As someone who was on the march, I agree with your interpretation entirely.

I marched as a working-class graduate whom the capitalist system has now thrown on the scrapheap - and also in solidarity with those workers who were, even as we started the march, occupying their factories.

As for the route of the march - symbolic, yes. Effective... no. Like you say, the streets were mostly devoid of life. All through the march, the messages we were directed to chant (christ, the 'hymn sheet'?) were all 'we'll tell the G20 this!', and 'we'll tell the G20 that!' - except the march was so long and winding that by the time we got to ExCel the G20 Summit was bloody finished! Then, when the marchers attempted to show the only dissaproval they could - booing the leaving motorcades - the stewards got pissy that we weren't listening to the speaker (someone who works in the JOB CENTRE! That body which only exists to twist and massage unemployment figures for the Government)! Also, they were *ridiculously* accomodating to the police - even for peaceful protestors. Even scrunching the banner up so we could march along the pavement and down pedestrian steps at various points - 'can't 'ave yer inconveniencing traffic now, can we?'

The march showed me that ordinary working class people can be supportive of left wing causes - those few workers we passed seemed very open to the message - but it taught me that the Socialist Party will never go anywhere meaningful. I saw them as being very nicey-nice, but at the same time massive control freaks. I was up near the front of the march, by the banner. People were coming off it for a rest, swapping, passing it to other nearby marchers, as you do. Then I heard the main steward (the long haired guy) talking to his fellows, saying 'I'm a bit worried, there are no experienced comrades on the banner'. From that point on, there were always two stewards placed firmly on either end of it. What did they think people were going to do? Storm a bank with it?!

Then there was the chanting. A few times, non-'comrades' attempted to start their own chants - relevant chants, honest heartfelt messages of protest. This was met with sidelong dissaproving scowls from the organisers, who then used their loudhailers to drown them out with an 'approved' one. Even the 'No Pasaran' chant was only taken up after someone had pointed out the relevance of Cable Street (the young organisers seemed not to know). They let us chant it about five times, then we were suddenly thrust back to 'Youth Fight! FOR JOBS!' again and again.

When we got to ExCel... what was the proposed solution? Credit where credit's due they had done a good job laying out what the problem was throughout the length of the march, so what was the answer? 'Um... Join the Socialist Party!' 'Come to our meeting on the 9th of May!' That was it. Nothing else. Nothing

As you say, we were then herded back to the station... I think they had an absolute morbid fear that someone who was dressed in one of their 'souvenir t-shirts' would go off and do something to bring them into 'disrepute' - God forbid. As we tramped back, I noticed that there was an air of helpless defeat over the marchers - who by and large were not 'experienced comrades', just young people wanting to demonstrate and vent their righteous anger at having their promised future stolen from them.

Me? I'm not sorry I went on the march. As I said, I marched for my own reasons, for my own deeply-held beliefs. But those young 'comrades' on the march made me realise that the Socialist Party and the 'Youth Fight for Jobs' simply doesn't have the balls to take up the fight.

What, pray tell, is "dain't"? I've seen it crop a few times. I realise it's the way that people on TV these days (especially the ones talking down to the "yoof", Ay-kay guys?!) pronounce "don't", i.e. wrongly. It's a kind of neutral posho accent that's taking over the country. The word is "don't", with an "o", that rhymes with "Bo!" if "dain't" is some west London ting. Seriously, you could "of" learnt how to spell it properly.

Bit of a crap slogan anyway. Why would anyone want to fight for jobs when we all know how soul-destroying wage slavery really is?

A decent standard of living, yes.
Meaningful projects on which to work, yes.

But jobs? As in doing something you wouldn't normally choose to do, selling your time to a capitalist who profits from it, because you need the money (in order to have the decent standard of living we should all be entitled to anyway)? Screw that!

You might expect a bunch of people calling themselves 'socialists' to come up with a more inspiring and audacious slogan. Oh well.

@ irrelevant

If I want to use words like bain't, dain't, or ain't I will do just that. I don't need the permission of some eejit, who gets shirty because certain colloquialisms or neologisms gain wider usage, and may enter the vernacular due to being popularised on TV networks

An' no the word is not - "don't", with an "o", that rhymes with "Bo!" - for that would imply it is describing the present tense, Professor Higgins

Skip back 500 years and here's your ancestor disparaging on the the language vogue of the Elizabethan day.......

"Bless my breeches Wotton! What, pray tell, is "lacklustre"? Forsooth, it doth expostulate from the lips of Globe Theatre lozels that thee acknown as players (especially the ones that gallent's and cut purses attend)".

"Indeed Edmund ! I believe it be the way that Shakespeare fellow doth pronounce "dull" "

"Sayth Thou Wotton! With what provident wit, doth also the words "addiction” and “priceless” confute the spaken langvage ov her most gracious Soverign the Queene" etc ..........

Type words however you want, but don't be surprised when nobody has a clue what you are talking about.

At least wait until they are in common usage before using them in a report.