trousers

Write a post with the player's surname coincidently appearing down the left hand side

I think that's what Verbal calls "patronising the British electorate".... ;-)

Indeed. So why go to all this trouble to change something that the majority don't care about?

Possibly

Technically, yes.....but, are you suggesting that the most likely reason people won't vote in the referendum is because they are unhappy with FPTP? Of the two assumptions we can draw from the apathy of the non-voters, which do you think is the most likely reason? (a) because they are not sufficiently unhappy with the current system or (b) because they are sufficiently unhappy with the current system? Sometimes, reasonable argument has to be made on reasonable assumptions rather than black and white 'fact'

Nutshell

But doesn't that amount to the same thing that I was suggesting....i.e. that the vast majority of people in this country are not unhappy enough with the current system to warrant changing it? In other words, by not kicking up a fuss about it the silent majority are actually (albeit inadvertantly) giving off a very strong democratic message?

It depends how one views the vast majority who won't feel the urge to get off their backsides to vote for a change in the voting system. Some would argue that, logically, those that don't vote to change the voting system are, by default, content with the status quo. It could therefore be argued that c.80% of people are not unhappy to stick with FPTP (i.e. those who vote to keep it + those who abstain) Crap analogy alert... If someone asks me 'today' whether I am happy to keep driving my Ford, there are two ways to demonstrate that, yes, I am happy to keep driving it: either I say to him "yes, I am happy" or I ignore him but the next time he sees me six months later I'm still driving the same Ford. He would therefore logically assume that I am still happy with it (i.e. the most likely assumption)

The mighty COAST at Talking Heads this Friday (29th April)..... Sod the Royal Wedding parties, come down to the Talking Heads for a proper knees up!

This. The voting system for Player of the Year is quite clearly flawed.

I think it's one of those "re-arrange these words into a well know phrase" quizzes.... ;-)

But, given the British electorate are predominantly clever and astute, the 'yes' campaign have nothing to fear by such scaremongering from the 'no' campaign....surely?

Just to play devil's advocate....what would be wrong with the singer making himself look like and/or sound like the original singer of the song? If he was doing a Rolf Harris number and put on a Rolf goatee and glasses and started doing a Rolf impression would that be wrong too? Just an observation m'lud.

Are you suggesting the great British electorate are gullible and thick enough to fall for such nonsense from the 'no' campaign...? ;-)

I see Lord Mandy has waded in with his usual insightful reasoning...."vote for AV to damage Cameron".

I would imagine they'll highlight the fickle nature of human behaviour: support the likes of Clegg when it suits them; burn effigies of him when it doesn't...

I disagree that AV is a necessary stepping stone to PR. If PR is as popular as people make out then all Labour and the Lib Dems have to do at the next election is put it at the top of their manifesto. Voila - you'll have PR in the next parliament regardless of whether or not we go to AV in the meantime. In my opinion, the "vote for AV to get PR" mantra is a red herring and enters the supposed scaremongering territory of the 'no' campaign. The one conundrum I don't get with the 'yes' campaign is that they say AV will banish the 'ugly' minority parties, such as the BNP, to the political scrap heap, and yet, if it was true PR on the table, the opposite would be true. Assuming most AV advocates are also PR advocates, aren't they opening themselves up to accusations of a dichotomy in one of their key arguments?

If we get promoted, I'd be interested in doing some research into the reasons why he led S c u n t h o r p e to relegation from the Championship. i.e. Was it purely down to a lack of finances available to invest in the squad or were there other factors at play? Some would say that the 'best' managers would be able to secure at least safety in the league above with a team that was good enough for promotion from the league below. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pre-judging Nigel here, I actually think he'll be good manager in the higher leagues, but knowing more of the background behind his relegation season would be of interest.

In a true democracy, shouldn't the hundreds of thousands (?) who vote for minority parties (such as the BNP) get a say in how the country is run? If AV sets out to exclude the legal voice of some parts of society (no matter how repulsive we find their legal opinion) then it strikes me that Clegg was right all along about AV....it's a miserable little compromise. Let's have true PR where everyone's voice, and vote, counts...

Half the British electorate are too thick to understand the meaning of the word 'patronising', let alone what a voting system is... ;-)

I guess this is a bit similar to the "who is the best team in the League?" question. On paper, it's us - the arrogant team from Hampshire, but on pure results it's them lot from down the road in Sussex. Who's the best player on our books? Why, Mr Lallana, of course. But does that make him the player of the season? In my view, yes, because his presence in the side has galvanised the team and (usually) results in a win. Think back to the games earlier on the season where Adam was out of action; we struggled (relatively). But, if 'number of appearances' is a key decision maker for people then my POTS on that basis would be Fonte.

Come on Saints FFS!

Daggers equalise