Protest against Austerity Sheffield 8th July

[Jeffrey Shaw 89]

The jury is out on that one, the vast majority of the public voted AGAINST the government. They are only in power due to a flawed electoral system

Flawed, yes- but the flaws surely affect all political parties and not merely one.

[Alan Ladd 10]

I haven't rewritten it.

 

And Whig governments. Don't take all the credit in one go. The attempts to subdue change also happened under Tory and Whig government. Don't take all the glory in one gulp.

 

Secondly, it couldn't happen under a Labour government because the party didn't exist. The requirements limited the working class from even having a vote because they weren't landed gentleman, without even thinking of a seat in Parliament. It's no suprise changed happen under other governments - it could only be that way.

 

The rest is a rant about 1980s politics. Not my original point, and not interested in party politics.

 

You seem to be interested in those part of politics and political history that suit your mindset.

 

Politics and history are never black and white, study the shades of grey, that is where the truth is.

[Vague_Boy 10]

The jury is out on that one, the vast majority of the public voted AGAINST the government. They are only in power due to a flawed electoral system

 

Even the landslide general election victory of 1945 resulted in only a 48.56% share of the vote. So most people (by your "logic") voted against the government that brought in the NHS and the welfare state.

 

I suspect you didn't consider the system "flawed" in 1997, 2001 or 2005?

[woodmally 10]

Even the landslide general election victory of 1945 resulted in only a 48.56% share of the vote. So most people (by your "logic") voted against the government that brought in the NHS and the welfare state.

 

I suspect you didn't consider the system "flawed" in 1997, 2001 or 2005?

 

Brilliant I hadn't thought of it like that. Your right!

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

You seem to be interested in those part of politics and political history that suit your mindset.

I've not said anything that isn't factual. Because of that you can do no more than baseless accusation and tarted up insult.

 

I'm interested in lots of things. I've got Hitler, Edward VII and the Salem Witch Trials sat on my shelf waiting to be read - none of which suit my mindset, you'll be glad to know.

[alchemist 35]

Boo hoo.

 

Its the same "flawed" system that kept Labour in power for 13 years. Its the same "flawed" system that created the 2010 coalition government.

 

No complaints then. Strange that. "....Iz it coz I iz Tory init???"

 

Oh by the way, even with Electoral Reform statisitions have concluded that the Conservatives would still have resulted in a majority of seats won and votes cast.

 

You will have another go at it in 5 years.

 

And sadly it will STILL be the same flawed system.

 

BTW just to dampen your erroneous illusions on that score, I have had the same objections to the flawed system for nigh on 40 years no matter WHO managed to wrangle power out of it So I am sorry if this dampens your argument and false feeling of superiority a bit

 

Possibly the tories may have still got power under a proper system but at least it would have been a FAIRER distribution of MPs to votes and even the most ardent tory apologist must surely want a fair parliament?

 

---------- Post added 14-07-2015 at 13:51 ----------

 

I suspect you didn't consider the system "flawed" in 1997, 2001 or 2005?

 

I refer you to my answer below, but I will make it simple for you. Yes I did. Its intersting that all the tory apologists that feel the need to defend the current system assume that anyone who objects to a flawed system is a labour supporter.

 

---------- Post added 14-07-2015 at 13:54 ----------

 

Even the landslide general election victory of 1945 resulted in only a 48.56% share of the vote. So most people (by your "logic") voted against the government that brought in the NHS and the welfare state.

 

This is true, they did, and your point is? A proper system would have still brought in that government and the reforms that the current government are trying to destroy

Edited July 14, 2015 by alchemist

[WiseOwl182 10]

Its intersting that all the tory apologists that feel the need to defend the current system assume that anyone who objects to a flawed system is a labour supporter.

 

It's probably because there were no protests or demos, or any real moaning, even in 2005 when a 35% vote share gave Labour a comfortable 66 seat majority. It's interesting that the Labour "apologists" only get vocal when the system goes against them.

[alchemist 35]

It's probably because there were no protests or demos, or any real moaning, even in 2005 when a 35% vote share gave Labour a comfortable 66 seat majority. It's interesting that the Labour "apologists" only get vocal when the system goes against them.

 

Well, you just keep thinking that way, Im sure it makes you feel better about supporting such a blatently flawed system.

[Alan Ladd 10]

I've not said anything that isn't factual. Because of that you can do no more than baseless accusation and tarted up insult.

 

I'm interested in lots of things. I've got Hitler, Edward VII and the Salem Witch Trials sat on my shelf waiting to be read - none of which suit my mindset, you'll be glad to know.

 

You seem very sensitive when your opinions are challenged, quite where my "tarted up insult" emanates from escapes me at the moment, but you will find in your future studies that Hitler had an ability to turn every imagined slur into a personal attack.

 

You should enjoy that particular publication.

[WiseOwl182 10]

Well, you just keep thinking that way, Im sure it makes you feel better about supporting such a blatently flawed system.

 

Who said I supported it? I just get annoyed when people complain that the democratic system is flawed when they don't get the result they want, but keep schtum when they do.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

You seem very sensitive when your opinions are challenged

You must imagine me sobbing when I read your responses.

[Anna B 1,401]

Now, notably after the election, the promise to cap care home fees has been abandoned (- well, at least until after end of this parliament, so probably for good) So another manifesto pledge bites the dust. Isn't that akin to fraud? Lying to the public to win an election then reneging on it?

 

Worryingly, they also included care at home fees, which can also cost £100,000 apparently. Never heard this mentioned before. And wasn't questioned or challenged by the TV presenter.