TUC National Demonstration Against Cuts

Wubbly - of course it's a metaphor.

But not directly interpretable.

For a start it wasn't Osborne who 'spent all our money'. If a government is to blame for that - it was the Brown / Darling government. And to be fair - much of this was spent on public services, bailing out the banks, and massive fiscal stimulus to minimise the effects of a recession.

Can I ask those of you who insist Labour bankrupted us how you square that with the fact that the UK has the second lowest deficit in the G7?

Furthermore, spending under Labour tracked that of Tory govts until we had the 2008 crash.

Osbourne also includes the 850 billion we spent bailing out the banks as public debt.

I'd personally find the coalition's repeated emphasis on the need for cuts far more convincing if they did more to prevent corporate tax avoidance of the sort practised by Vodaphone and their ilk.

How can you think that these cuts are anything other than ideologically motivated?

Your thinking is an alarming eye opener Dittany.

wubbly - only 35% of people think the cuts go too far, according to the Guardian/ICM poll.

Yes Dittany.
In your little bubble anyone who doesn't agree with everything you say wants to wipe womankind from the face of the earth.

"The 40% increase in public spending during the Labour years was 'ideological'"

That's very true. And it wasn't just tax and spend, it was "tax and spend a whole lot more than you're getting in tax, while allowing tax loopholes that the Coalition have already closed since they got in, allowing the rich to get out of tax by paying 18% CGT which the Coalition has already raised to 28%, and raising the lowest tax rate from 10% to 20%, while the Coalition is taking low-paid people out of tax."

That was Labour's ideology.

"They also need constant reminders that, in a parliamentary democracy, the people with the power should never be thousands shouting in the streets, but millions quietly marking their crosses in the voting booth."

And the millions voted against these cuts. So much for bloody democracy.

Despite what today's marchers will claim, Trafalgar is no Tahir.

Charles Moore as always presents an elegant and measured view.

Ah Dittany.
You plumb new depths of rabidity.

'It was the handmaidens who sat at home directing their hate at other women, and sitting in denial about male hatred of them, who needed the smelling salts. Not brave women who went out on the streets and refused to submit.'

Wiple your foaming chops m'dear.

jack, it's a metaphor and not a bad one really, when you consider the impact of the cuts. We really are not all in this together.

People are entitled to peaceful protest. That's what Britain stands for - free speech. I might not agree with their opinions but I defend their right to express them.
As other posters have said, there have to be cuts because the cash has run out.
However, I think what is annoying a lot of people (myself included) is the way we have bailed out other countries having just had to make financial sacrifices ourselves. Also some of the cuts have been done unfairly, meaning some people who had very little will have even less while others are just getting away with it.

In case anyone hasn't posted it yet (I've not read whole thread) - here's the TUC advert against cuts.

Very odd IMO. They seem to see the relationship between government and citizen as a parent / (innocent) child relationship. It's quite revealing, especially about TUC understanding of the impact of the deficit on our children's future.

To all the people saying the cuts are 'ideological'.

All political parties spend money according to what they think is right, ie their ideology. The 40% increase in public spending during the Labour years was 'ideological' - ie was based on an ideology of tax and spend. So of course the cuts are 'ideological'. Not making cuts, or making different cuts, would be just as ideological.

But this word is routinely used as a criticism. What is it supposed to mean in this context?

See the young conservative are represented. Dressed in black and chucking stuff at police.

Keep on howling at the moon, dog. You take the (dog) biscuit in being quite wilfully ignorant AND being in bad faith. Congrats. Quite a combo.

Crystalclear - Well they haven't exactly done a GREAT job of scaring people away now have they?

(The ones I saw looked like incredibly fat sheep actually for some reason - they can't be cutting their food bills very much yet, but the walk might do them good.)

Well said Xenia!

They are just sheep and they will believe what anyone tells them a lot of the time. All political parties know the money has run out and plenty of the pubilc wants much much deeper cuts, not these namby pamby first ones we've got.

I was near there this morning when police vans were coming in for an appointment but back out before the start of the march.

Of course people have the right to peaceful protest. It's very important but we musn't think everyone is against the cuts. Indeed o nly 7% of people think we need no cuts.

wish i could be there, but marching with a 6 week old and the commute to get to london (4hrs) wasn't possible.

more frightened of the MET police than rogue protestors TBH. it's a sad day when the police scare people away from exercising a basic human right.

Anarchists would be those who disagree with any kind of centralised state.

Claig: I don't think it's possible to draw conclusions about who those demonstrators currently described on the news as anarchists "really" are. I doubt the awkward squad (for want of better terminology) gives two hoots about timings of interviews on any one particular TV station. It'll all be differently edited by the later main news broadcasts anyway.

by calling public sector workers 'lazy, idle and useless', thereiver, you reveal nothing but your own stupidity, blindness and ignorance. When they come for your job there'll be no-one left to speak out for you.