Taking to the streets on March 26th - Cuts protest

[TalkShow Bob]

Turnout was brilliant - sure they won't listern but at least we made our feelings known. Hope lib dems get such a kicking in the assembly and scottish gov ellections that they really re think what they are doing to the country!

[worm]

Ahaha. No compulsory redundancies in the Welsh NHS. And I hardly think that me going to London and chanting various lame but rhyming criticisms at the government is going to prevent me from being a loser in the long-run.

Is it so wrong to trust the government to make the hard decisions about what money goes where? It's something I'd have to do an impossible amount of research to work out what we can actually afford and what we can't. But of course, you've all done this, so you know better than the government, you know exactly what we should spend on libraries etc and where we should get that money from - what we should cut (wars, at a guess?).

So if I went to the demonstrations, I think the best I could think to shout would be "Stop The Cuts! Although, I don't know much about it, possibly you've got more information about the effectiveness of said cuts than me, but I thought I'd complain about it in this generic, non-specific way anyway because then you might somehow make the country better and I won't end up being a loser when I'm 35 like Phil hopes I will"

[worm]

Reading back over the justifications of whether or not to go to this thing is interesting. It all seems to be about whether it is effective in terms of outcome. Surely the whole point of doing something is because you believe in it, not because of what you think it will bring. It's a very consumerist approach to look at the outcome rather than consider the meaning.

Who gives a f**k what happens. You've done what you believe in. I've learned that I'm not that arsed about the cuts because I didn't feel compelled to march. That's simply the fact of the matter. I'm not going to justify it by saying it isn't effective - I have absolutely no idea of how effective it will turn out to be and neither has anyone here.

Edited March 27, 2011 by worm

[llcoolphil]

Reading back over the justifications of whether or not to go to this thing is interesting. It all seems to be about whether it is effective in terms of outcome. Surely the whole point of doing something is because you believe in it, not because of what you think it will bring. It's a very consumerist approach to look at the outcome rather than consider the meaning.

Who gives a f**k what happens. You've done what you believe in. I've learned that I'm not that arsed about the cuts because I didn't feel compelled to march. That's simply the fact of the matter. I'm not going to justify it by saying it isn't effective - I have absolutely no idea of how effective it will turn out to be and neither has anyone here.

[worm]

Yes, but you dont really take part in anything beyond talking about it anyway

[llcoolphil]

I think that's a little harsh Phil. I do what I believe to be right too, which is more often than not abstinance, charity and support rather than symbolic act.

I'm just expressing my humble appreciation for those with the conviction to live by their beliefs, whatever they may be.

[worm]

So you act but others symbolically act. A subtle dismissal there.

[lost]

todays daily mash

[eFestivals]

police response in trafalger square last night was insane. 1 person trying to damage the olympic clock justifies kettling and beating hundreds?

No, people trying to set-up a peaceful permanent protest justifies kettling and beating hundreds.

We have a govt that is backing armed insurrection (which can also be called 'terrorism') in one country, and only allowing protests on its own terms in this country.

[diddly-dee]

What anyone who feels inclined to criticise saturday's 'violent' protestors should, i believe, have due regard to is that NOTHING meaningful has ever been achieved by peaceful and subservient protest. It either has to be violent direct action or indirect economically driven action (boycotts, non-payment of poll tax etc.).

We'd never have gotten the magna carta without a revolt, women would not have the vote if a few of them (the suffraggists rather than the suffragettes) hadn't undertaken voilent and direct action, the civil rights movement in the usa would never have got anywhere with martin luther-king's doctrine of peace and love alone (it took the direct action of riots and economic boycotts before concession were made). Similarly, we'd still have the poll tax if thousands of people hadn't either/both refused to pay it and taken to the streets in 1990. There would never have been a 'good friday' agreement in Ulster if the IRA hadn't switched their bombing campaign to economic targets on mainland britain (the UK government would have been happy for the IRA to kill squaddies on the streets of Belfast or off-duty RUC constables on their doorsteps from now until hell freezes over - it was only when the IRA planted a couple of massive bombs in The City of London and one in Manchester that had an economic impact that negotiations took place). Governments and ruling elites are not concerned with what is 'fair' or 'unfair' or 'truth' or 'lie' - they are concerned only with taking a stance that can either advace or retard their overall position and any of the naive niceties of 'democracy' simply don't come into it. We have a plebiscitory democracy that offers a prescribed set of choices designed to maintain a status quo with minor tweaking at the egdes. It'd be nice to think that peaceful protest could change the government's mind - but, alas, experience shows that it doesn't work like that.

None of us would (or should) give up our rights without a fight and, equally, the ruling elites who have power/money/influence etc. will not be inclined to give up any of those privileges without knowing they have to make concessions or risk losing everything.

[lost]

its all about opinions really, some people blame corporations for their lives being not the way they wanted, other people in this country blame immigration. We therefore need to give the violence the same respect and allow it to sway opinion as if we saw a break away group from an EDL march start smashing up mosques and Muslim owned businesses.

[worm]

What anyone who feels inclined to criticise saturday's 'violent' protestors should, i believe, have due regard to is that NOTHING meaningful has ever been achieved by peaceful and subservient protest. It either has to be violent direct action or indirect economically driven action (boycotts, non-payment of poll tax etc.).

We'd never have gotten the magna carta without a revolt, women would not have the vote if a few of them (the suffraggists rather than the suffragettes) hadn't undertaken voilent and direct action, the civil rights movement in the usa would never have got anywhere with martin luther-king's doctrine of peace and love alone (it took the direct action of riots and economic boycotts before concession were made). Similarly, we'd still have the poll tax if thousands of people hadn't either/both refused to pay it and taken to the streets in 1990. There would never have been a 'good friday' agreement in Ulster if the IRA hadn't switched their bombing campaign to economic targets on mainland britain (the UK government would have been happy for the IRA to kill squaddies on the streets of Belfast or off-duty RUC constables on their doorsteps from now until hell freezes over - it was only when the IRA planted a couple of massive bombs in The City of London and one in Manchester that had an economic impact that negotiations took place). Governments and ruling elites are not concerned with what is 'fair' or 'unfair' or 'truth' or 'lie' - they are concerned only with taking a stance that can either advace or retard their overall position and any of the naive niceties of 'democracy' simply don't come into it. We have a plebiscitory democracy that offers a prescribed set of choices designed to maintain a status quo with minor tweaking at the egdes. It'd be nice to think that peaceful protest could change the government's mind - but, alas, experience shows that it doesn't work like that.

None of us would (or should) give up our rights without a fight and, equally, the ruling elites who have power/money/influence etc. will not be inclined to give up any of those privileges without knowing they have to make concessions or risk losing everything.

[eFestivals]

You're clearly an intelligent dude, but I don't agree with this.

It takes violence to unseat a Gadaffi. It's taken violence for the limited political reforms that the UK has had too and which still has us a very long way from any real democracy. The "oldest democracy in the world" is actually the least democratic of any democracy, a land where aristocracy and arse-licking has a veto (if now only temporary) over democratic legislation.

It's a hundred years since the UK has had any (slightly ) meaningful political reform - did we really have it right 100 years ago, with the little we knew then compared to now?

It's over a thousand years since any meaningful land reform in the UK (tho that was really just murder) - making the UK the last 'democracy' without it. Has this country really had these things so right for all that time?

But asking nicely will sort it all, eh? PMSL.

[worm]

It takes violence to unseat a Gadaffi.

[llcoolphil]

It takes violence to keep him there.

[worm]

Thats just a clever answer as well you know.

[worm]

He's referred to historically violent changes, which is so obviously going to result in violence. But some changes do not occur violently. We just tend to overlook them.

Violent protest and war are masculine. Peaceful protest is feminine. I'd rather women were in charge in a system that was less patriarchal myself.

Edited March 28, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

He's referred to historically violent changes, which is so obviously going to result in violence. But some changes do not occur violently. We just tend to overlook them.

Violent protest and war are masculine. Peaceful protest is feminine. I'd rather women were in charge in a system that was less patriarchal myself.

So what you're saying is that you can't answer Phil's question.

Saying "I can't answer that question" would have sufficed.

[rabid]

He's referred to historically violent changes, which is so obviously going to result in violence. But some changes do not occur violently. We just tend to overlook them.

[eFestivals]

He's referred to historically violent changes, which is so obviously going to result in violence.

The reason for the violence is not due to any protesters desire for violence but due to the incumbents desire to not give up the power they hold against the will of 'the people'.

Poll tax riots - a govt that would not stop from imposing a tax against the will of the people.

1838 riots - a grouping that would not give up the power they held against the will of the people (and sadly, nearly 2 centuries later, they still haven't).

Some of the trouble on Saturday - a govt that would not allow the people to form a peaceful protest (ironically a protest in the exact same form as the protests they've been lauding for the last 3 months ).

[lost]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/27/dutch-bankers-bonuses-axed-by-people-power

[eFestivals]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/27/dutch-bankers-bonuses-axed-by-people-power

sadly, such things require a govt that is willing to act on behalf of the people's views no less than it does for 'the people' to ask that it does.

We do not have such a govt in this country. The majority in this country are clearly in favour of the people who caused the crisis to pay for the crisis, but the govt will not act on that.

===========================

Entirely separately to the above ....

I saw some socialist worker posters on Saturday. They said "we're not paying for your crisis". I thought "that's not very socialist, is it?"

I chatted to a guy from the Revolutionary Communist Group on Saturday, who was trying to tell me that Labour are not the alternative (I agreed). But I couldn't help but call him a splitter. .... I also told him that like ABBA, I have a dream. But slightly different to ABBA, I believe in Engels.

(he was a humourless git)

The best (or worst ) were the photos taken of the protesters walking towards any photographer stood at the Trafalgar Square end of Whitehall. A big electronic sign had been placed in the middle of the street which displayed to people looking the opposite way to the direction that the marchers were marching. It said in huge letters above those marchers heads "NO LEFT TURN". But it wasn't put there saying that due to any sort of govt plan, oh no.

[worm]

So what you're saying is that you can't answer Phil's question.

Saying "I can't answer that question" would have sufficed.

[llcoolphil]

It certainly was.

[llcoolphil]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/27/dutch-bankers-bonuses-axed-by-people-power