Comments by "Golden Croc" (@GoldenCroc) on "Jihadi Police of Vice and Virtue" video.

Its a PR move giving it a "name" to make it more "personal". In sweden, there isnt anyone with influence questioning socialised healthcare, hence no need to market it. Most swedes cant begin to imagine anything else. For Swedish parallells, look at Systembolaget or SVT and their tax funded ads to justify their own existence.
2
@hicks3749 Wasnt an option to vote against it you say? Didnt know it was illegal to vote for anything else but torie and labour... Own up to the fact that most people didnt care, and just voted by routine, asleep at the wheel for any larger issues.
1
@gavinbissell8847 Werent you asked? So you had to vote Torie or labour? Thats news to me, I have to admit... or perhaps its just a coping mechanism of a disinterested people. Just as people in general are everywhere, and I do mean literally everywhere, worldwide. Perhaps harsh, but true, as far as I can tell.
1
@harbl99 And it was as wrong then as it is now. People saying so should really learn how representative democracy works. Doesnt fill me with confidence of their interest that they seemingly didnt do so. Sorry, but I think the above needed to be said.
1
@hicks3749 I wasnt talking about you specifically, the "you" here is in the meaning of the british public of voting age since decades ago. You are free to exclude yourself from that group if you so wish. No problem from my perspective. Neither am saying this is everyone elses but my fault. Its not. Not sure were you got that from. What you specifically do when you vote, and if it makes a difference or not isnt very interesting in the grand scheme of things. What a lot of people do, is. I merely adressed the "but there has never been an option for the public to vote against it." <- There has, in as much as is standard practice for representative democracy. Accepting the validity of that governmental system means accepting you will possibly never get to vote on a single issue, ever. And even if you do, the government are most often well wihin their legal rights to ignore that vote. Representative democracy means you get to chose your leaders, and thats it. It is therefore wise to chose the ones who align with your own values. It seems like the British public didnt, even if the perhaps they thought they did. So the OP was correct. They did get what the wanted. Since the general public did vote for parties that had those values. All this was very forseeable. The only other possiblity is that the public was too disinterested to realise or care about what they vote for, which is perhaps an even worse condemnation of them.
1