March For The Alternative - London Saturday 26th March

[Wanderlei]

It's surprising how many middle class people are out there. These polls shock me every time i see them but maybe that's just because of my surroundings.

[LondonTom]

It's obvious what the Tories are going to do, though. It never takes long for the rioting to begin every time they get into power.

[fur_q]

Yep I voted, did you in the end? Surely youre not so blinkered to think that it was purely a vote to apply cuts or not.

[Kowalski]

That's not *strictly* true. Though of course the LDs made a big's ear of the negotiating at the coalition formation, at least from their supporters POV. They did badly though, despite the hype, they actually lost seats in parliament last election, and have only 1/5 of the seats of the conservatives.

People vote for parties, not policies.

The fact is, on both the popular vote and the number of MPs returned the Conservatives did better than other parties; that means they can enact large parts of their manifesto, with the support of another party. If the other party wishes to withdraw their support they can do so.

I suggest that if it was a Labour/Lib Dem coalition implementing predominantly Labour policies that the majority of the electorate 'hadn't voted for', there would be rather less criticism of the system, at least on this board

[Guest blackcockerel]

Well it's made me rethink my whole attitude to PR, and voting by conscience alone. It's back to strategic voting for me now, since I'm more anti Tory than pro anyone else.

That's what I thought too - I expected them to be a far greater curb on Conservative excesses, whereas I'm now becoming more cynical about them every day.

Though I'm cynical about Labour too - I think they didn't want to win this election, because they knew how unpopular the incoming government would be, and didn't want to be that government.

[eFestivals]

I seem to remember there being more than one policy to consider when choosing which box to tick. Same as you can't conclude that the majority want to reduce voting age to 16 (LD and Labour), want to renew Trident(Labour and Conservative),or want a national youth volunteering service (lab and Con).

While each party had more than one policy, the major policy of all was their approach to the financial situation.

[Guest blackcockerel]

Another thing to remember about the Lib Dems is that during the chancellor debate before the election, Vince Cable was the only one of the three who admitted that the cuts would be really bad and that it was unavoidable.

[eFestivals]

Yep I voted, did you in the end? Surely youre not so blinkered to think that it was purely a vote to apply cuts or not.

Nope, I didn't vote. There was no candidate or party who I felt able to support, and felt my vote had more meaning by not being cast than by being cast. It's not like my vote could make any difference in this constituency anyway. There's only a hundred of so constituencies that decide any election, because of the shit system we have.

But yes, it was very much in the main a vote to apply cuts or not. The ability of every party to be able to do anything else hinged on its approach to the financial situation.

After all, if the LibDims had been in the position to implement the free Uni places they were advocating, that becomes an impossibility if they implement the spending and tax regime that the tories are doing.

[Ed209]

By couple of 100,000 thinking they can bully policies not voted by bigger slice of the population..,

Edited March 29, 2011 by Ed209

[ivan]

I love the arrogance of people who assume they're in tune with the majority..

no-one voted for the coalition. What logic makes you think people who voted lib-dem are happy with a conservative (mainly) government?

most people didnt vote for them (conservative)

[paulbrock]

While each party had more than one policy, the major policy of all was their approach to the financial situation.

[jimmyk83]

No but you would have to equally blinkered to suggest that any significant majority of voters would vote for a party who's economic policies where at odds with their own views given how much was made of the economy during the election campaingns

[whatmidlifecrisis?]

In reference to that here are a a couple of visualizations that some may find interesting

*Removed GDP charts*

[eFestivals]

In actuality plenty of people vote for many different reasons,

they do, but there's no getting away from the fact that many more people - about twice as many - voted for parties that said they wouldn't make hugely deep cuts.

If we accept votes as meaningful within a democracy, then this fact is far more meaningful than any claim you might make about other policies they might have been voting for.

It's not like the tories can even be honest about the cuts and why they6're making them. I heard a tory MP interviewed on Radio 4 at the weekend (unfortunately I forget who, but it was one of the standard rent-a-voice liars), who claimed that "the UK has the biggest deficit of any G20 country, and the biggest in its history in real terms" as a justification for the cuts, and why the protests would be ignored.

That claim is a complete lie.

The tories can't even try and win the argument on a truthful basis - all they can put forwards for their actions are lies.

These cuts are ideologically driven. They've got f**k all to do with the deficit, and everything about setting out the ground for big tax cuts for the rich.

The same is true of the tory plan to merge NI with Income Tax. After all, they're the party that for years have told us that what we pay for should be itemised, and here they are making things non-itemised. It's so that in years to come no one can say "you can't abolish the NHS because I've been paying for it" and "you can't abolish state pension cos I've been paying for it". Once the clear indication that you have paid for it is gone, these things will go too.

The tories are the same as ever. They're still tory scum.

[eFestivals]

Love ‘em or hate ‘em we rely on our banking industry.

PMSL.

We "rely" on them only if that reliance is to cost this country more than they make it.

The amount they paid in tax in 13 years is dwarfed by the money that was needed to bail them out of the losses they ran up in that 13 years.

[paulbrock]

they do, but there's no getting away from the fact that many more people - about twice as many - voted for parties that said they wouldn't make hugely deep cuts.

If we accept votes as meaningful within a democracy, then this fact is far more meaningful than any claim you might make about other policies they might have been voting for.

Edited March 29, 2011 by paulbrock

[ivan]

PMSL.

We "rely" on them only if that reliance is to cost this country more than they make it.

The amount they paid in tax in 13 years is dwarfed by the money that was needed to bail them out of the losses they ran up in that 13 years.

[eFestivals]

Only if you can demonstrate that most people voted BECAUSE of that policy rather than others, you seem utterly convinced but have yet to provide any source? Whereas the recent Guardian survey suggests that there is not a majority opposing the current level of cuts, and a fair few nutters (imho) who would like some more cuts please. Any thoughts on the survey?

Yep - it's a meaningless survey in regards to any democratic process.

The properly defined democratic process of this country had around twice as many people vote against cuts than for them. Everything else is meaningless to this.

People vote for a programme of policies. The programme they voted for was one with less deep cuts.

[eFestivals]

Without em we would ground to a halt.

E festivals and Glastonbury needs the banks to function as do we all !

Oh, so there was no world at all until there were banks?

Just because we've become reliant on them doesn't mean that we have to be. In fact, as someone old enough to know of a world when banks were used far far less than they are nowadays, I'm able to see that the advantage of using banks has been HUGELY over-played.

The world worked just as well when people got their pay in cash, rather than the regime we have now where just about every employer forces their employees to use banks. The only people who gain from the current system are the banks themselves.

[paulbrock]

Yep - it's a meaningless survey in regards to any democratic process.

The properly defined democratic process of this country had around twice as many people vote against cuts than for them. Everything else is meaningless to this.

People vote for a programme of policies. The programme they voted for was one with less deep cuts.

[bombfrog]

My maths is great thanks.

And via my maths I'm able to know that a huge majority voted against the cuts we're getting. There's no getting away from that very certain fact.

[eFestivals]

oh so hang on, what people think post-election is irrelevant, as long as we followed our properly defined democratic process? Pretty sure we did.

No, I'm not saying what people think post-election is irrelevant. But it's nothing to do with what they voted for.

You may prefer a different democratic process where everyone can vote on specific policies, you may wish that the LDs teamed up with Labour or pushed harder for their key points from their manifesto but they certainly weren't obliged to under our current "properly defined democratic process".

right5, so an MP can be disqualified as an MP for lying to get elected, but a party - and so a much bigger group of MPs - can't? That's as f**king stupid as it can get.

It's obvious you hate the Tories, and you're perfectly entitled to that POV. It's a common stance.

it's a common stance because the smart people of this country have realised that they're lying scumbags who are only out for themselves. "We're all in this together", says Dave Moron, the man who has inherited £30M and believes himself to be "£typical middle class". Yeah, every person who is typical middle class has inherited £30M.

Of course, there's also lots of people who are also out for themselves, but they're very much in the main just incredibly thick. They believe that some of that "out for themselves" will come their way (which is why they back the idea) - the reality is far different, as the facts get to show.

But to suggest that the result of the election was somehow illegitimate, or that the coalition is not entitled under our parliamentary system to put forward a jointly agreed programme for government, even if it conflicts with the minor party's election manifesto seems to be based not on any legal argument but on the fact that you'd prefer a different party in power.

I'm not saying the election was illegitimate, I'm saying the policy program that is happening as a result is. Twice as many people voted against that programme than for it - this is beyond question.

As for a different party in power, it's a simple fact that each of us would prefer to have our preferred party in power.

As for what actually is, I'm in theory reasonably happy with the outcome. I'm not daft enough to think that if the LibDims hadn't done a deal with the tories that the outcome would end up much better. There'd have been another election, and this country's thick-as-pig-shit* electorate would have voted the tories in with a majority. At least as things stand the LibDems are reigning back some of the worst aspects of toryism, tho sadly it's far too little. They got 2/3s of the tory vote, but haven't got 2/3s of the influence on policy.

(* yes, I can prove that's the case.)

But none of that changes the fact that around twice as many people voted against the cuts than for them.

As for that survey, it's very likely that a significant number of the people surveyed didn't understand what they were being asked. For example, most people think that the cuts have started already, when they have not. They start next week.

[bombfrog]

Nope, I didn't vote.

[feral chile]

That's not how the system works in this county. We do not vote on individual issues. We vote for a government and they make decisions for us.

Like I said earlier, can you imagine if the great british public were to get a referendum on every issue. Do you think any cuts would ever be voted for. In fact, do you think anything would ever get done for the greater public good if everybody were to be allowed to vote for exactly what they wanted. I think there's a phrase for that, it's called "mob rule".

Edited March 29, 2011 by feral chile

[whatmidlifecrisis?]

PMSL.

We "rely" on them only if that reliance is to cost this country more than they make it.

The amount they paid in tax in 13 years is dwarfed by the money that was needed to bail them out of the losses they ran up in that 13 years.