Thank you very much. I found all three presentations very interesting. I will, however, be directing my questions to Professors Macfarlane and Cooper simply because your topic is fundamentally different from Ms. Goodman's.
I want to start with a thought that has been rolling around in my head. Professor Macfarlane, I think this is somewhat as you were saying, but I've had the impression since October of last year that what has happened is that the government has misinterpreted what its mandate is.
The classic parliamentary mandate theory from the era of Gladstone and Disraeli would have said that the government has a mandate to propose legislation, that effectively it has the exclusive right to propose legislation. In those days, if Disraeli, for example, had had a minority in Parliament, he would still have, being in control of the executive, the exclusive right to propose legislation as government legislation. Gladstone in opposition would not, and Parliament would make the decision, and they seem to have made the assumption that the modern version of this is that if they have a majority, regardless of the percentage of the vote, they have the right to simply push through everything they bring forward, whereas I would say that the proper modern interpretation of mandate theory ought to be that they continue to have the exclusive right to propose any electoral system they think is appropriate but that ultimately it is the people who ought to have the final decision by means of a referendum.
Do you think I'm right in saying that the government does have a legitimate mandate to propose whatever system it thinks is best, but not to proceed beyond bringing that forward to the people for the final decision?