The TUC March for the Alternative - Saturday 26th March 2011

[tech_guy]

LONDON MARCH 26/03/2011

 

This is your opportunity to voice your concerns over the funding cuts.

 

Government spending cuts will damage public services and put more than a million out of work. They will hit the vulnerable, damage communities and undermine much of what holds us together as a society.

 

Ministers say there is no alternative.

 

But both of the government's two key decisions are political choices, not economic necessity.

Eliminating the deficit in just four years is a savage timetable that does not give economic growth the opportunity to raise the nation’s tax take. Indeed the deep cuts promised will depress the economy making deeper cuts necessary to meet this timetable.

Raising four pounds through cuts for every pound raised through tax – and doing most of this through a rise in VAT that hits the poor and those on middle income the most – is deeply unfair. The recession was made in the finance sector, yet banks and those now enjoying gigantic bonuses once again, are not being asked to make a fair contribution.

 

Yet none of these policies were put to the British people at the election, indeed we were told that there was no need for cuts in front-line services.

 

People round the country are already campaigning against these deep, rapid cuts. Students have shown their opposition to cuts, the ends of EMAs and increases in fees. Parents and teachers have opposed cuts in school building. School sport, libraries and public woodlands all now have strong defenders. Few towns now don’t have their own campaign group.

 

The TUC’s March for the Alternative has two key aims.

First we want to give a national voice to all those affected by the cuts.

This will be a huge event that in its breadth and support shows just how much opposition there is to the government’s programme. It will bring together public service workers and those who depend on good public services. Those involved in national campaigns, and those defending what is special in their own community.

Second we want to show that people reject the argument that there is no alternative.

Of course the recession did damage to our economy. But these deep rapid cuts are not the best way to solve our problems, and may well make them worse.

 

That is why it is the March for the Alternative – an alternative in which rich individuals and big companies have to pay all their tax, that the banks pay a Robin Hood tax and on in which we strain every sinew to create jobs and boost the sustainable economic growth that will generate the prosperity which is the only long term way to close the deficit and reduce the nation’s debt.

 

If your are in a union there may well be places left on coaches and minibuses down to the event.

 

Please make an effort to attend as we can't let the ConDem Gov't rape this country.

 

LINKS:

 

March For the Alternative: Jobs, Growth, Justice | 26 March 2011: March and rally against the cuts

 

A Million Voices for Public Services - Home | March 26: March for public services

 

TUC national demonstration against the cuts

 

TUC National Demonstration Against Cuts | 26 March | Coalition of Resistance Against Cuts & Privatisation

 

NUT : National Union of Teachers - The largest fully qualified primary and secondary education union | Our aim: one union for all teachers.

 

Travel details released for 26 March

[Dos_Box]

I hate to play devils advocate here, but surely the cuts are a given becuase the areas being 'cut' are those in which tax money is spent. This money is then going to be used to pay of the HUGE mountain of debt racked up by the previous govt, which stangely enough the TUC had no qualms about it doing. The tax generating areas i.e. the private sector (very little of the public sector actually generates any cash whatsoever) is still as it was and left to actually bring in the money that the country relies on whilst some areas of the public sector carry on being 'slef-licking-lollipops'. however, I do draw the line at how local authorities manage these cuts, and I do hope a great deal of tought goes into the what, where and when of them, although my experience of working in local govt does not fill me full of hope.

[tech_guy]

The government missed out on what I call a 'JFK' moment - 'ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country' - they could have called for increased productivity and public support to address the deficit, instead they chose to alienate us all by beating us over the head with cuts and raised taxes. I hope the 26th proves to be a day to remember.

[Trapper]

The government missed out on what I call a 'JFK' moment - 'ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country' - they could have called for increased productivity and public support to address the deficit.

 

Thing is though this isn't the 60s. The general public now feels more self-centred and much less patriotic than in previous decades. The Government asking the country to increase productivity? What you mean you'd like me to type faster? Ask bin men to run around the streets?

 

The decifit has to be reduced and of course the public sector is going to be highly targeted, its where a large proportion of the budget goes. At least in education we have a better chance of weathering the storm than other public sector workers.

[Dos_Box]

The government missed out on what I call a 'JFK' moment - 'ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country' - they could have called for increased productivity and public support to address the deficit, instead they chose to alienate us all by beating us over the head with cuts and raised taxes. I hope the 26th proves to be a day to remember.

 

It doesn't work like that. No matter how hard the public sector work, they don't generate income for the UK!! It's about money, and to be blunt, there isn't any. At all. It's all gone and the amount we pay per day in interest on the loans the previous govt took out to pay for the party everyones been enjoying for the past 13 years is £40 billion. Per annum!!!! That's over a million pounds a day interest. The previous govt borrowed $450 million a day just to keep the UK runnning as they realised teh party was over. I'll refrane from using such emotive terms as 'rape' instead I'll use real world ones such as incompetance and 'scortched earth' to describe the management of this countries wealth that has got us into this mess.

[tech_guy]

I'm not referring to just the public sector, I'm talking about the UK as a whole.

[mattx]

I can fix the problem very easily with 4 words:

Levy The banks More

 

The piddly amount of 2.5 billion that Toff Osborne was just to please them as the majority of bankers actually fund the Tory party and course he who pays the piper.....

The British tax payer bailed the banks out when they cocked up, we own the banks [ not all ] but most of them - bankers bonuses are still ripe whilst the government make cuts which effect all of us but not the banks or bankers. Levy the banks 10 billion [ they have it ] - pump that money back into the economy, if we need more, levy the banks again, and again and again. Remember we own the banks, it was their fault, they created the problem - let them pay.

 

Hillingdon Cllrs in total earn in their 'allowance' 1 million pounds a year. They are making cuts in the Education and Social Services departments which will cripple them. But hey, don't worry - whilst children are suffering and getting a pi55 poor education - our local Cllrs can sit down and enjoy earning their 'allowance'

Staff won't have a job and will end up on the social and their children will suffer and this generates a knock on effect. But hey, don't worry - the Cllrs are still earning their allowance whilst happily bringing the axe down on essential services for the borough. I've heard it's all part of Dave's Big Society !!

This is happening [ with worse case examples ] all over the country - their are people earning [ I would actually call it stealing ] money DOING NOTHING than making poor decisions and effecting people's lives by bringing the axe down on departments.

Wow - what a great 'Big Society' Dave - a society where there are millions without jobs, without food, without a decent education, without decent transport - but don't worry Dave because you can invite all your rich Tory funding bank buddies into your 'Big Society'

Edited February 13, 2011 by mattx

[torledo]

i disagree politically that there should be no real terms cuts in some areas of govt. spending.

 

what i don't like is the cack-handed way in which the cuts have been allocated, with more money in some areas already flush with cash and 20% or more real cuts in areas already struggling to provide adequate service.

 

the student fees decision is another example of this logic defying, cack-handed thinking. i'm not in favour of ditching the current system in favour of something that won't apply to welsh and scottish students for example. if those administrations can find the money to not levy increased fees, why can't westminster ?

 

but equally, you can't avoid the redundancies and cuts in budgets and just focus instead on the easy stuff like not having a deficit reduction target or scrapping trident. And yes, as much as big finance can be squeezed a bit more, raising taxes on them alone is like trying to pretend their isn't a problem with public spending.

Edited February 13, 2011 by torledo

[Dos_Box]

The problem there is that banking is one of the mainstays of the UK economy. We don't have any heavy industry, manufacturing or textiles industires anymore, and the banks have already threatened to leave and 'relocate' if HMG upsets them too much. Yes we bailed the banks out, but I for one would like to see the deal teh last govt brokered with them as it seems as though we (as a country) didn't get very much out of it in teh way of control over the banks themselves.

[torledo]

The problem there is that banking is one of the mainstays of the UK economy. We don't have any heavy industry, manufacturing or textiles industires anymore, and the banks have already threatened to leave and 'relocate' if HMG upsets them too much. Yes we bailed the banks out, but I for one would like to see the deal teh last govt brokered with them as it seems as though we (as a country) didn't get very much out of it in teh way of control over the banks themselves.

 

the last time i checked i think we were no.5 in the world in manufacturing. It's probably a different type of manufacturing to the heavy industry we've lost, but it's a myth that we don't make stuff anymore. We're not as reliant on a grossly overweight financial sector because investment can always be boosted in other sectors, people can be employed to do other stuff like widen the M25 or build an olympic village or work in the third sector rather than devise and sell financial products.

although with the current strategy of an export-led recovery, our financial services export market is a sizeable contributor to the export 'boom'.

 

the irony of government 'deals' with banks, is that involves increased lending, when apparently lending was the problem to begin with back in 07/08. What short memories people have.

[PiqueABoo]

The tax generating areas i.e. the private sector

 

**Some** of it.. as in the bit that aren't: a) significantly dodging tax, b) secondary public sector (doing quite nicely thanks, providing services to the public sector).

[torledo]

**Some** of it.. as in the bit that aren't: a) significantly dodging tax, b) secondary public sector (doing quite nicely thanks, providing services to the public sector).

 

in the private sector that just leaves the banks that aren't a) or b). ;0)

 

although given how much funding of PFI (secondary public sector) they've been doing, they get paid out in full from the public purse eventually.

[CAM]

the last time i checked i think we were no.5 in the world in manufacturing. It's probably a different type of manufacturing to the heavy industry we've lost, but it's a myth that we don't make stuff anymore. We're not as reliant on a grossly overweight financial sector because investment can always be boosted in other sectors, people can be employed to do other stuff like widen the M25 or build an olympic village or work in the third sector rather than devise and sell financial products.

although with the current strategy of an export-led recovery, our financial services export market is a sizeable contributor to the export 'boom'.

 

the irony of government 'deals' with banks, is that involves increased lending, when apparently lending was the problem to begin with back in 07/08. What short memories people have.

 

But where will the money to widen the M25 come from? That sends us round in circles back to needing to cut money to stop the debt.

 

EDIT - Reading their transport recommendation, they are telling people to use Blackfriars rail station. Thameslink project says otherwise.

Edited February 13, 2011 by CAM

[Gatt]

Kick everyone off benefits then change it so you can only get benefit if you are physically incapable of going to work.

Suffering for Lazyitis should no longer qualify for benefits..

 

After a close friend got thrown off despite having a serious medical condition, I now have little faith in the system and will no longer tolerate people "scrounging" and having 50"+ Plasma TV's with surround sound and XBOX's in every sodding room, along with their flash BMWs, Merc's or Lexus's and countless foreign holidays..

 

/RANT

[torledo]

But where will the money to widen the M25 come from? That sends us round in circles back to needing to cut money to stop the debt.

 

wherever the money normally comes from for funding such projects. Spending on needed infrastructure increases the deficit only where there isn't an increase in tax revenues, or where you can't make cuts elsewhere to fund the increased investment.

So you see there's two ways of looking at the deficit and growth depending on your political view point. You can either see it as a need to spend more or a need to tax a little less. Those objecting to the cuts seem to want both increased spending AND lower taxes [ie reversing the VAT rise]. Sounds a bit like having your cake and eating it, or if your Ed Balls trying to be all things to all people.

 

The national debt will increase come what may because it's the accumilation of money issued by the government to match the 'surplus' of public spending. The government doesn't start missing interest payments or anything like that.

 

The debt interest i don't see as any more troubling than anything else the government incurs a cost in supporting [ie a large number of non-jobs in the public sector created under the last government or supporting a vast welfare state], the interest payments on that debt after all equate to income for the bondholders. Whether the government employs fewer people, or stops issuing debt...it all equates to the same thing, less in the way of income streams for those groups.

Edited February 13, 2011 by torledo

[srochford]

the last time i checked i think we were no.5 in the world in manufacturing.

 

Not sure of the exact figure but we do have a valuable manufacturing industry. The difference from (say) 50 years ago is that it employs very few people. My dad worked in the Sheffield steel industry in the 50s and 60s; in those days it was a major employer of people. Today I think Sheffield manufactures more steel by value than it did then but it's done with a tiny fraction of the employees.

 

I can't see the banks ever leaving London. In theory you could have banking in any country in the world. In reality the bankers want to be in London, not just because they see it as an area where they can pay little tax but for the same reasons that lots of other people want to live here.

 

I'm certain that there are areas in pretty much every public and private sector organisation where efficiencies can be made but more efficient doesn't always mean better (it's more efficient to have mixed sex wards in hospitals than single sex wards because you don't get totally predictable numbers of men and women needing a ward at the same time but most people don't want that)

 

It's also obvious that anyone who's physically capable of work should be working not claiming benefits. We could employ them in the public sector - there are plenty of jobs which could be created - but this is seen as a bad thing. What we need, then, is for the private sector to employ all these people (5 million???) and there's precious little sign of that happening. Most private companies seem to be working out how they can employ fewer people to do the same work, not more.

 

And then there's tax avoidance. Private Eye has reported on £6 billion tax avoidance by Vodafone. Vodafone deny this; HMRC won't discuss it so who knows if it's true but if it is then that's one hell of a contribution to clearing budget deficits (it's more than 10% of the entire education budget, for example) Instead of just cutting public spending he government could choose to make a tax system where companies that do business in the UK pay tax on their profits in the UK and aren't allowed to pretend that their business is actually in Luexmbourg etc. I can't see this government doing it but it's one of the alternatives which they pretend don't exist.

[torledo]

 

And then there's tax avoidance. Private Eye has reported on £6 billion tax avoidance by Vodafone. Vodafone deny this; HMRC won't discuss it so who knows if it's true but if it is then that's one hell of a contribution to clearing budget deficits (it's more than 10% of the entire education budget, for example) Instead of just cutting public spending he government could choose to make a tax system where companies that do business in the UK pay tax on their profits in the UK and aren't allowed to pretend that their business is actually in Luexmbourg etc. I can't see this government doing it but it's one of the alternatives which they pretend don't exist.

 

i think that's one of those that probably needs a degree of international cooperation and possibly tax harmonisation across borders that just isn't forthcoming.

 

you could take the view that as a result it's a fruitless battle because people are employed to legally minimise the tax burde of big corporations, while the tax authorities themselves are well advanced in the process of downsizing staffwise long before the current round of axe-swinging....such deals between the taxman and big business is like taking a very small piece of a large pie rather than being left with only the crumbs.

 

i agree that the public sector could be the ideal vehicle for getting the unemployed and underemployed into work, but then my worry is that as soon as you start large scale job creation into place, you start to see calls for more manages and structures to oversee the additional recruits, so you just end up recreating the layers of management beuracracy that ideally we might otherwise want to cut down on or dismantle altogether in some places.

[tech_guy]

I'll be on the march this Saturday. Is anyone else from Edugeek going?

[CAM]

I'm in London but not for the march. Taking a special someone out /(annoyingly next to the extended Police closure zone!)

[beeswax]

It doesn't work like that. No matter how hard the public sector work, they don't generate income for the UK!! It's about money, and to be blunt, there isn't any. At all. It's all gone and the amount we pay per day in interest on the loans the previous govt took out to pay for the party everyones been enjoying for the past 13 years is £40 billion. Per annum!!!! That's over a million pounds a day interest. The previous govt borrowed $450 million a day just to keep the UK runnning as they realised teh party was over. I'll refrane from using such emotive terms as 'rape' instead I'll use real world ones such as incompetance and 'scortched earth' to describe the management of this countries wealth that has got us into this mess.

 

The problem with the cuts to the public sector is that all these private sector firms brought in with "leaner and fitter" attitudes are now going out of business because councils have cut back on the money they pay them to do work once done by councils. BBC - PM: Manchester Business survey This survey from the Manchester Business Community shows how hard certain public sector cuts are hitting the private sector.

[teejay]

The problem with the cuts to the public sector is that all these private sector firms brought in with "leaner and fitter" attitudes are now going out of business because councils have cut back on the money they pay them to do work once done by councils. BBC - PM: Manchester Business survey This survey from the Manchester Business Community shows how hard certain public sector cuts are hitting the private sector.

 

Sorry, maybe you've got the link wrong, but that survey doesn't show that at all, unless you're being very selective and not reading all of it.

[Rydra]

I have a few simple solutions, but half of you won't like em, the other half would love them. Nature of the world.

 

But to put it simply, everyone shares the responsibilities for everything. Noone is to blaim, and noone should be better or worse off for the sake of others.

 

If people stop expecting to get something for nothing, then we'll be better off.

 

And as a society we need to put a stop to pidgeon-holing and hierachies. That guy who earns more per year than the rest of us do in 10-25 years, and got a bonus that is bigger than I could earn in 100 years.... What makes him so much better than the next guy down the management chain? Or even the guy at the bottom of it?

If that guy at the top that earn's £1m per year and just got a £5m bonus, did the guy at the bottom who earns £12k per year just get a £60k bonus? If not, why not? That guy at the bottom probably did as many hours of work, went home twice as exhausted, and hell maybe even earned in profits for the company a sizeable chunk of what that guy of the top just got in bonuses.

 

Everyone is equal within a workplace, you just play a different role within it. If I'm 'better' at what I do then by all means pay me a bit more than the next guy; cos you want me to stay here and keep being better than the next guy. But just because your my manager doesn't automatically make you any more or less important, or any better or worse than me.

[beeswax]

Sorry, maybe you've got the link wrong, but that survey doesn't show that at all, unless you're being very selective and not reading all of it.

 

You're right. I should have linked to the pdf and the PM programme (about 17 mins in unfortunately, though you can drag the time bar).

[SpuffMonkey]

Just read this The Adventures of Unemployed Man: Amazon.co.uk: Erich Origen, Gan Golan: Books

 

Its a very funny satire on the current economic problems - well worth a look.

[witch]

I hope to be on the march although I am not in total agreement with the TUC - I do think we need cuts BUT I think it is being done in a cack-handed way that is too much, too fast, and not thought out properly.

I am tired though of the argument that 'the last government did x or y'

As I recall, the previous government but one were pretty lax as well - no one has really looked to the future for a very long time, it is all about trashing what the last guy did rather than actually trying to find a solution.

Tightening up the tax laws to stop this legal tax avoidance would be a good start. Taxing the banks. Making them use their profits to buy themselves back from the government (why wasnt this a prerequisite of the deal?).

An English assembly would be a good thing too - it really annoys me that Scots, NI and now Welsh MPs will be able to vote on things such as the university fees and some of the cuts that do not affect them, and yet the English MPs cannot vote in their assemblies.

And how CAN they afford to have lower or no fees??