Clik here to view.
I think Simon Jenkins has forgotten what democracy means (Britain has long been a poor venue for protest, 25 March). His article is astounding, "Taking to the streets to overturn a decision of an elected government challenges democracy". What am I missing here? This is not an elected government – it is a coalition of the non-elected. And where, in Tory or Lib Dem manifestos, do we find any mandate for what this "government" is actually doing? Tripling university tuition fees – no. Cuts of 40% in university budgets – no. Cuts of 80% to university teaching grants – no. Damaging changes to the whole structure of the NHS – no. Cuts in funding to "green" projects – no. The abolition of the education maintenance allowance on which nearly 650,000 16-19 year olds depended to continue their education – no. And so it goes on.
If Simon thinks this is democracy, then everyone who voted at the last general election also missed something. Sorry Simon, this is not, as you say, mob rule. It is a democratic majority objecting to what is being done, quite fallaciously, in the name of democracy.
Nova Websdale
Exeter, Devon
• It was utterly futile to encourage people to march in protest against the "cuts", unless trade union leaders and Labour MPs (the few that dared to be present) advocated an alternative economic agenda to that of the coalition. Unfortunately, neither TUC boss Brendan Barber or Labour leader Ed Miliband offered any such alternative, and it was downright cheek for the latter to talk about fairness and togetherness on the speakers' platform when the last Labour government of which he was a member was in favour of the cuts, along with the support of the Tory opposition.
These cuts and the general scapegoating of the cost of the public sector are merely systemic of the wider issue of how the deficit was created through massive bailouts of the financial industry to cover up years of failed free-market, neoliberal economic policies by both Tory and Labour governments. It was along this theme that the march should have been conducted, not just the cuts.
Nick Vinehill
Snettisham, Norfolk
• Simon Jenkins could not be more wrong. He lists many failed protests, but he is wrong about the poll tax. The mass anti-poll tax demonstrations in the early 1990s motivated and fed the hugh numbers who refused to pay the hated tax, which eventually led to its withdrawal and the dismissal of the discredited Thatcher by her own party. Similarly, the nationwide Stop the Seventy Tour protests against apartheid led to the cancellation of the following 1970 cricket tour, which contributed enormously towards building the anti-apartheid movement that eventually undermined apartheid South Africa.
And there are many instances of protest blocking major government policies. The recent success in stopping the third runway at Heathrow comes to mind. More recently, the Tory policy of selling off our woodlands has already been dropped due to public pressure.
Ernest Rodker
London
• David Haslam urged "people of faith" to be on the streets of London last Saturday as "an act of prophecy" against the government's attack on the vulnerable in our society (Face to faith, 26 March).
Well, in more than four hours I saw thousands of banners condemning the closures of care homes, libraries, crossing wardens and so on – but not a single banner from the Church of England or any other religious group. I saw tens of thousands of ordinary people, young and old, black and white – but not a single dog collar, much less anyone in episcopal purple.
Sunday after Sunday, in churches up and down the country, a dwindling band of Christians prays for the sick, the poor, the exploited – but they take very good care not to identify with such people on the streets, where it really matters. When will we see a line of bishops joining such a great "act of prophecy"?
Jacob Ecclestone
Diss, Norfolk
• Simon Jenkins disparages the long history of non-violent protest in Britain. Surely we should be proud, rather than ashamed, of the fact that most protesters seek to "cause a genteel nuisance without breaching the law"? The essence of democracy, in contrast to tyrannical regimes abroad, is the right to peaceful protest. When protesters do turn violent, they are rightly denounced by the majority.
Jenkins suggests that the Peterloo massacre and chartism were failures because they did not lead to a "national uprising". This not only denigrates the memory of those who did lose their lives in the fight for the vote, but also misinterprets a major point of the radical movement. "Moral force" protesters saw that "physical force" would lead the government to military oppression. They believed that parliament would grant them their demands because of their peacefulness and loyalty, rather than because they threatened revolution.
Demonstrations and marches are not just about a selfish desire for "self-expression" or self-interest, as Jenkins claims. They involve a genuine desire for parliament to listen to the people and to respond reasonably. Parliament's intractability surely provides even more reason for protesters to express discontent rather than to stay at home and give the impression of apathy.
Dr Katrina Navickas
Lecturer in history, University of Hertfordshire
• As a Lib Dem I marched proudly in the TUC demonstration. I see nothing inconsistent in Lib Dems showing solidarity with the millions of fellow citizens who are victims of policies being pursued by a coalition that includes Lib Dem ministers. On the contrary, it is imperative that we stand up and be counted in opposition to policies that are inimical to Lib Dem values and pledges.
While I am with the majority who accept the need to cut the enormous deficit, I align myself with the theme of the demonstration that there are alternatives. The banks: in our manifesto Nick Clegg (no less) said "Doesn't it make you angry that the banks have been allowed to ride roughshod over our economy and we are still handing out bonuses by the bucket-load?" We pledged a banking levy to make the banks pay for the billions they have received from the taxpayer, yet the government's measures are a pale shadow of this and the bonus bonanza flourishes. Tax avoidance: the demonstrators demanded a blitz on tax avoiders, and our manifesto pledged real measures to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. Placards sought an end to Trident: our manifesto spoke of "saying no to like-for-like replacement" of Trident.
In common with the call from the streets, our manifesto said: "We will create hundreds of thousands of opportunities for young people affected by the recession." The demonstrators condemned the government's assault on our public services, not least the NHS, our manifesto proclaimed: "Lib Dems believe in investing and improving the quality of our public services. They are the cornerstone of a fair society, opening up opportunities and providing support and help when needed."
It was, after all, a great liberal, William Beveridge, who was one of the parents of the welfare state, and if contemporary Lib Dems fail to defend it they will be disowning their core values.
Benedict Birnberg
London