So is it ever 'worthwhile' for people to demonstrate?
What size does a demonstration have to be for the act of the Government ignoring the protests to be seen as going against the will of the people?
(playing Devil's Advocate here somewhat, my viewpoint is not contained in the question)
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:26, 3 replies, latest was 15 years ago)

No Labs, it clearly isn't ever worth having an opinion about anything.

(Bazongaloid, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:27, Reply)

not if it doesn't agree with mine, it isn't!

( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:31, Reply)

I reckon
that if enough people are unhappy with the way their country is being run then they should attend an election and vote for a party that presents a method of government that they prefer.

Sorry, I meant 'set fire to Boots'.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:30, Reply)

Monty, the percentage of violent rioters to peaceful protesters is minimal indeed
But that aside, you believe that people should wait up to four years to deal with what's happening right now? That people can only have the power to enact change as often as there are Olympic games?
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:35, Reply)

If it's all about showing public disapproval about these cuts
then why not organise an (equally pointless) online petition or something that is
a) free, and available to the population wherever they live
b) environmentally sound and
c) doesn't waste huge swathes of public and private money to deal with at a time when no-one's fucking got any

The idea of displaying the numbers of disgruntled voters still happens, but without the rioting. A civilised solution.

I put it to you, though, that for the vast majority of the public the penny has fucking dropped that yes, it's not great, but actually we as a nation have no fucking money and this needs dealing with and fast.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:46, Reply)

Because you could argue that numbers on a webpage have a much lesser impact than streets filled with people
Have you considered that those marching are not necessarily against cuts being made, rather against the target of those cuts whilst other areas go untouched?
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:51, Reply)

A proportion are simply tossers
who fancied a bit of a day out and possible RHUMBLE - like our contributor here, whose childish glee at the prospect of a riot was plain for all to see.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:53, Reply)

A very small proportion Monty
a few hundred out of half a million. Something like less than 1% of the people that actually went on the march.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:55, Reply)

A proportion of the world are tossers
It only takes the existence of one tosser amongst a group for there to be a 'proportion'.
Yes the rioters undermine the demonstration, but 149 charges for 250,000-500,000 people means it's a very small percentage.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:58, Reply)

Almost 100% of the world are tossers, from my experience.
I am not excluding myself from this number.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 11:05, Reply)

I heard interviews with protestors suggesting otherwise
the ones I heard (while possibly a minority) were strongly suggesting that they were against all of the cuts on principle, not just particular targets.

Nothing against people protesting, but they could at least put some fucking thought into why.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:54, Reply)

Idiots in 'talking shit' shocker.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:55, Reply)

Like you.

(Bazongaloid, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:56, Reply)

I like you too Ro-land.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 11:04, Reply)

Sure, I didn't mean to suggest that all of the protesters were for cuts but against the targets.
Apologies if it came across that way.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:59, Reply)

Didn't think you did
I was saying that a lot of people were just against all the cuts equally, with no real thought as to why.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 11:02, Reply)

But that's simply not true Monty
We are not a bankrupt nation, we have a large amount of borrowing which was needed to deal with a worldwide recession. Thanks to the massive sudden cuts we are now not a growing economy, in the last quarter of last year we were a shrinking economy. We cannot possibly pay back our borrowing with a shrinking economy.

It's stupidly simplistic to say "There's no money"
(Bazongaloid, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:53, Reply)

We don't a have a multi-billion pound deficit
and a dwindling manufacturing sector - and widespread gigantic wastage throughout the public sector that should have been dealt with fucking decades ago?

I sold some chairs to London Borough of Tower Hamlets last year - each one cost over £100 when you can get an office chair for about £15 from Viking - a grotesque and indefensible waste of public money, and somewhat symbolic. I think at the very least holiday allowances, sick pay and pensions should be brought into line with the private sector. My sister was a civil servant for over 5 years and had incredible benefits, and reported to me that there were so, so many pointless managers and positions that were totally unnecessary. They should be cut whether we as a nation have money or not, and there are fucking loads of them. Advisory committees etc - just fucking hot air jobs that do nothing for anyone.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 11:02, Reply)

Oh yes, lets go back to argument by anecdote.
Also, lets once again go back to the fact that if you have these opinions then you should exercise your right to vote and the fact that your refusal to do so totally undermines any argument you make, particularly the one that said that any sort of protest is pointless and people should just wait until the next election.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 11:06, Reply)

You think I should disregard reports from someone
who worked on the inside for several years and was disgusted by what she saw? I should point out that she is also a fucking mug who thought that Labour getting in was the dawn of a new fucking era - and then bought your mate Clegg's bullshit at the last one too.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 11:10, Reply)

No. I would say the chances of a demonstration
causing a government policy reversal are almost certainly nil.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:42, Reply)

Strictly within the UK is this?
Because events around the world would suggest otherwise.
If there came a point when a demonstration populated and supported by the majority of the public (not saying that this is the case with the anti-cuts marches) did not sway Government decision making then could you not argue that the UK was no longer under democratic rule?
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:48, Reply)

You're confusing 'demonstration' with 'armed revolution' here, I think.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:52, Reply)

I do not think so
Egypt was a demonstration, not an armed revolution.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Mon 28 Mar 2011, 10:53, Reply)