Whether it was the more likely figure of 100,000, or the more ambitious quote of half a million that marched through London two weeks ago with the TUC, there is no denying it was good turnout. But how did they do it? The TUC spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on transport, advertising, staffing, promotional material etc. Most of this money came from the taxpayer, channelled through public-sector jobs and back into the union coffers through membership subs.
You can understand why they did it. The trade union movement is a lobbying firm as powerful and dangerous to democracy as big pharmaceutical protection agents and the infamous smoking and arms lobby. They are just as self-interested in protecting the financial interests and wallets of those who have a stake in them and will go out of their way to manipulate the media and the law to that means.
The March for an Alternative wasn’t an organic outpouring of anger that spilled on to the streets, but the end product of seven months’ work by a professional events company. And still they only managed to get less than 0.2% of the country to turn up. The spin and lines to come out of the event was that it was the true face and opinion of the British public, but this is complete rot. It was an assortment of public sector workers and students and those related to them. All dependent on seeing the status quo, and thus their interests, protected, even when it is a direct threat to the best interests of the rest of the population and the nation.
I was asked in a TV debate a couple of days ago with some hard left types what the alternative to cutting back the state is. To put it bluntly, there is not one. Hence why the TUC and Labour, despite the rhetoric, could not produce an alternative on the day. They know full well that if the bond market was to pull the plug on Britain, the absurdly high public sector wage bill will not be able to be paid. However, it seems they have come to the conclusion that if they are going down, they are taking the rest of the population with them. This cannot be allowed to happen.
If you agree with this there is one small thing you can do. It’s not going to change the world, but it’s important that this lobbying firm is stood up to. On 14 May join me and a thousand others already registered for the Rally Against Debt. We’re not going to resort to their tactics by smashing up the TUC headquarters or throwing bricks through the windows of Sure Start centres, but simply register our concern that with the current rate of public spending and borrowing Britain is hurtling toward bankruptcy. It won’t be as big as the the TUC march as there is no money for buses or advertising blitzes, but if you want to say no to those holding the future of this country to ransom, then lend the Rally Against Debt an hour of your day.
Comments
ed / April 05 2011 4:36pm
I work in the Private sector and I went along as did many others I know. Why? Because many of our local services are threatened including our local library. We marched because we were concerned that our children won't have the facilities they need. It's not just the public sector works that use public services you know.
Billy Bowden / April 05 2011 4:37pm
First!
Stuart Bruce / April 05 2011 5:04pm
You're absolutely right about trade unions acting as 'lobbying firms', but what you're forgetting is they are lobbying for 'us'. You're welcome to join a trade union and they then have democratic structures that enable you to vote and ultimately decide their policy.
Pete / April 05 2011 5:08pm
Me too Ed - I am a solicitor for a commercial firm and went to the march because I disagree with what the government are doing.
Setting aside the fact that I don't agree with what the writer is saying, this is an abominably poorly written article. For example he says that it was "good turnout" in the first para, but by the third, he complains it was only 0.2% of the population.
And then there's the tortuous sentences like:
"I was asked in a TV debate a couple of days ago with some hard left types what the alternative to cutting back the state is, but to put it bluntly, there is not one." WHAT?
Is this guy seriously earning a living as writer?
Matthew Sinclair / April 05 2011 5:11pm
If people want to register to attend, they can do so by clicking here:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=204678962884261
Harry Cole / April 05 2011 5:13pm
Mingling through the crowds at Hyde Park there was very little evidence to back up your statement Ed.
53% of the country is employed by the state now, I'd say 90% of the people I met that day were part of that evil statistic.
Of course we need strong and steady emergancy services and teachers but things are way out of control now, but if you want to to continue to stick your head in the sand and watch this country go bust then be my guest.
Pete / April 05 2011 5:18pm
Me too Ed - I am a solicitor for a commercial firm and went to the march because I disagree with what the government are doing.
Setting aside the fact that I don't agree with what the writer is saying, this is an abominably poorly written article. For example he says that it was "good turnout" in the first para, but by the third, he complains it was only 0.2% of the population.
And then there's the tortuous sentences like:
"I was asked in a TV debate a couple of days ago with some hard left types what the alternative to cutting back the state is, but to put it bluntly, there is not one." WHAT?
Is this guy seriously earning a living as writer?
Harry Cole / April 05 2011 5:20pm
Stuart, I'm not sure the RMT have my best interests at heart!
Pete, a good turnout in terms of a protest, most people have better things to do on a Saturday morning. As for the rest of your comment, I refer you to Arkell v Pressdram.
Carl / April 05 2011 5:27pm
Why would you need to put bricks through the windows of child centres, they'll be gone soon enough anyhow. Plus the building could be used for the first in a series of Tory Bear free schools - apprentice hairdressers need not apply
Ryan Bourne / April 05 2011 5:38pm
ed: you might not like the fact that your local library is being closed down, but you must think about this rationally.
Do you agree with all the mainstream economic institutions and commentators who feel the deficit has to be reduced? If not, I suggest you read our Centre for Policy Studies report 'Five Fiscal Fallacies' or the work that Matt Sinclair has been doing to debunk the myths about the sustainability of the deficit.
If you do, a direct consequence of this will be reduced funding to local councils. How they choose to spend this money is up to them - but they should be seeking to minimise overheads and reduce non-jobs to facilitate the protection of frontline services. If they're not doing that, then your beef isn't with the government, but with your council.
Phil East / April 05 2011 6:14pm
What a poorly written article, someone should read these before they are put up.
Nathan / April 05 2011 6:17pm
His argument falls apart as soon as he compares the unions to the lobbies of big industry. The political directions unions take are done so in accordance with the democratic consent or their millions of members, who are largely people onlow and middle incomes. The lobbies of big business are answerable to nobody but the millionaires that own them, and they have more money and influence than the unions.
Jo / April 05 2011 6:19pm
Er, Nathan. Big businesses are answerable to their stakeholders. Just as trade unions are answerable to their members. If Harry wants to march, I say, 'Go march, my boy!' (Just don't expect blanket coverage on Sky News.)
Steve T. / April 05 2011 10:31pm
Of COURSE the unions are politicised vested interests. But they have a right to be if they want to. Their position makes no economic sense whatsoever, except for their member's pockets (and stuff the country and the future generations). But again, that's their choice.
I'll be at the rally. See you there.
Chris Cisne / April 06 2011 1:32pm
"We’re not going to resort to their tactics by smashing up the TUC headquarters or throwing bricks through the windows of Sure Start centres"
Of course not - your lot in parliament are taking care of that for you.
"53% of the country is employed by the state now, I'd say 90% of the people I met that day were part of that evil statistic."
How refreshing: a rational statement from a sane and reasonable mind.
Pete / April 07 2011 10:54am
Harry,
I think you mean you refer me to *the response given in* Arkell -v- Pressdram.
Your comment, like your article, makes no sense.
Ben / April 08 2011 3:34pm
"Most of this money came from the taxpayer, channelled through public-sector jobs and back into the union coffers through membership subs."
Nice logic here Harry. Does that mean if a public sector worker buys a Mars bar, then that means Mars are taxpayer funded?