Let St Pauls Be St Pauls

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Now that the protest occupying the area outside St Pauls has made its point, it's time they moved on. Any goodwill they may have for their points of view is being eroded by the problems they are causing this key place of worship and tourist attraction. They are not inconveniencing 'The City' in the slightest. Own-goal.

Sevenfoldedbloodybodies you don't need plan permission to pitch up a tent, what an absurd thing to say.

There is no reason for st pauls to close, protestors complied with all the health and safety advice given by the council.

"There is no reason for st pauls to close"

So why is it closing? Why are they willing to loose £16,000 to £20,000 a day?

And now another group, UK uncut, is saying that it's going to protest there as well. So another group is willing to see it's respect and level of public support take a good kicking. Someone mentioned Turkeys voting for Christmas earlier?

Sigh.

I was amused by an article in one of the papers the other day who described how most of the City workers were already at their desks by the time the protesters (those who'd actually stayed in their tents, that is, rather than going somewhere more warm and comfortable for the night) were even awake, let alone out there agitating for something different.

The journalist made a good point: capitalism may have its problems, but anyone wondering why it continues to persist might reflect on the fact that fortune favours those who actually get up in the morning.

It is closing because the camp runs the full north side of the cathedral and has blocked fire access. The fire authorities have said that they cannot have the public in. They are continuing to permit small numbers of Catherdral staff, who will be very familiar with the layout (and who would also be easier to roll call in event of emergency to enter), but not the general public.

If they opened against fire service advice, they would be exposing themselves to a liability that it would be unreasonable to bear. If you think the fire service has made the wrong call, presumably you'd need to take it up with them. But they are the experts.

BadgersPaws have you heard the justifications for protesting at St Pauls? I am sure there are reasons - whether you consider them good reasons is another thing.

TheJoyfulPuddleJumper I am sorry to hear of your terrible time over the last few years I hope things improve for ye soon.
But your experience is not unusual, sadly, and will be becoming more common during the years ahead.
For the last 30 years the right wing outlook has held sway, deregulation, privatisation, lower taxes and reduced public services. Like anything else there are pros and cons to that model, but the benefits tend to coalesce at the higher rungs while the drawbacks are felt among the poorest. There are record profits for large corporations who are unshackled from the fetters of regulation (the banks for eg) profits for pension funds - good news for everyone who plans to get old, greater disposable income for the average lower taxed wage earner, high prices for utilities such as water and power, lower job security and employment rights for low to average waged worker, poorly funded health and education 'choices' for the poor. This is the pattern across individual countries, the EU, and globally.

The protests are not hierarchal in nature, they're more grass roots efforts against whatever manifestation of neolib doctrine applies in each country. Banks/IMF/cutbacks/austerity. So when you look at it like that, the protestors ARE protesting on your behalf, even if you don't agree with them or want them to.

"have you heard the justifications for protesting at St Pauls?"

I've heard some yes, and the main one seems to be that they couldn't get where they wanted to go and that the ownership of the land outside St Pauls is complex making eviction equally so.

But again this boils to St Pauls not being the real target and yet is something that has huge sympathy from the public. Camping there will not advance the debate and will lead to public sympathy for the protesters being eroded.

Again I say that those who hope the protesters just go away really couldn't have hoped for a more bone headed choice of camp location.

"For the last 30 years the right wing outlook has held sway"

At least you're blaming politics here, and over that part I agree with you. The problems that we have aren't about the banks but about the political system we have and the financial policies of pretty much every Government of this country since WW2 (so much longer than 30 years).

So yes it's political.

So ignore the banks (they're a massive red herring thrown at you by the left), ignore blaming the last Labour Government (they're a massive red herring thrown at you by the right) and take on the politicians of all persuasions.

Which isn't achieved by annoying St Pauls.

And build public support.

Which not only isn't achieved by annoying St Pauls but is actively endangered and made harder by such a silly choice of protest location.

If there's a problem we should be protesting, it's the collective decision by politicians all over the world to allow the debts created by the financial services industry to be nationalised (governments underwriting banks) while the profits continue to be privatised.

This isn't a right-wing free market outlook. A truly free market would allow the bad banks to fail. What we've got is a fucked-up hybrid that makes private debts a national problem (bank bailouts) while the profits continue to go to private individuals (bankers' bonuses). By focusing on the City, and bankers' bonuses, the protesters are missing the point: it's the politicians who allow this to continue.

In an authentic right-wing free market, the bailouts would never have happened, the failing banks would have gone to the wall, and who knows? Things might have begun to recover by now. Or perhaps not; perhaps they'd be ten times worse. But what we wouldn't have is a situation where our taxes are being poured into propping up a set of private industries that have clearly failed.

Post ww2 til about the late 70's the Keynsian model was the dominant one throughout much of the Western world. The rising tide lifted all boats (to varying degrees) not perfect, no, but living standards did improve for those 30 years. With the eighties came a harder right wing approach.

The banks are very relevant - it's hardly left wing propaganda to say that the trend toward deregulation lead to the crazy lending practises which lead to the credit crunch of 07/08, and all that has followed since. Bankers bonuses are a red herring, really, but a kind of boogyman to hiss at. A few million here and there is nothing compared to the intricate bad loans and global interdebtedness. It's still only coming to light, and no country knows quite where they stand. I'm in Ireland and of course here the banks are the prime cause of us having lost our economic sovereignty and the years of austerity that we are facing into.

Thanks for the info on St Pauls - I'll stop dragging this thread away from the topic now.

In a nutshell: it's not 'corporate greed' which is the problem, it's political spinelessness and reluctance to let corporations that got so big and greedy that they actually failed, to go ahead and fail. It's governments insulating companies from the consequences of their shitty decisions which is outrageous.

If the banks had failed, and thousands were out of a job in London as a result (rather than as a result of public sector job losses in the North due to 'austerity', indirectly caused by the banks failing) then it would be reasonable to picket the City rather than Parliament. But right now they're just pointing the wrong way, and making themselves look woolly-headed into the bargain.

(Case in point: is 'A future free from austerity, growing inequality, unemployment, tax injustice and a political elite who ignores its citizens, and work towards concrete demands to be met.'^ even a sentence?)

OTheHugeRaveningWolef the socialisation of losses and privatisation of profits does seem to be a feature of neoliberalism whenever it runs into a spot of bother, though. I'm no fan of unfettered free markets, (can you guess ) but I like this even less.

The people at the top - politicians, corporations, whether public or private sector, will bend the rules to suit themselves, regardless. (It's exactly the same mindset that led the people at the bottom to bend the rules when they looted sportswear shops this summer.)

Ordinary people are left to die on hospital waiting lists, children with SEN can no longer go to school, people can't pay the mortgage on their homes. That's the outcome of all of this and that's what the protests are about. I don't know what the solution is. But maybe recognising the problem and expressing anger about it are the first steps to finding the solution.

"Post ww2 til about the late 70's the Keynsian model was the dominant one throughout much of the Western world. The rising tide lifted all boats (to varying degrees) not perfect, no, but living standards did improve for those 30 years. With the eighties came a harder right wing approach."

No, this is all about debt. Debt built up by about every Government since WW2 who happily spent more than they earned until we were having to fund about 25% of our spending by asking the banks to lend the Government more money.

Even in the 80s the Tories kept on doing the same, and they sold off countless national assets, and they still couldn't balance the books.

That's the issue, our Government's dependence on credit to finance it's lifestyle.

And no we're jammed so firmly into needing the banks that we can't let them fail, because we need them, if they weren't there to lend the Government money we'd be facing 25% cuts.

Sorry TheJoyfulPuddleJumper this thread is starting to pick up speed and I missed your response.

The key thing, I think, about the protests is that it's not hierarchal in structure. It's lots of different malcontents (for want of better word) from all political persuasions and none, who are unhappy with the entire mess. As RaveningWolef points out, the free-marketers aren't happy. The lefties certainly aren't happy, students like protesting anyway, homeowners who are paying the banks twice aren't happy, the newly unemployed, those reliant on public services, basically everybody has good reason to be unhappy at the mo. So it can't really be cohesive in the way that we're accustomed to think of protest movements. It's a bit of a motley crew, they're not going to have soundbite friendly demands.

Dh works in paternoster square - so far the only business that has been disrupted and badly hit by the protesters as a result of paternoster square being closed off is the independent sandwich shop. So, one cathedral and one independent sandwich shop would appear to be their own goals to date.

"Ordinary people are left to die on hospital waiting lists, children with SEN can no longer go to school, people can't pay the mortgage on their homes. That's the outcome of all of this and that's what the protests are about."

Yes that is the problem.

But that's not caused by the banks, the banks are just an excuse used by the left wing politicians to excuse the fact that they botched up the economy. The effect of decades of paying the bills on credit cards are finally being felt. Imagine if you'd lived beyond your means for decades and could only pay the bills by popping it on a credit card. How long could you do that for? It's just not sustainable.

So the left point the finger at the banks, "it wasn't us" they squeek. Meanwhile the right point the finger at the left, "it was them, honest!"

Blame the politicians.

With an economy that wasn't so utterly reliant on the financial sector we could have let the banks go to the wall as they so rightly deserved.

And so that's not what the protests are about. The protests are still bleating about the evil bankers and blaming them. They're just a scapegoat, ask yourself why are we so dependant on them and who made us that way?

"fortune favours those who actually get up in the morning."

Think I might get that printed on a t-shirt :)

Totally take your point about debt BadgersPaws
But the economic model was built on everlasting growth - the odd fallow year was never factored in. Debt is grand if your economy grows year on year, you can pay the interest out of your economic growth. This lead the politicians down the path of pushing growth at any cost. Short term growth (at least til the election) which is often/usually unsustainable. The (unproductive) financial sector was a driver for this type of short term returns, to keep the party going for another while more rules need to disregarded. So yes the banks certainly had their role, not because of a secret cabal in a mountain lair plotting, but doing what comes naturally - profit seeking - in a free for all environment.

Could one make a case that it's a bubble, like the South Sea bubble, or tulip mania?

We have been living in a bubble of hopelessly overvalued assets, traded in ever more creative ways, in order to maintain the bubble (with full agreement of both politicians and indeed society at large as they enjoyed the apparent wealth). But as it was not built on real production, when it all comes crashing down, it is very painful.

The last couple of years have seen frantic efforts to apply sticking plaster and reinflate the bubble. I don't see how this can ever work, and that the best we can hope for is a controlled, slowish end, not a catastrophic one.

"But the economic model was built on everlasting growth - the odd fallow year was never factored in."

But spending wasn't sustainable in the good years either. In the fallow years the borrowing had to be even higher to keep things ticking over.

"Debt is grand if your economy grows year on year, you can pay the interest out of your economic growth."

Debt is never really grand, it's only "OK" if the repayments are under control and you can actually repay the capital too. You can't just rely on inflation to make the debt go away.

There's nothing really wrong in getting into manageable debt for certain things.

There's a huge problem in having to use credit just to fund your normal lifestyle, and that's what Governments have been doing pretty much every year since WW2.

The politicians could see this coming, but none of them wanted to tell the public that the spending either had to stop or taxes had to go up. They all just let the debt mount and our dependence on credit to fund our lifestyle increase.

"doing what comes naturally - profit seeking - in a free for all environment"

And that should be fine, that's not wrong. Leave them to it, but let them fail when it all goes wrong.

We made an economy where we became utterly reliant on the banks to both be the mainstay of our economic productivity and to also fund the Governent's normal day to day spending. And that's why they couldn't be allowed to fail.

"We made an economy where we became utterly reliant on the banks to both be the mainstay of our economic productivity and to also fund the Governent's normal day to day spending. And that's why they couldn't be allowed to fail".

And seeing as persuading/forcing some banks to take enormous losses on Government issued bonds as part of the Eurozone rescue means we are still dependent, doesn't it?

"And seeing as persuading/forcing some banks to take enormous losses on Government issued bonds as part of the Eurozone rescue means we are still dependent, doesn't it?"

Yes.

We'll remain dependent until the Government can maintain its normal level of spending without needing to borrow money and until we actually encourage and build a diverse economy that isn't just reliant upon the financial sector.

And that dependence isn't the banks' fault it's down to the politicians that we elected.

we're pretty much in agreement Badgers except I do think a lack of banking regulation is a major factor, particularly on a micro level - 120% mortgages, anyone? - bailing out failing banks is obviously wrong, but banks failing in the first place is hardly ideal either.

I don't think profit seeking in a free for all environment is fine, human nature being what it is. It will always lead to exploitation.

It's not wise to allow any sector to carry an entire economy.

?well what's the solution then?

Neither Labour nor consevatives had any alternative policies in any real way, did they? One could argue that they were simply giving the people what they wanted.

So it's not the banks fault, not the politicians it's OURS. Well, that's handy, lets fight among ourselves while the millionaires become billionires. Simplistic I know - but true.

"bailing out failing banks is obviously wrong"

Obviously? Without a bail-out ,certain banks would have gone to the wall taking thousands of ordinary people's savings and pensions with them. I had a small amount invested ine IceSave when that shut up shop and the months between that happening and me getting reimbursed by the FSA were pretty horrible. Of course, the banks should not have been in that position and, with better management, they shouldn't be in future. But if they hadn't been bailed out in 2007/08 thousands would have been plunged into terrible hardship and I think the sucide rate would have shot through the roof.