystal ball and know that when you were replying to two people talking about trust, you actually meant something different?

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?

V8 Fettler said:

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.

I'd prefer the graphical data rather than making assumptions about the "bigger picture" that are pretty much an opinion.

There are so many variables:

- Do the public see turning a deficit into surplus as more important?
- Have the public not seen a sufficient reduction in service?
- Are the greater impacts delayed so the effects won't be felt for a while?
- Do they believe the government when it says things like, "the front line is protected?"
- Do they just accept what the state will do and know there is little they can do about it?

Etc etc. All unknowns that can only be speculated upon, so we must rely on our opinions which are very likely to suffer from bias.

[V8 Fettler]

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

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.

The history of this country's system of government is available to anyone with an idea of how to use Google. It was, up until arguably 1918, but definitely 1928, a system not of party politics but of interest groups. The current system developed from 1928 when all of a sudden there was, more or less, a democracy.

What that meant was that party politics, as we know it today, came about, albeit slowly. It is only a democracy in the sense that we vote a party in and they make decisions for us, now for five years! Sneaked in recently was a change so that votes of no confidence have no real effect.

It is, quite clearly, a vote for two options. Voting is not a declaration of support certainly not trust, just a question of which they prefer, or probably which they think will do the least damage to one's life.

You must accept that very few people trust MPs. So where does that leave voting? It's the only game in town. One has to play it or accept that an individual has limited influence.

What is obvious is that the police are much more trusted and trustworthy than politicians.

Where is the IPCC for MPs?

Bad apples are exposed in the police as much as they are exposed in parliament. The difference being that the police officer can be dealt with. In the case of an MP they just carry on if, like my constituency, it is a safe seat for a particular party.

You glibly suggest that you have explained how the system is designed to work.

I've explained how it works in practice.

To misquote you: 'you're confusing intent with how it actually works. It's important to understand the difference.' But you seem to ignore this.

Look to history from 1832, the first reform act (which was nothing of the sort of course) to nowadays. You will then be able to understand the limits of democracy.

It, like the present government, is far from perfect. They are both riddled with systems which are unfair, biased against certain sections of the populace, and wasteful. However, it is probably better than the alternative.

One major problem with our system of government is those who do it.

I'll answer the major points you've raised, but I'll ignore your usual waffle.

Your comments re: rise of democracy are irrelevant to the concept of voting for someone rather than voting for a party at an election. A vote is a vote.

A vote for a prospective MP indicates support for that person's intentions if they become an MP, it could hardly be a vote against that person's intentions. That support can exist even if trust levels are minimal.

The party system in Parliament arose when the first leaders appeared, probably early 18th century with Walpole.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

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.

Who was talking about support from RH's original point and my original reply to him you quoted (a question you'll ignore)?

You replied to two people specifically talking about trust and made no mention of "support" in your reply. This is because your suggestion of Tory politicians still being voted in despite the indications they aren't well trusted was originally intended to suggest that the data was wrong because people would have to trust them to vote them in.

If it weren't, and were a wider point about support, then why would you not mention it since it was clearly something different to what you were replying to?

Was the reader meant to have a crystal ball and know that when you were replying to two people talking about trust, you actually meant something different?

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?

V8 Fettler said:

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.

I'd prefer the graphical data rather than making assumptions about the "bigger picture" that are pretty much an opinion.

There are so many variables:

- Do the public see turning a deficit into surplus as more important?
- Have the public not seen a sufficient reduction in service?
- Are the greater impacts delayed so the effects won't be felt for a while?
- Do they believe the government when it says things like, "the front line is protected?"
- Do they just accept what the state will do and know there is little they can do about it?

Etc etc. All unknowns that can only be speculated upon, so we must rely on our opinions which are very likely to suffer from bias.

You appear to be critical of where, when and how I can post on PH. Is it a control thing?

Where have I said that trust is the basis for voting someone in as an MP? You're making flawed assumptions on minimal evidence. Unless you are me you cannot possibly have full knowledge of my intentions when posting.

You are clearly in your bunker re: trust, and you continue to fail to see the importance of support over trust. There is a wider view here: your representatives at the Federation also have very little perception of the need to create meaningful support for the police, same applies to many senior police officers. You need to identify why the one political party who should support you to the hilt is instead inflicting substantial cuts on the police budget.

There are indeed unknowns, but a certainty is that the British public elected the Tories in 2015 to continue with austerity, including reform of the police and the drive to reduce budgets.

[V8 Fettler]

Devil2575 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Devil2575 said:

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.

You're confusing trust with support. It's important to understand the difference.

No I'm not.

I'll spell it out for you: the Tories were elected irrespective of levels of trust. If you want data to support this then count the number of Tory MPs.

[RogueTrooper]

V8 Fettler said:

a certainty is that the British public elected the Tories in 2015 to continue with austerity, including reform of the police and the drive to reduce budgets.

In what way(s) have the police been reformed so far?

All I see is cuts, to the detriment of the service delivered. Paperwork hasn't been reduced, despite Mr Cameron's repeated claims to have cut "red tape."

The number of front line officers certainly hasn't increased either, despite claims to the contrary.

[Derek Smith]

V8 Fettler said:

I'll answer the major points you've raised, but I'll ignore your usual waffle.

Your comments re: rise of democracy are irrelevant to the concept of voting for someone rather than voting for a party at an election. A vote is a vote.

A vote for a prospective MP indicates support for that person's intentions if they become an MP, it could hardly be a vote against that person's intentions. That support can exist even if trust levels are minimal.

The party system in Parliament arose when the first leaders appeared, probably early 18th century with Walpole.

I enjoy an argument about political history in this country, but I'll let it go now.

Your suggestion that people vote for an MP is fantasy. You bring in no evidence to support your contention. Your logic is painful.

In a survey, the public was asked to name their MP. Less than a quarter could. I wonder how many voters, you know those who carefully balanced the options, could name both major party contenders. Then there are the minor parties and the independents.

The low level of political knowledge in the electorate gave rise to quite a bit of discussion in various media outlets. I'm surprised you missed it. Many focused on the distrust of MPs, particularly in that they say one thing and do another.

Just accept that there is much more support and trust for the police than for MPs.

[Derek Smith]

RogueTrooper said:

In what way(s) have the police been reformed so far?

All I see is cuts, to the detriment of the service delivered. Paperwork hasn't been reduced, despite Mr Cameron's repeated claims to have cut "red tape."

The number of front line officers certainly hasn't increased either, despite claims to the contrary.

That is the problem, I fear. The last reform was 1984. Since then it has been make do and mend. As you quite rightly point out, the bureaucracy has not decreased, despite the suggestion that it has. The number of front line officers has dropped dramatically in my force area. We often have just one, often single crewed, traffic car on duty.

Edited by Derek Smith on Saturday 21st November 11:21

[RogueTrooper]

Similar here, at times.

[anonymous-user]

La Liga said:

Who was talking about support from RH's original point and my original reply to him you quoted (a question you'll ignore)?

I was right about this question in the brackets.

V8 Fettler said:

You appear to be critical of where, when and how I can post on PH. Is it a control thing?

I have little interest in all three. However, I think it's reasonable for you to be clear what you are talking about and the point you are making when replying to my post.

If you were talking about support when replying to two people talking about trust, then write it. We don't have crystal balls.

V8 Fettler said:

Where have I said that trust is the basis for voting someone in as an MP? You're making flawed assumptions on minimal evidence. Unless you are me you cannot possibly have full knowledge of my intentions when posting.

Exactly, which is why you need to be clear when the one means of communication is the written word.

If two people are talking about trust and you write:

V8 Fettler said:

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

Then the reader is invited to draw their own inferences as to what you mean, and since the two previous posters you are quoting are talking about trust, and you specifically mention one of the categories from the data talking about trust, the inference likely to be drawn is that you are also talking about trust.

Do you see that as unreasonable? Or do you think leaving things 'ambiguous' is helpful for room for manoeuvre as it suits later?

If two people are having a conversation about BMWs and I come and say, "I think they are nose-heavy and under-steer", they may object. I wouldn't later consider it reasonable to say, "Oh, I was talking about Audis. I didn't actually say that but why would you assume I wasn't even though I gave no indication I was?"

V8 Fettler said:

You are clearly in your bunker re: trust, and you continue to fail to see the importance of support over trust.

I was answering a specific point, which it appears you are failing to see. Had he been talking about support, then I may have answered questions around that. The only person trying to cloud the issue is you.

V8 Fettler said:

There are indeed unknowns, but a certainty is that the British public elected the Tories in 2015 to continue with austerity, including reform of the police and the drive to reduce budgets.

They voted them in who will continue austerity. You're making an assumption as to the cause and effect when you say "to continue". I don't have full knowledge of your intentions because you aren't clear enough, but any link as to the motivations for voting and support / trust for the police are total unknowns and a waste of time to speculate upon.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

La Liga said:

Who was talking about support from RH's original point and my original reply to him you quoted (a question you'll ignore)?

I was right about this question in the brackets.

V8 Fettler said:

You appear to be critical of where, when and how I can post on PH. Is it a control thing?

I have little interest in all three. However, I think it's reasonable for you to be clear what you are talking about and the point you are making when replying to my post.

If you were talking about support when replying to two people talking about trust, then write it. We don't have crystal balls.

V8 Fettler said:

Where have I said that trust is the basis for voting someone in as an MP? You're making flawed assumptions on minimal evidence. Unless you are me you cannot possibly have full knowledge of my intentions when posting.

Exactly, which is why you need to be clear when the one means of communication is the written word.

If two people are talking about trust and you write:

V8 Fettler said:

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

Then the reader is invited to draw their own inferences as to what you mean, and since the two previous posters you are quoting are talking about trust, and you specifically mention one of the categories from the data talking about trust, the inference likely to be drawn is that you are also talking about trust.

Do you see that as unreasonable? Or do you think leaving things 'ambiguous' is helpful for room for manoeuvre as it suits later?

If two people are having a conversation about BMWs and I come and say, "I think they are nose-heavy and under-steer", they may object. I wouldn't later consider it reasonable to say, "Oh, I was talking about Audis. I didn't actually say that but why would you assume I wasn't even though I gave no indication I was?"

V8 Fettler said:

You are clearly in your bunker re: trust, and you continue to fail to see the importance of support over trust.

I was answering a specific point, which it appears you are failing to see. Had he been talking about support, then I may have answered questions around that. The only person trying to cloud the issue is you.

V8 Fettler said:

There are indeed unknowns, but a certainty is that the British public elected the Tories in 2015 to continue with austerity, including reform of the police and the drive to reduce budgets.

They voted them in who will continue austerity. You're making an assumption as to the cause and effect when you say "to continue". I don't have full knowledge of your intentions because you aren't clear enough, but any link as to the motivations for voting and support / trust for the police are total unknowns and a waste of time to speculate upon.

Your garbled first question was dealt with by my "where, when and how to post" response.

Thanks for your orders on how to write. I assume that in real life you have a position of authority, fortunately on PH that is not the case.

Hardly my responsibility if you jump to the wrong conclusions regarding the content of posts, perhaps you need to take the wider view before jumping in feet first.

You are free to draw whatever inferences you wish, but you really should consider getting out of that bunker.

The Audi/BMW comparison is meaningless.

The electorate at the 2015 election had a clear choice:
Vote Tory for more public sector budget cuts, including budget cuts to the police service.
Vote Labour for less public sector cuts.

[V8 Fettler]

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

I'll answer the major points you've raised, but I'll ignore your usual waffle.

Your comments re: rise of democracy are irrelevant to the concept of voting for someone rather than voting for a party at an election. A vote is a vote.

A vote for a prospective MP indicates support for that person's intentions if they become an MP, it could hardly be a vote against that person's intentions. That support can exist even if trust levels are minimal.

The party system in Parliament arose when the first leaders appeared, probably early 18th century with Walpole.

I enjoy an argument about political history in this country, but I'll let it go now.

Your suggestion that people vote for an MP is fantasy. You bring in no evidence to support your contention. Your logic is painful.

In a survey, the public was asked to name their MP. Less than a quarter could. I wonder how many voters, you know those who carefully balanced the options, could name both major party contenders. Then there are the minor parties and the independents.

The low level of political knowledge in the electorate gave rise to quite a bit of discussion in various media outlets. I'm surprised you missed it. Many focused on the distrust of MPs, particularly in that they say one thing and do another.

Just accept that there is much more support and trust for the police than for MPs.

Derek, I enjoyed reading your book, the waffle was entertaining, but is it not possible for you to be concise? Here it is again:

parliament.uk said:

A seat becomes vacant during the lifetime of a Parliament either when an MP resigns from Parliament, for example to take up a job which by law cannot be done by an MP, or because an MP has died. The law also allows a seat to be declared vacant because of a Member's bankruptcy, mental illness or conviction for a serious criminal offence.

If the system was designed for a party to be elected in a particular constituency then there would be no requirement to hold a by-election if an MP was no longer associated with that constituency. The party concerned could wheel in another puppet.

Where have I raised the question of who has greater trust, MPs or the police?

I very rarely accept anything because someone tells me to, that won't change here.

[V8 Fettler]

RogueTrooper said:

V8 Fettler said:

a certainty is that the British public elected the Tories in 2015 to continue with austerity, including reform of the police and the drive to reduce budgets.

In what way(s) have the police been reformed so far?

All I see is cuts, to the detriment of the service delivered. Paperwork hasn't been reduced, despite Mr Cameron's repeated claims to have cut "red tape."

The number of front line officers certainly hasn't increased either, despite claims to the contrary.

Reform is the word used in the 2015 Tory manifesto. Perhaps the real question is: how is reform measured? Possibly by looking at trends in reported crime?

[Derek Smith]

V8 Fettler said:

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

I'll answer the major points you've raised, but I'll ignore your usual waffle.

Your comments re: rise of democracy are irrelevant to the concept of voting for someone rather than voting for a party at an election. A vote is a vote.

A vote for a prospective MP indicates support for that person's intentions if they become an MP, it could hardly be a vote against that person's intentions. That support can exist even if trust levels are minimal.

The party system in Parliament arose when the first leaders appeared, probably early 18th century with Walpole.

I enjoy an argument about political history in this country, but I'll let it go now.

Your suggestion that people vote for an MP is fantasy. You bring in no evidence to support your contention. Your logic is painful.

In a survey, the public was asked to name their MP. Less than a quarter could. I wonder how many voters, you know those who carefully balanced the options, could name both major party contenders. Then there are the minor parties and the independents.

The low level of political knowledge in the electorate gave rise to quite a bit of discussion in various media outlets. I'm surprised you missed it. Many focused on the distrust of MPs, particularly in that they say one thing and do another.

Just accept that there is much more support and trust for the police than for MPs.

Derek, I enjoyed reading your book, the waffle was entertaining, but is it not possible for you to be concise? Here it is again:

parliament.uk said:

A seat becomes vacant during the lifetime of a Parliament either when an MP resigns from Parliament, for example to take up a job which by law cannot be done by an MP, or because an MP has died. The law also allows a seat to be declared vacant because of a Member's bankruptcy, mental illness or conviction for a serious criminal offence.

If the system was designed for a party to be elected in a particular constituency then there would be no requirement to hold a by-election if an MP was no longer associated with that constituency. The party concerned could wheel in another puppet.

Where have I raised the question of who has greater trust, MPs or the police?

I very rarely accept anything because someone tells me to, that won't change here.

I enjoy being patronised as much as the next person.

You ask for concision, but when a simple statement is made, you suggest you will not accept it. You seem to define support for a proposition as waffle. I note your arguments are devoid of waffle then. It is difficult to argue with someone who, like you, makes statements without substance and then feels the argument is concluded, but here goes.

You suggest there was some form of design to our system of government. That shows a certain ignorance of the history of parliament in this country. Its only ‘design’ was after the stuarts were removed. After the first two Georges rattled along happily, Geo. III turned it on its head and young Pitt and he ran the country. Pitt was the leader of a political party as such, the tories, where there was a certain anti-parliamentary desire and a sometimes overt support for the return of the stuarts.

Parliamentary reform was started by the other grouping, the whigs, not for any esoteric reason but as an attempt to regain some form of power.

You can, of course, refuse to accept this, but I would refer you to evidence and a multitude of references in The Forging of Early Industrial Britain, by Evans. It contains that wonderful thing, information.

Behind me on my shelves is Parliamentary Reform, 1785-1928, by Lang. The dates are significant, especially the 1928.

The system that has evolved is on one party government in effect. If you are not in power, you chances of influencing parliamentary decisions are poor.

So concision: 22% of people can name their local MP. The conclusion is that people, in the main, do not vote for a person.

(There has been a contraction of the development on parliament in the post 17thc British civil wars period.)



Edited to correct the name of the book: The Forging of the Modern State: Early Industrial Britain, 1783-1870 (Foundations of Modern Britain)

As a reviewer states, crammed full of facts.

Edited by Derek Smith on Sunday 22 November 10:02

[anonymous-user]

La Liga said:

Who was talking about support from RH's original point and my original reply to him you quoted (a question you'll ignore)?

La Liga said:

I was right about this question in the brackets.

V8 Fettler said:

Your garbled first question was dealt with by my "where, when and how to post" response.

Is this your role model? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk

V8 Fettler said:

Hardly my responsibility if you jump to the wrong conclusions regarding the content of posts, perhaps you need to take the wider view before jumping in feet first.

You're right, the writer of a message has no responsibility to ensure their message is clear. When you respond to two people talking about trust, it was everyone else's fault they didn't realise you were talking about something completely different.

V8 Fettler said:

The Audi/BMW comparison is meaningless.

Apart from it's exactly the same. A third party coming into a conversation and talking about something different without letting the other parties know.

V8 Fettler said:

The electorate at the 2015 election had a clear choice:
Vote Tory for more public sector budget cuts, including budget cuts to the police service.
Vote Labour for less public sector cuts.

How is that relevant to trust? Smoke and mirrors.

V8 Fettler said:

Reform is the word used in the 2015 Tory manifesto.

It must be true then.

V8 Fettler said:

Perhaps the real question is: how is reform measured? Possibly by looking at trends in reported crime?

Perhaps not, since wider socio-economic factors play such a large part. I thought you were into this whole 'big picture' thing.

It helps if measurements aren't influenced by many external variables that are hard to account for. It's a bit like trying to make a link (although not one you'll state explicitly, because being unclear allows you to change it later) between the government being voted in with X economic plans, and support for the police from the public.

[Devil2575]

V8 Fettler said:

I'll spell it out for you: the Tories were elected irrespective of levels of trust. If you want data to support this then count the number of Tory MPs.

I get that, it's just up until the last few posts no one else has been talking about support, the subject has been trust.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

La Liga said:

Who was talking about support from RH's original point and my original reply to him you quoted (a question you'll ignore)?

La Liga said:

I was right about this question in the brackets.

V8 Fettler said:

Your garbled first question was dealt with by my "where, when and how to post" response.

Is this your role model? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk

V8 Fettler said:

Hardly my responsibility if you jump to the wrong conclusions regarding the content of posts, perhaps you need to take the wider view before jumping in feet first.

You're right, the writer of a message has no responsibility to ensure their message is clear. When you respond to two people talking about trust, it was everyone else's fault they didn't realise you were talking about something completely different.

V8 Fettler said:

The Audi/BMW comparison is meaningless.

Apart from it's exactly the same. A third party coming into a conversation and talking about something different without letting the other parties know.

V8 Fettler said:

The electorate at the 2015 election had a clear choice:
Vote Tory for more public sector budget cuts, including budget cuts to the police service.
Vote Labour for less public sector cuts.

How is that relevant to trust? Smoke and mirrors.

V8 Fettler said:

Reform is the word used in the 2015 Tory manifesto.

It must be true then.

V8 Fettler said:

Perhaps the real question is: how is reform measured? Possibly by looking at trends in reported crime?

Perhaps not, since wider socio-economic factors play such a large part. I thought you were into this whole 'big picture' thing.

It helps if measurements aren't influenced by many external variables that are hard to account for. It's a bit like trying to make a link (although not one you'll state explicitly, because being unclear allows you to change it later) between the government being voted in with X economic plans, and support for the police from the public.

I'm surprised that you've reached the flailing stage so soon, I had thought that you had more control than that.

Again, you're trying to blame me because you reached the wrong conclusion about my post, you probably need to take some control and stop jumping in feet first. As I alluded to earlier in this thread, we've covered the trust thing in a previous thread.

I see you're trying to create yet more rules on posting, I take it you enjoy making rules.

Again, you're overplaying the importance of trust when you and your colleagues within your profession should be concentrating on gaining support from the public and from your natural supporters in the Tory party.

If you have a problem with the Tory use of the word reform with regards to the police then take it up with the Tories.

How do you propose to measure the effectiveness of the police if you are not going to consider the changes in the level of reported crime over time?

If the public supported the police in the way they support the NHS then funding for the police would be ring fenced.

[V8 Fettler]

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

I'll answer the major points you've raised, but I'll ignore your usual waffle.

Your comments re: rise of democracy are irrelevant to the concept of voting for someone rather than voting for a party at an election. A vote is a vote.

A vote for a prospective MP indicates support for that person's intentions if they become an MP, it could hardly be a vote against that person's intentions. That support can exist even if trust levels are minimal.

The party system in Parliament arose when the first leaders appeared, probably early 18th century with Walpole.

I enjoy an argument about political history in this country, but I'll let it go now.

Your suggestion that people vote for an MP is fantasy. You bring in no evidence to support your contention. Your logic is painful.

In a survey, the public was asked to name their MP. Less than a quarter could. I wonder how many voters, you know those who carefully balanced the options, could name both major party contenders. Then there are the minor parties and the independents.

The low level of political knowledge in the electorate gave rise to quite a bit of discussion in various media outlets. I'm surprised you missed it. Many focused on the distrust of MPs, particularly in that they say one thing and do another.

Just accept that there is much more support and trust for the police than for MPs.

Derek, I enjoyed reading your book, the waffle was entertaining, but is it not possible for you to be concise? Here it is again:

parliament.uk said:

A seat becomes vacant during the lifetime of a Parliament either when an MP resigns from Parliament, for example to take up a job which by law cannot be done by an MP, or because an MP has died. The law also allows a seat to be declared vacant because of a Member's bankruptcy, mental illness or conviction for a serious criminal offence.

If the system was designed for a party to be elected in a particular constituency then there would be no requirement to hold a by-election if an MP was no longer associated with that constituency. The party concerned could wheel in another puppet.

Where have I raised the question of who has greater trust, MPs or the police?

I very rarely accept anything because someone tells me to, that won't change here.

I enjoy being patronised as much as the next person.

You ask for concision, but when a simple statement is made, you suggest you will not accept it. You seem to define support for a proposition as waffle. I note your arguments are devoid of waffle then. It is difficult to argue with someone who, like you, makes statements without substance and then feels the argument is concluded, but here goes.

You suggest there was some form of design to our system of government. That shows a certain ignorance of the history of parliament in this country. Its only ‘design’ was after the stuarts were removed. After the first two Georges rattled along happily, Geo. III turned it on its head and young Pitt and he ran the country. Pitt was the leader of a political party as such, the tories, where there was a certain anti-parliamentary desire and a sometimes overt support for the return of the stuarts.

Parliamentary reform was started by the other grouping, the whigs, not for any esoteric reason but as an attempt to regain some form of power.

You can, of course, refuse to accept this, but I would refer you to evidence and a multitude of references in The Forging of Early Industrial Britain, by Evans. It contains that wonderful thing, information.

Behind me on my shelves is Parliamentary Reform, 1785-1928, by Lang. The dates are significant, especially the 1928.

The system that has evolved is on one party government in effect. If you are not in power, you chances of influencing parliamentary decisions are poor.

So concision: 22% of people can name their local MP. The conclusion is that people, in the main, do not vote for a person.

(There has been a contraction of the development on parliament in the post 17thc British civil wars period.)



Edited to correct the name of the book: The Forging of the Modern State: Early Industrial Britain, 1783-1870 (Foundations of Modern Britain)

As a reviewer states, crammed full of facts.

Edited by Derek Smith on Sunday 22 November 10:02

Patronising? Not at all, just a concise statement of fact. I'm surprised that concise is within your vocabulary.

A Parliamentary party cannot be a party unless it has a leader, the first generally acknowledged leader of a Parliamentary party was Walpole, ergo he led the first Parliamentary party. It's not that difficult to be concise.

Again, it's there in black and white: the current system is designed around the election of an MP in a particular constituency, the current system is designed to require another election in that particular constituency if that MP steps down. Furthermore, if he crosses the floor to another party as a sitting MP there is no requirement for another election in that particular constituency.

How the general public chose to interpret and use the current design is up to them.