Tens of thousands of teachers, pensioners, parents, carers, doctors, nurses, paramedics, refuse collectors, town hall staff and other public sector workers, university lecturers, students, charities, community workers and faith groups. These people represent the big society which holds Britain and its welfare state together and who are bearing the brunt of the ideological social restructuring which is taking place under the cuts programme being implemented by David Cameron’s Government.
As Tribune has detailed repeatedly before and since the last election, there is a clear alternative to the social savagery of the Tories and their Liberal Democrat collaborators and we make no apology for outlining the case again in our cuts special on pages 11-17. The TUC March for the Alternative gives those representatives of the big society – the real society about which Mr Cameron, Chancellor George Osborne and their colleagues appear to know little – a powerful voice. A chance to express, as Dave Prentis says on page 17, their “disgust, their anger and their fears”. That’s why cynics who say the march will make no difference – look at the massive protest against the Iraq war – are so wrong.
Not least because the sleight-of-hand Budget proposals designed specifically to produce feel-better headlines will be seen against a more bitter reality. Not just because of the cuts but also because of the Government’s related mishandling of the economy, living standards throughout the country are being forced into fast reverse. No part of the United Kingdom – except the banking fraternity – will be unharmed.
The march against the cuts marks the beginning of a solidification of a broad movement to counter the ideological war being waged on Britain and, hopefully, to ensure that something may be salvaged from the wreckage.
At the start, air strikes launched to save civilian Libyan lives appeared a simple concept with an incontrovertible humanitarian logic. At least to Britain, France and – more reluctantly – the United States. In as few as three days, we were in the familiar muddle and conflict of interests which accompany mission creep. Confusion reigned over who would lead the Libyan operation, the end purpose of which was unclear: Government ministers and military chiefs appeared at odds over whether Muammar Gaddafi was a “legitimate target” and whether regime change was, or could be a goal. The Arab League, whose initial support for military action was vital, quickly expressed doubts – together with Germany, Russia, China, the African Union and others – once the onslaught begun to look as though it was going beyond the terms of United Nations resolution 1973.
Labour leader Ed Miliband, having backed the no-fly zone operation, later expressed his own concern by saying that it is “very important to stick to the terms of the resolution”. Bigger questions remain unanswered. What are the geopolitical, economic or national interests in backing the “rebels” and effecting regime change against Colonel Gaddafi?
