really? in what way?

Well for a start, you're using the total votes cast for the three main parties as an indicator of the support enjoyed by the two parties forming this coalition government. Granted that could be a numeracy issue rather than a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.

Then you've quoted a few snippets from individual party manifestos and conflated these with the policies of a coalition government.

You've also failed to notice significant differences between the manifesto statements and the policies actually implemented.

Lastly you've made the rookie assumption that people who vote for a particular party support every single item in their manifesto. And ignored the fact that in our particular version of democracy you vote for an MP rather than a party and this can have a significant effect on party support.

That's just off the top of my head.

The type of system they're looking to create here seems to work ok in France, where the level of healthcare has been lauded by the WHO as 'close to the best in the world' under a very similar system. Its not exactly the same as being implemented here but there are many similarities. Given the generally much more socialist nature of French politics then I wonder, if a system of semi-private healthcare is accepted there and indeed seems to work very well, then why can't it work here ?

That man is scum.

What is being proposed here is nothing like the French healthcare system

It damn well ought to and I hope it does (for both of the promises contained therein, one of which he lied about and the other of which he hasn't delivered) but, unfortunately, I'm not so sure it will.

Remember Saatchi and Saatchi's poster of "Labour's not working" showing a huge dole queue snaking away into the distance? ... Thatcher's policies had a pre-known effect of increasing unemployment and, before her first term was up, at least three times as many people were on the dole ... it never bothered her though.

Oh, that's unfair.

Unfair on scum, that is.

There are lots of similarities in the general principle. In France, a lot of the healthcare delivery is not state controlled - there is effectively a free market for patients to see whichever doctor they want. The government administers the central pot of money via the 'national insurance' schemes and the patient gets a bill from the healthcare service provider which is then reimbursed at various % levels depending on your financial status (e.g. some get 100% reimbursement, others get as low as 50%). France does not have a 'NHS' but it has a state administered healthcare system which is delivered to a large extent by private 'contractors'. So to say it is nothing like the French system is completely wrong - I agree that it is not a carbon copy but the fundamentals are pretty similar.

Sorry to scum.

Leeds heart stuff you are putting a spin on it which suggests it is being done for financial and not clinical reason - there is no evidence to suggest the former is the case. I am against closing Leeds but the logic of having larger specialist units stands up to scrutiny.

You said 'nobody' voted for these policies. Source?