March in London on the 26th?

I for one welcome the violence and disruption that this protest will bring. It will simply drive the public opinion even further into opposing the continued mass funding of the non-productive jobs and wasteful spending that is our public sector.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/25/voters-cuts-coalition-poll

We're already at a majority of people supporting the cuts according to the latest guardian poll :)
 
Luseac said:
The less money we spend on servicing debt and proping up the public sector the more money there will be in the long run. Pretty simple really. The idea growth is dependent on the public sector from recycled money is why we are in this mess.
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly you're totally wrong again. Negative growth means that there will be less money, and servicing that debt interest becomes even more difficult.
 
Surely this is what the last election was all about? Cuts or keep spending (well cuts too but we aren't going to tell you what and pretend we will keep spending instead). Cuts won. I am guessing democracy isn't good enough if your side loses?
 
I'll be in London today but I can't see myself joining the march somehow although if for some unforeseen reason I decide I need to go into the centre I may take a look. I do hope that it all passes off without incident for those on the march and those guarding it and that the point is made without harm done to either side, however I fear that it isn't all that likely.

RDM said:
Surely this is what the last election was all about? Cuts or keep spending (well cuts too but we aren't going to tell you what and pretend we will keep spending instead). Cuts won. I am guessing democracy isn't good enough if your side loses?
Click to expand...

It's not really about democracy being good enough if your side loses. I rather thought democracy would allow you to protest regardless of what the majority thinks subject to certain exemptions.
 
scorza said:
Not surprisingly you're totally wrong again. Negative growth means that there will be less money, and servicing that debt interest becomes even more difficult.
Click to expand...

But increasing the debt increases the debt interest, thereby making it just as difficult to pay, if not more so.

Which part of 'your party spent all the money when the going was good' have you failed to grasp?
 
semi-pro waster said:
It's not really about democracy being good enough if your side loses. I rather thought democracy would allow you to protest regardless of what the majority thinks subject to certain exemptions.
Click to expand...

I am not against the right to protest, far from it. I just find it somewhat amusing that we have effectively had this argument at the general election and the side opposed to cuts lost. However rather than accept that there is instead call for protests and strikes and all sorts of action. It seems to be effectively bypassing the point of representative democracy.

I can understand and appreciate protesting against a specific government policy but the current government was effectively elected on a cut agenda. It isn't like the unions are against specific cuts, they are against all cuts. Now the unions have their man in charge of Labour it seems that they want to make it as difficult as possible for the current government to force another election where they hope that they can get back in to power.

I wouldn't mind if they had credible alternatives but in a lot of respects, like several of the socialists on the board they just say "This isn't they way to do it" with no viable alternative.
 
RDM said:
I am not against the right to protest, far from it. I just find it somewhat amusing that we have effectively had this argument at the general election and the side opposed to cuts lost. However rather than accept that there is instead call for protests and strikes and all sorts of action. It seems to be effectively bypassing the point of representative democracy.

I can understand and appreciate protesting against a specific government policy but the current government was effectively elected on a cut agenda. It isn't like the unions are against specific cuts, they are against all cuts. Now the unions have their man in charge of Labour it seems that they want to make it as difficult as possible for the current government to force another election where they hope that they can get back in to power.

I wouldn't mind if they had credible alternatives but in a lot of respects, like several of the socialists on the board they just say "This isn't they way to do it" with no viable alternative.
Click to expand...

The problem is when protesters set about trying to willfully disrupt the rest of the country going about their business to raise the impact of their small number. Even worse when it's groups such as UKuncut who don't know their arse from their elbow and are protesting about things they don't actually understand.

I'm still all in favour of making protesters liable for damages when they willfully disrupt things...
 
RDM said:
Surely this is what the last election was all about? Cuts or keep spending (well cuts too but we aren't going to tell you what and pretend we will keep spending instead). Cuts won. I am guessing democracy isn't good enough if your side loses?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, the run up to the election was; we'll make cuts to get us out of these massive debts, people vote for it, then realise, hang on they're going to cut this, this, and this, and throw their toys out of the pram.

Labour will come along in 4 years time, and go; "tories, tories, tories, bunch of toffs, looking out for number one, blah, blah, blah" then say; "here's a problem, should we try this prudent approach, nah, our motto's always going to be "Spend Spend Spend (other peoples) money to get out of a sticky situation" until they win the election and are in power again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom