London Anti-Austerity Protest Turns Nasty

Then you clearly haven't been looking very hard. Two-thirds of economists have said that the Conservatives' austerity policies have harmed the economy and were unnecessary. Paul Krugman, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics, has been telling us for years that austerity has been unnecessary and based on a lie. Only economists trained in the neoliberal, free-market, Chicago School ideology agree with the Conservatives' policies; bear in mind that these are the same people who endorsed the deregulation of the financial sector which caused the global financial crisis and, incidentally, the Wall Street Crash almost a century ago.

Moreover, the Conservatives' top-down reorganisation of the NHS, implemented through the Health and Social Care Act 2012, was universally condemned by medical professionals and organisations, including the British Medical Association and the King's Fund. As Dr. Mark Porter, head of the BMA said, the changes were "opposed by patients, the public and NHS staff, but politicians pushed through the changes regardless".

He added: "This report highlights the damage that has been done to the health service and the major shortcomings of the Act, which distracted attention from rising pressure on services and cost billions to introduce.

"The damage done to the NHS has been profound and intense, but what is needed now is an honest and frank debate over how we can put right what has gone wrong without the need for another unnecessary and costly top-down reorganisation."

More than 140 top doctors, just a couple of months ago, signed a letter stating that the Conservatives have severely harmed the NHS and left it in its weakest position ever. Last winter, official data demonstrates that the Conservatives presided over the worst week for A&E waiting times in British history.

And, as I've demonstrated in my earlier posts, medical professionals are complaining and protesting. The question is, will you, and others, listen?

There was a protest in 1997 when Labour did get into power which is similar to what's occuring now. They probably wouldn't be happy with a conservative-UKIP coalition but it is more an issue with the voting system than the parties themselves.

Ah, the privileged and pampered, middle class socialist.

"Hello, I'm Chester Smedlington, proud member of the SWP, and I am so very hard done by. After 5 years of dicking about at university, spending most of my time getting drunk and learning no real life skills whatsoever, I left with a degree in humanities and £35,000 in student debts. But nobody respects my degree and I can only get a minimum wage job as a barista in Costa. I can't afford to pay my rent, but still insist on living in the most expensive, trendy areas of London. My middle class, suburbanite, parents refuse to send me any more money, and now even the government are not going to save me from my own poor life choices. So I am here today to protest and demand that the Tory scum give me everything I want on a plate. And look, I'm even displaying my slogans on my iPad, because placards are just too mainstream for me."

I swear there was a referendum on this in 2011. Also 11,300,000 people voted tories and 3,800,000 people voted UKIP that were in favour of heavy cuts in other areas such as foreign aid and would have supported most tory cuts on a case by case basis.

There was one on having alternative vote I believe, not PR. It was rightly turned down, most people don't want PR lite because it isn't a great deal better, I think if the question was do you want PR, the response would be overwhelmingly different.

The only merit I see to the current system is the local representation - although I find it hard to believe it would be that hard to find an alternative system that provides local representation in parliament.

Whether UKIP would have supported the Tory's on cuts is questionable - they probably would have. Either way this current system has massively under represented them and many other parties, such as the Greens, such as the Lib Dems. You can't have a 2 party voting system when there are 5 major parties in our country. Let's not forget that a lot of people wouldn't have voted for some of these "smaller" parties because of FPTP, and would have probably have opted to vote tactically so the support for these smaller parties could well be much greater than many expect.

Yh i see what you mean about the 2 party voting system but one might argue it is because that is what we have made it become due to our tactical voting habits. An issue with multi party politics is the uncertainty that would arise when it is time to form a government which isn't good especially for business and investment. Another possible reason for this '2 party politics' is the imbalance in party funding also.
I think you are underestimating the hypocrisy of these protests, look at this comparison:
GE 2005:
Turnout- 61.4%
Labour vote- 355 seats. 35.2% popular vote
Tory vote- 198 seats. 32.4% popular vote
No protests.
GE 2015:
Turnout- 66.1%
Labour- 232 seats. 30.4% popular vote
Tory- 331 seats. 36.9% popular vote
Protests and more to come. This isn't democracy blablabla.

People have the right to protest against austerity of course but they are being hypocritical when they criticise the legitimacy of the government. The Tories will be in government till 2020 and will be carrying out their manifesto promises because that is what many people voted for due to their strong local representation. To be honest I doubt the Tories even were prepared for the welfare cuts and I doubt they will cut £12bn worth. Finding £2-3 billion of waste in the foreign aid budget is a lot easier in my opinion.

It is true that the smaller parties vote would rise but I would still consider the Tory-UKIP coalition to be inevitable as more people voted for right wing policies than left wing policies in this election and this is true even when making the assumption that the Lib Dems are a left wing party when they are actually Centre.

You reap what you sow, Britain. Enjoy another 5 years of austerity and attacks on the vulnerable. Rupert Murdoch must be delighted.

I support the protestors.

I think things have changed since 2005. 10 years can change views. Plus it's not like the very same group of people decided in 2005 that they wouldn't protest, only to change that position in 2015. It's a spontaneous, emotional reaction to the resentment they've had for the Tory government the past five years.

Yh i see what you mean about the 2 party voting system but one might argue it is because that is what we have made it become due to our tactical voting habits. An issue with multi party politics is the uncertainty that would arise when it is time to form a government which isn't good especially for business and investment. Another possible reason for this '2 party politics' is the imbalance in party funding also.
I think you are underestimating the hypocrisy of these protests, look at this comparison:
GE 2005:
Turnout- 61.4%
Labour vote- 355 seats. 35.2% popular vote
Tory vote- 198 seats. 32.4% popular vote
No protests.
GE 2015:
Turnout- 66.1%
Labour- 232 seats. 30.4% popular vote
Tory- 331 seats. 36.9% popular vote
Protests and more to come. This isn't democracy blablabla.

People have the right to protest against austerity of course but they are being hypocritical when they criticise the legitimacy of the government. The Tories will be in government till 2020 and will be carrying out their manifesto promises because that is what many people voted for due to their strong local representation. To be honest I doubt the Tories even were prepared for the welfare cuts and I doubt they will cut £12bn worth. Finding £2-3 billion of waste in the foreign aid budget is a lot easier in my opinion.

It is true that the smaller parties vote would rise but I would still consider the Tory-UKIP coalition to be inevitable as more people voted for right wing policies than left wing policies in this election and this is true even when making the assumption that the Lib Dems are a left wing party when they are actually Centre.

I wouldn't say hypocritical as such. If your happy with the election results you aren't going to be too bothered about the actual numbers so wouldn't feel the need to protest. Wasn't really old enough to care about politics in 2005 but imo, it is totally wrong how the seats worked out that year, this year however is no different.

Furthermore in 2005 the political landscape was very different - at most you could say it was 3 party politics - the representation, while still unfair made a little more sense. Now we are in a situation where there are 5/6 parties, all gaining a significant % of votes yet at least 2 of those parties aren't getting enough seats and arguably 1 or 2 are getting too many.

I personally wouldn't mind a Tory/UKIP coalition under PR on the basis it is more democratic and it would take a different direction to just a Tory government. Obviously politically I fundamentally disagree with both UKIP and Conservatives but I wouldn't be against it because that's what most people voted for - not just a Tory government.

If you ask me, if Tory voters aren't happy with the situation from 2005 why are they against these protests? Surely PR seems more sensible, not only did it seem like this in 2005, but it does now.

Your view is very sensible. The message I posted to somebody else about 25 mins ago explains why I brought up 2005 as an example. I definitely agree that the political landscape is different but I think if people genuinely voted for what they believed in then that representation will be fairer. What we saw with UKIP is them being a frequent runner up which is an obvious limitation to FPTP that I completely acknowledge. To be honest, if there was a Tory/UKIP coalition I can still imagine there being protests like there was yesterday.

I think the protests in that hypothetical case would not be so much about the electoral system as the policies the coalition would enforce. Some protesters were complaining about FPTP; others were complaining about the austerity. I think the anger about the 37% is partly a channel for general anger about the Tory ideology. It isn't hypocritical. Maybe some of the protesters were disillusioned Labour voters who did so under the old maxim - keep the Tories out - and when it turned out to be false, what else do they have to blame but the electoral system? The fact is, the two-party system is dead; people want their views to actually be heard and represented. Again, yes people would protest under a PR UKIP/Tory government - but they wouldn't complain about the democracy. It would simply be about their ideas.

I think the protests in that hypothetical case would not be so much about the electoral system as the policies the coalition would enforce. Some protesters were complaining about FPTP; others were complaining about the austerity. I think the anger about the 37% is partly a channel for general anger about the Tory ideology. It isn't hypocritical. Maybe some of the protesters were disillusioned Labour voters who did so under the old maxim - keep the Tories out - and when it turned out to be false, what else do they have to blame but the electoral system? The fact is, the two-party system is dead; people want their views to actually be heard and represented. Again, yes people would protest under a PR UKIP/Tory government - but they wouldn't complain about the democracy. It would simply be about their ideas.

I don't understand why people are so angry over the electoral system. There was an opportunity to change it (provided by Cameron) and there was an incredibly low turn out and an overwhelming no to change vote.

Posted from TSR Mobile

To claim this protest has anything to do with the electoral system is dishonesty. It's plain as day that these protests are from people spitting their dummies out because they didn't get their own way. These are people with absolutely no respect for democracy or the will of the people and we should feel nothing but contempt towards such people.

These are people with absolutely no respect for democracy or the will of the people and we should feel nothing but contempt towards such people.

Good. The Conservatives' plans are a moral disgrace, not to mention economically illiterate. We should all be protesting against their unnecessary and brutal austerity measures, designed to punish those who had nothing to do with the financial crisis.

The economists aren't exactly going to be personally affected by austerity. They just agree that austerity is unnecessary and bad for the economy.

As for doctors, they've made their stance pretty clear: more than 140 top doctors signed a letter stating that the Conservatives have harmed the NHS, and the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was universally condemned by medical professionals and organisations, including the King's Fund and the British Medical Association.

And, doctors have taken part in anti-austerity marches before. See here and here, for instance.

The Tories have no intellectual firepower: they simply have control of the majority of the media who faithfully parrot out any lies that they spout.

Do you agree with calling for the removal of a democratically elected, democratic government, simply because you don't agree with its budget?

No, but I do believe that the Tories should be 'out' in the next election, and I agree with those who are protesting against austerity. I don't believe I indicated that the Conservatives should be removed from power.

I do, however, think that the Conservatives don't represent the views of the majority of the population, as evidenced both by their popular vote and their vote as a share of the total population.