Why we need to March for the Alternative


Brendan Barber is the general secretary of the TUC

TUC-March-for-the-Alternative
The March for the Alternative has come at just the right time.

On Wednesday we had what was proclaimed as a budget for growth which the chancellor’s own advisers in the Office for Budget Responsibility promptly said was no such thing, and most people seem to have already forgotten. It is now much harder to dismiss the warnings we made last year that these deep cuts will harm the economy by hitting consumer and business confidence.

Even the boss of Sainsbury’s is blaming poor results on what the Daily Mail calls “uncertain employment prospects and government spending cuts”.

Next week, as the financial year starts, the cuts will really start to bite. Local councils and community groups will start closing services and sacking staff in their thousands.

The NHS reforms seem to run into more difficulties every week as first the Lib Dems and even Conservative backbenchers get increasingly assertive in their opposition.

The government is losing the argument. Big majorities now say the cuts are unfair and that they are damaging the economy.

All round the country campaign groups are springing up to battle the cuts. Almost every part of the public sector has seen people coming together to stand up to defend their bit of the public realm. And there have been victories too with at least partial U-turns on forestry, school sport and even the NHS reforms.

Although the papers are full of right wing commentators saying that we are no more than a minority vested interest, a new YouGov poll today shows that it is they who are losing. When asked, “Generally speaking, do you support or oppose the aim of the march to campaign against public sector spending cuts?” 52% say yes and only 31% say no. Even one in five Conservative voters agree with us.

That is why the turn-out today promises to be huge.

Of course I do not expect an ashen-faced David Cameron and contrite Nick Clegg to hold an emergency press conference tomorrow where they announce that they have been wrong all along. Nor do I think that a single demonstration – however big – adds up to a campaign.

But what the TUC is doing today is providing a national focus that can bring together local and sectoral campaigners. It will be a huge morale boost. All of us who say that what the coalition is doing is a deliberate political choice, not an economic necessity, will take heart.

And the real test today is not the turn-out but whether we return home even more determined to defend public services and step up the arguments for the alternative.

This entry was posted in Public Services for All and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
  • Pingback: Zoe Sutherland()

  • Pingback: snake()

  • Pingback: Birmingham Feminists()

  • Pingback: Knut Cayce()

  • Pingback: Paul Krishnamurty()

  • Pingback: portugaluncut()

  • Pingback: vikz()

  • Pingback: vikz()

  • Pingback: israel()

  • Pingback: israel()

  • Pingback: Trakgalvis()

  • Pingback: bee hive()

  • Pingback: March 26 March()

  • Pingback: Tuba Bauhofer()

  • Pingback: ameliesoleil()

  • Pingback: chang mei wan ()

  • Pingback: Johanna Baxter()

  • Pingback: Liza Harding()

  • Pingback: Will Straw()

  • Pingback: Samuel Tarry()

  • Pingback: Johanna Baxter()

  • Pingback: joe derrett()

  • George McLean

    What’s next? Land value tax, co-operatives, equitable taxation, green house-building, wind-and tidal-farms, no tax breaks for private schools, a legally-enforceable mimimum:maximum wage ratio in all enterprises, a republic, and … what else for a Plan B, people? Or is Michael Gove our best hope?

  • Dave Morgan

    Fully support that lot George – it’s amazing how the vested interests that such ideas would hit are so effective in preventing meaningful discussion on these. I particularly like the idea of property and land taxation (like they do in Scandinavia) which could free up empty homes and land as well as reduce property costs and rents to workers and business. I guess when push comes to shove, those holding property assets have more to lose from a devaluation of their assets than they do from making our workers cheaper but better off.

  • Dave Morgan

    Fully support that lot George – it’s amazing how the vested interests that such ideas would hit are so effective in preventing meaningful discussion on these. I particularly like the idea of property and land taxation (like they do in Scandinavia) which could free up empty homes and land as well as reduce property costs and rents to workers and business. I guess when push comes to shove, those holding property assets reckon they have more to lose from a devaluation of their assets than they do from making workers cheaper but better off.

  • Dave Citizen

    Fully support that lot George – it’s amazing how the vested interests that such ideas would hit are so effective in preventing meaningful discussion on these. I particularly like the idea of property and land taxation (like they do in Scandinavia) which could free up empty homes and land as well as reduce property costs and rents to workers and business. I guess when push comes to shove, those holding property assets reckon they have more to loose from a devaluation of their assets than they do from making workers cheaper but better off.

  • George McLean

    Thank you, Citizen Citizen! Whether an alternative to capitalism includes most or only a few of my list, it’s about time the discussion started. While the Parliamentary Opposition is stuck within the boundaries set by the Right and allowed by the conservative media, it’s easy for the debate to be stifled.

  • Pingback: Look Left – Referendum battle hots up | Left Foot Forward()

  • Pingback: Cameron’s “failed experiment” leads to yet another economic downgrade | Left Foot Forward()