TUC National Demonstration Against Cuts

[OrangeBernard]

Who's going? I've just booked my train tickets. Its my first protest, any advice or tips? Bit worried about kettling.

If Labour were in power then the cuts would go by without protest because do you really think the unions would organise anything of the sort against their party? Especially with their man in the front seat.

Did you know that all MPs are going to get an extra £4million in expenses next year? Let's protest against that! Oh wait, the unions have their snouts in the trough too - maybe not then.

I'd have still protested if Labour was in, whether or not the Unions were doing so.

@jackstarb... then it would be like the transisition from Heath to Wilson to Callaghan all over again. Heath's government beset by economic crisis and industrial unrest. Wilson's government ramping up the debt supporting pay claims and failing industries. Callaghan trying to put the brakes on and getting ousted for upestting the unions. No wonder Thatcher had to take a hard line in '79.

What's that about the ones who forget about history being condemned to relive it? :)

The winter of discontent was due to Callaghan betraying the unions and going to the IMF. It's because that Labour govenrment wasn't leftwing enough. This left a vacuum for Thatcher to insinuate herself into. Just as Blair's New Labour created that disenchantment that lead to this debacle of a coalition. There's an example right there of those forgetting history being condemned to relive it Chil.

jackstarb the economy won't recover and there'll be a double dip which is when the real blood and tears will be made manifest. The general strike should be called before then to waylay that eventuality. In Italy the main union has finally got round to calling a general strike in May but for a half day only.

And this Labour/unions axis that is bandied around is a total red herring as Labour would've carried out the cuts only slower. When it suits them they pretend to be on the side of the workers but it was their continuation of Thatcherism that created this mess in the first place. Miliband's hypocrisy was quite breathtaking.

And exactly how does a general strike prevent a recession?

I remember Blacks in Glasgow had an ad once stating that it was the winter of discount tents.

I cannot take that phrase seriously any more.

Lightening the mood fail I think!

Can anyone see Ed Miliband as being PM? You are kidding right?

I don't think Miliband's own party see him as leader, let alone PM. What was that woolly speech on Saturday all about? He looked very uncomfortable with all those ordinary people....

Think you might be surprised there Chil, as at least he's got guts - no way would Blair have stuck his neck out like that and spoken. Most people in the Labour party will have liked that.

Thing is also.... and my reckoning may be wrong here... we need to stimulate the economy to increase wealth. By putting people out of work in the public sector you are sending them out there with no work to go to and increasing the JSA bill. At least when working they were paying tax, now they're taking out.

Those already on benefits are now facing vastly increased competition in the work market, and now they want more disabled/carers to join a perilously stretched job market....

We were starting to recover from recession just before the election, the buds of recovery were appearing. Once the ConDems got in and started slashing people stopped spending and the double dip started to happen. This will only get worse.

If the recovery had been allowed to continue, and THEN a more measured system of cuts introduced, with perhaps a penny or two increase in income tax for pretty much everyone but the poorest, the private sector would increase and grow to absorb some of the job losses in the public sector. Whilst still protecting the vulnerable.

Why wouldn't that system have worked?

Glitterknickaz - that is more or less what the libdem economic proposal was. Unofortunately it goes against the core conservative economic principles so they stuck Cable in business (which is very little to do with economics really).

It is very unfortunate. A midway approach with some cutting and some stimulation was generally thought by most economists to be the most likely to work.

But it's too late now.

See.... there is an alternative. I don't know why some fail to see that there is.

Because of a spectacularly effective PR job!

There is absolutely such a thing as a little knowledge being a bad thing. There was a lot of positive press about how other countries had done very well out of heavy cuts without any mention of all the things that made their economic situations very different. For example, when Canada cut 1/3 off all it's department budgets America next door was doing extremely well, so it was easy for them to tempt business over with lower rates. That's not possible for ANY country in the current climate because everywhere is suffering and there is no richer country full of booming businesses to take advantage and provide jobs at the same time.

At least when working they were paying tax, now they're taking out.
Except the "tax" they paid came from taxpayers in the first place so its not really losing income as such.

Glitter, there are always alternatives. But essentially when paying a debt back, there are two ways of doing it.

1. Cut your outgoings a lot and pay off as much as you can, as quickly as you can.

2. Cut your outgoings a bit and pay off your debt over a longer period.

You are suggesting 2) because to do 1) would be to have to make huge cuts in all the things we like to see like schools, benefits etc. Correct?

However there's another element to this which people rarely consider. And that is that politician's don't like to make cuts. Why? Because its a sure fire way to lose votes. That's how we've ended up with such a bloody great big deficit anyway. Because MP's like to spend cash like its a bottomless pit.

So here we are, the music stopped, Blair managed to escape whilst the good times still rolled, Brown managed eek things out until the election where luckily for Labour, they lost and the coalition were left holding the poison chalice.

As Mervyn King famously said before the election: "....whoever wins this election will be out of power for a whole generation because of how tough the fiscal austerity will have to be."

So there we are...the coalition MUST make cuts. There's no choice. The only questions are how deep and where. Now it must be obvious to even a blind man that as soon as you cut things like benefits, it doesn't matter if you want to shave 1% or 10%, there will be negative press coverage, protests, claims of nasty Tories and lib dem stooges.

The ONLY chance the coalition have to be in power is to cut fast, cut deep and hope that by the time the 5 years is up, the economy is growing and the deficit eliminated. That's the real reason why one of the first acts of the coalition was to make it harder for others to force a vote of no confidence. To maximise their chances of lasting five unpopular years.

The alternative is to cut slowly and in five years time say "Well we've done half a job.....vote for us and we'll do the other half in the next five years..." simply would not have worked. Most people wouldn't vote Tory/Libdems already, Who would vote for another five years of cuts?

Niceguy, you're forgetting the very real danger that by cutting so fast and so deep, the Coalition will tip us back into depression. They're taking a massive gamble on all of our futures, and have no real mandate to do so. Prime example is them using the excuse of needing to make cuts in a push to privatise the NHS, which is basically what Andrew Lansley's white paper is pushing through by the back door. Wasn't even mentioned in their manifesto.

I'm not forgetting that at all. Personally I think its entirely possible and I'd be surprised if we didn't double dip given the scale of the cuts needed. There's no guarantees that a smaller cut would not have also done the same.

It's risk versus reward. Yes, the risk is higher if they cut fast & deep but lets face it, they've little to lose. It must be obvious to them that they'll be lucky to stay in power next election anyway, so why not gamble on the fact the reforms will work and they can save what they can. Cutting a little just prolongs the pain and delays the inevitable.

And as for mandate, every party was talking about cuts. The only difference was the scale. Labour said they'd half the deficit over four years. Tories said no, it needs to be quicker. None of the major parties were stupid enough to define prior to the elections where the axe would fall. To say they've no mandate to make cuts is simply untrue.

Now here we are. The coalition have set their stall out and defined where the cuts are. Labour are still sniping from the sidelines saying "ooooh we wouldn't have cut that!" whilst still not committing to a single cut.

Don't get me wrong. There are many cuts I personally dislike and would not have done either. I guess we'll all have different opinions. But when you are the person in charge, you must choose where the axe falls and someone will lose out.

In my county we are having no library cuts ( very rural so hundreds of small and uneconomic but vital libraries) and council tax is frozen.

How come we can do it but others can't?

Niceguy, okay so Labour aren't saying exactly where they'd cut, but they are saying very clearly that they'd halve the deficit in four years, so far, far slower than the Coalition.

You're also right to say nobody had a mandate in that nobody was outright elected. Still though the Coalition is frankly taking the piss. You don't comment on my example of Health Care reforms, but that to me is the clearest and most odious example of their cynicism. Clearly Tory led, as the Lib Dems are now rebelling, they're simply using the deficit to bring in things they always wanted to do. Things they were too scared to put in their manifesto as they are way too contentious. The Lansley White Paper is once huge example, the changes to the Planning Laws another, but there are lots more.

forgetting all that though, going back to the simple level of common sense, their cuts make no economic sense. The Independent Office for Budget Responsibility at the end of March predicted growth would be lower this year and next and that unemployment would be up to 200,000 higher. To support that the knock on is borrowing will be £46 billion higher. Clearly insane.

You admit it's a gamble Niceguy, but it's reckless and hitting far too many people. There is an alternative and that's the speed of the cuts. You can't rebuild if there's nothing left.

Jogon - it's because it's not really about 'having' to do anything. It's about particular councils wanting to push through their own agenda's - ie there are councils who don't want to be in control of anything but the bare basics - so it's an opportunity for them to cut everything they don't think is government 'business' IYSWIM.

So for example, it is easy for some councils (with all the individual councillors to convince to pass proposals) to sell off libraries, if the council is mostly made up of very business minded people who don't believe they are valuable because they look at them in financial terms, instead of social.

In my last district, the council voted to close public toilets in order to pay for the refurbishment of their council building. - They didn't see the value of the toilets because they didn't have to use them and couldn't make money off them (their building was right next door!) but everyone who uses the gardens and playpark they are part of, and now has to walk 20 mins away to the only remaining set did!

I think you must have an excellent council if they have managed without cuts, and it puts all the others to shame.

It's totally a gamble. I'm not denying it. I'm just offering a reason why they're doing it fast & deep rather than slowly. Both strategies are logical and it just depends on the sort of person you are I guess which you prefer.

The slower you pay off your debts, the more interest you actually pay and more you end up eventually paying. Oh and bear in mind we're merely talking about the deficit here. In five years we won't have paid a penny off our actual debt yet. Just stemmed the tide of overspending.

About a decade ago, Canada faced a similar problem where their deficit was out of control and on the verge of bankruptcy. They chose a hard & deep cut strategy (aka the bloodbath budget) and eliminated their deficit in 3 years. Sweden had a similar issue too but I can't remember when now. The lessons learned from them is that it's better to just pull the plaster off quick and let it hurt now rather than look to prolong the pain over a decade.

To me those who are wishing for a slower speed are simply living in denial of the scale of the problem. Five years just to stop overspending and you think that's too quick!?!?!

If I went to CCCS tomorrow and told them I'm on the verge of bankruptcy. I've overspending every month and up to my eyes in debt. Would they recommend I reduce my outgoings slowly over the next five years because otherwise my kids would suffer? Or would they recommend something faster and accepting the fact that the kids will be affected?

As for the healthcare, it's not something I've read much about. To me, the NHS is a spiralling monopoly organisation which is out of control. I'm not 100% sure if the new plans will help or not but I'm keeping an open mind on that.

Niceguy - did you read my post earlier where I pointed out that the reason Canada coped was because it's neighbour America was doing extremely well at the time? They cut their rates for various business including filmmaking and most 'american' tv shows are now filmed in Canada?

It's not a valid comparison to now because there aren't any successful neighbours. This is a worldwide recession, there aren't any successful countries at all!!

Jogon - Pickles has very carefully changed the way councils receive central funding. Basically the more tory voters in a county, the more money the council gets.

www.nlgn.org.uk/public/2010/poorest-areas-hit-hardest-by-finance-settlement/

Of all the things this government is doing this is perhaps the most obscene.

Change the formula so that labour councils have to make more cuts than tory ones. So yes Richmond on Thames loses almost nothing while Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham are hammered.

On the Radio a few days ago - Alistair Darling said the Osborne strategy is a 'judgement call'. Darling might have made a different one - but delaying cuts is not a risk free option.

Remember - we are nearly one year into this government and few of the cuts have even been implimented. Whilst the deficit is still increasing month by month.

Niceguy, you're doing what George Osbourne does, so being hugely selective about the Canadian model. As LaWeasel says you can't compare. Yes they cut the deficit, but morally it was bankrupt, as the bloodbath budget was a disaster for the majority of working families, who broadly experienced the 1990's as a lost decade. Also did you know that the gulf between rich and poor significantly increased due to it? Interesting that isn't it.

In other words, they cut the deficit, but at what cost? You're bringing out the anorak in me now, but there's a great book on by a Canadian journalist called Linda McQuaig called 'Shooting the Hippo'. Seem to remember her describing how how the media and officials ratcheted up the fears of the debt to create a sense of crisis. Sound familiar??

And you really can't compare household domestic budgets with National economics. It just doesn't work like that. If it did it would be easier to fix.

I agree the NHS needs to be more efficient, but freedom of information has shown the budgetary restraints will mean 50,000 job losses - which will hit front line services. It has to. There are ways of doing things, but slashing budgets so brutally won't get them there. Surely we have to create conditions in which the economy can grow, then cut the deficit. What the Government is doing is pure destruction.

" Surely we have to create conditions in which the economy can grow"

I think that is exactly what Osborne is planning. Except he wants to see the private sector lead us out of recession. The real attack on the defecit will start then.

See this is the thing - both sides want growth, no one knows which method will lead to it.

We won't really be able to judge for 10-20 years what the results will be, and even then we won't know what the alternative route would have lead to.