Posted in Media on March 8, 2011
There have been two interesting and useful contributions to the debate about what we are marching for.
In yesterday’s Guardian, George Monbiot suggested that we were not clear enough about the alternative and could not boil it down to a flyer (though we quite like being called “brilliant and brave”).
We’ve done our best to set out both the arguments against the cuts and the alternative – and boiled down to bullet points the alternative reads:
- a crackdown on tax avoidance
- a Robin Hood tax on banks and finance
- policies and time to let economic growth and full employment raise the tax that will close the deficit
But perhaps the detail of the alternative is not as important right now as countering the government claim that there is no alternative to deep cuts on a four year timescale. The truth is that there are many alternative policies to the cuts. The TUC would agree with some of George’s but not all – and the feeling is probably mutual. But no-one has to sign up to any particular alternative to join us on March 26th.
And as Cath Elliot’s response to George published today says:
I do know what it is I’m fighting for. And that’s nothing more or less than this country’s future: the future of the welfare state, of our public services, of the education system, of pensions and of the NHS. I’m fighting for my future and my children’s, and the future of anyone else who wasn’t born with a silver spoon in their mouth: all of those who are set to lose so much if the government continues on its destructive course.”