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.

"we're pretty much in agreement Badgers"

So why support the protest at St Pauls? If we agree then we agree that the stated target of the protesters, banks and corporations, aren't the real problem. And the protesters aren't even hitting those targets, they're hitting St Pauls, a much loved building.

The protesters need to shift their aim to Westminster and drop the twaddle about capitalism, banks and big business, the politicians are only too delighted that the protesters are wasting their time blaming someone else for their problems.

"I don't think profit seeking in a free for all environment is fine"

To an extent I do agree, but worrying about that is just a waste of time and energy right now. Yes we shouldn't let the situation get any worse, but we shouldn't become distracted from the complete failings of an economic model pushed by Governments of every persuasion since WW2. Every day we waste time talking about the banks is just another day we don't ask the politicians why they thought living off credit cards for decades was a smart idea.

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

I agree entirely.

"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."

You've stepped to the conclusion of my arguments :)

Yes we voted the politicians in, yes we should have seen the problems but we were too busy enjoying a decent level of public service provision while not paying the tax required to support such a thing.

This needs public discussion and awareness.

And that's why the protesters chasing a red herring (the banks) and annoying a much loved institution is such a problem. We talk about St Pauls or we talk about the banks and completely miss the real and fundamental problems that have lead to all of this.

"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."

Also if they hadn't have been bailed out then the Government would not have been able to borrow the money it needed to fund its normal day to day spending.

So either it would have printed money, leading to hyper inflation, or we'd have faced immediate cuts of 25% which would have made the current "austerity" look like a picnic.

Generally I believe that banks should be allowed to collapse and fail but given the situation that we had worked ourselves in to a bail out was the only real option.

On the radio this morning one protester was saying that "its so much better than being sat in an office working all day and wondering what to have for lunch. I'm actually doing something worthwhile."

Well, you know, as someone who is sitting in an office right now - although admittedly eating lunch rather than deciding what to have - I think that the money I am earning to pay taxes into the system and to support myself are slightly more worthwhile than a camping holiday in central London.

Just a thought.

They tried to camp outside the Stock Exchange and weren't allowed (WHY?)

Why does St Paul's have to close because they are there? Fire risk my foot. I think the authorities are trying the Health and Safety guff on and will try and get the police to move them.

I'm just surprised it's taken 3 years for people to get off their arses and protest - so I'm glad that some have.

Sr Pauls open letter stating their reason for closure www.stpauls.co.uk/News-Press/Latest-News/Closure-of-St-Pauls-Cathedral

"The church has a very tory bias and knows exactly what its doing."

Is this the same CofE that's headed by a man who's:

• Attacked belief in market forces as "idolatry"
• Praised Marxism for it's contempt of "unbridled capitalism"
• Condemned the City for not apologising the excesses that ended in recession.
• Called for Sharia law to be recognised

Is that what the Tory party believes in these days, blimey...

What nenevomito said.

We take a hell of a lot for granted in this country.

I'm coming at it from an Irish perspective, where bailing out the banks was the second biggest mistake our government made, out of variety of terrible mistakes. Allowing it to get to that point was probably the biggest.

Can't comment on the details of the UK banking sector, only generalities.

Badgers I totally agree that this needs public awareness. But it's wrong to say it's the public's fault. Who really understands macrofinance, apart from professionals and a few geeks (for want of a better word)? I know f all, and it's more than most. Who can judge for themselves the truth behind politicians statements and the media coverage of same? Anyone who questions it is dismissed as some sort of dreadlocked extremist. People don't care - they just want to get on with normal lives without having to scrutinise and challenge every arcane aspect of the economy/the political system/social setup.

except now, more and more are scrutinising and challenging it, and coming to the conclusion it's not set up on their behalf.

OK - I would have sympathy if they were camping outside the stock exchange, but the logic of "we can't have the protest we want so we'll have a totally random one at the church" might make sense to someone who was there and angry, but doesn't to the outside world. London, unlike NY isn't so condense in it's financial services locations, if not the stock exchange, why not outside the Bank of England? Why not go over to canary wharf and try to occupy Canada Square? (Square at centre of Canary wharf) - they could all get a river boat down to the Wharf. Although granted, that square is also private land so might also have access issues, but on a work day, they can't practically close access to the square to everyone...

Really, the organisers should be bloody ashamed of their total failure to plan for the most basic opposition here - fancy arranging to start the demo on a weekend!?! Surely it was obvious that as it's private land and the stock exchange was closed anyway, the owners would just block access. Why not start the protest at 7:30am on a Monday morning, it would have been far harder to stop them getting access in the first place.

"But it's wrong to say it's the public's fault."

Well we elect the politicians and the politicians caused this, so we have some degree of responsibility.

"Who really understands macrofinance, apart from professionals and a few geeks"

In the end it's not that complicated. The Government was spending more than it earned and was using credit to plug the shortfall. It wasn't borrowing for an occasional big investment (like we would buying a house or a car) but just to fund day to day expenditure (like us putting all of our bills on credit cards even in the months when we're earning good money). The constant use of and complete reliance upon credit by the Government drove it deep into the pockets of the banks, so deep that if the banks had collapsed the Government would have too.

So it shouldn't be a big leap to start discussing how we want to work things. Do we raise taxes to fund the social system we want? Or do we cut Government spending right back to match it's income?

That's the conversation we need to be having.

That and asking the politicians of the last 60 years what on earth they were thinking.

And wasting time blaming the banks or annoying St Pauls are just pointless distractions that won't change anything, won't inform anybody and won't make the world better for our children.

"People don't care - they just want to get on with normal lives"

I think people do care, but we were sold a dream of great social provision without having to foot the bill. And that's a tempting treat to dangle in front of people, it's understandable why we went for it, but it just didn't work did it?

"more and more are scrutinising and challenging it, and coming to the conclusion it's not set up on their behalf."

But it is under our control, if we could shift the political conversation towards running a proper balanced and sustainable economy then that will determine who runs the country. And that's why politicians are more than happy for us to waste our energies on the red herrings of banks and St Pauls.

Raise awareness, engage with the people and make changes.

And camping outside St Pauls hinders every single one of those objectives.

I struggle to understand the protests because different issues in each country have caused the economic predicament that each country finds themselves in so, while most countries (with exception of BRIC and Germany) are in some sort of economic meltdown, they arrived there by very different routes. Taking a cause that started in the US for their very specific reasons and trying to apply it to the UK when the causes of the economic crises in the respective countries are different just makes no sense. To make my point to its most extreme, it would be like the Greek people protesting outside the Greek banks because that's whom everyone else is protesting against. That would just make no. If the Greek people had actually paid their taxes, and/or the successive Greek governments had made any attempts at all to enforce a culture of paying taxes, they wouldn't be having the meltdown that their currently in. Really, if the protestors want to protest against someone, then appear outside the offices of Labour HQ or the Bank of England or the FSA, because they are the collective fools who created the UK's economic crisis.

"I struggle to understand the protests because different issues in each country have caused the economic predicament that each country finds themselves in so"

I think we need to separate the current cause of the crash, which is globally down to the banks rippling from one place to another, from the ability of each state to handle that crash.

We are unable to handle the crash because we, the Government, were overspending when times were "good" and relied on credit to fill the gap between income and expenditure. And the same is true of America, the US Federal Government has to borrow about 50% of its spending. And the same is true of Greece.

Germany on the other hand has experienced the same crash as we have but is much better placed to survive it. Why? Well in the "good years" prior to the crash they were battling to reduce the amount their Government had to borrow to fund its spending. So they're not quite so dependant on on the banks as our Government is.

Other European nations are faring even better as they ran their countries at a "profit" during the "good years" and built up savings ready for when the bad times would hit.

So the big cause of the trouble is Government's debt, their inability to fund their lifestyles and their reliance on the banks in order to carry on their usual day to day spending.

"Really, if the protestors want to protest against someone, then appear outside the offices of Labour HQ or the Bank of England or the FSA, because they are the collective fools who created the UK's economic crisis."

Again split the cause away from the ability to cope.

International banks, the FSA and the Bank of England created the crisis. However both the Tories and Labour are responsible for our utter inability to be able to deal with it. If we'd followed the path of other nations and lived within our means then when the crisis hit we'd be much better placed to weather it, we'd have the reserves and we wouldn't be totally reliant on credit to fund a vast slice of our spending.

Crises happen, that's the way of the world, and a responsible Government makes sure that it can be dealt with when it happens.

The banks are not to blame for the fact that we cannot afford to maintain our level of public spending. We couldn't afford it when times were good, it's no wonder what would happen sooner or later once the credit mountain got too high.

Let the protest stay, the church offered them a place to protest when no one else would allow it in their backyard (so much for the right to protest). the protesters have obeyed all that they have been asked to do by the H&S execs, the exits from the church are clear, someone is leaning on the church telling them to come out with bullshit to try and guilt trip them into shutting the camp down, because thats the only way they can think of to get them out, they can't go sending the dogs in on peaceful people, can't kettle tents until the occupier's go ape shit, thus giving the rozzers the excuse they are looking for.

They wanted to protest in the City they couldn't because the private security the banks rule that area with didn't let them get near, so they had to go somewhere else to highlight the problem, because thats all they are doing, highlighting the injustice in this country and most of the world, I support them 100%, at least they are getting out their and trying to do something peacefully what the hell are the rest of you doing?, you will never change government policy by sitting in front of a PC moaning.

Good on them and I hope they remain there for Remembrance Day, it's laughable that some say it will have to be canceled there, the right to protest and free speech is one of the things people have died for in wars time and time again.

There are plenty here on Mumsnet who are part of the 99% as evidenced by this sad thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/other_subjects/1324074-For-those-who-cant-afford-to-use-central-heating-this-year-How-are-you-going-to-cope

I totally agree that some banks were badly mismanaged which is why they needeD handouts (northern rock) whereas others didn't (hsbc). To run the business model that Northern Rock did without a "what if" doomsday liquidity stress test scenario of lack of access to the liquidity market, was totally inept. I guess they just weren't sufficiently imaginative and is easier to be wise after the event.

However, our current economic woes are caused by the previous govt spending money like an irresponsible teenager who has gotten access to a platinum credit card and spends as if there are no consequences. If the bank eventually blocks the card because it itself doesn't have unlimited funds. As the parent (ie taxpayer) who then has to deal with the consequences by tightening your belt, do you blame the bank for providing the credit card or do you blame them for blocking the card or do you blame them for not being managed well enough to have sufficient funds to let the teenager continue to spend with wild abandon? Or, actually, do you blame the teenager for being irresponsible and yourself for not noticing what was happening earlier? That's why I say I struggle, because I struggle to understand why the protesters are blaming the bank when they should be blaming the irresponsible teenager. By focusing on the bank it allows the previous government not to take full responsibility for its spending and allows the FSA to not taking full responsibility for inadequate banking regulations including capital/liquidity requirements.

Gohwee, I always am a bit suspicious of those who claim they cannot afford the basics like heating & food. Back when I was a single parent, I joined a group and met lots of other single parents. Quite a few were out of work, on benefits. Probably about 50% worked, the other 50% did not.

Out of those on benefits, most coped very very well. They scrimped, saved and whilst it wasn't a luxurious lifestyle, they could afford the basics and the odd treat.

A few though were always pleading poverty. I remember one lady with 3 kids who claimed she also claimed she couldn't afford to heat her home. Apparently she & her kids only put the heating on 4 days a week and the other 3 days they just put up with it. Who could fail to be moved by such a story eh? Maybe though, just maybe she could afford to put the heating on though if she didn't have a 20 a day ciggie habit? I dunno, maybe I'm harsh but if it was a tossup between heating for my kids or cigarettes, I know which I'd choose.

So often I find that where people claim they cannot afford the basics it's usually because they've spent the money on something else rather than absolute lack of cash.

"However, our current economic woes are caused by the previous govt spending money like an irresponsible teenager who has gotten access to a platinum credit card and spends as if there are no consequences."

Well done on seeing through the left wing red herring and understanding that our inability to deal with this financial crisis is not the fault of the banks.

However you've just fallen for the right wing excuse of blaming the previous Government.

Pretty much every Government since WW2 has run this country at a loss, they've all spent more than they earned, all had to run to the banks to borrow money to fill the spending gap and all let the debt and interest payments mount.

The last Labour Government only managed to run this country at a surplus for three years out their fourteen years in office. Which sounds bad doesn't it? However the Tory Government before that only managed a surplus for two years out of their 18 years in office... And that's despite selling off numerous publicly owned assets to prop up their spending. They still had to run to the banks and ask for loans.

So blaming the previous Government lets all the other politicians off of the hook. No politician has wanted to tackle the hideous problem of debt and overspending because to do so would loose elections. Imagine telling people they faced 25% cuts in public spending or about a 33% tax rise? So they all ignored it, and the debt got higher.

Even now politicians are only tackling it because they've got someone to blame. Labour point the finger at the banks and the Tories point the finger at Labour.

And all the politicians just want to plaster over the cracks. The chances are they'll get things rolling again and then bribe us once again with the lie of high public service provision on low taxes. We've got to say "no" to that, or we'll be here again in a generation or so with a massive mountain of debt and facing drastic cuts. We owe this to our children.

"you will never change government policy by sitting in front of a PC moaning."

The protesters will never change Government policy by:

1. Falling for the Government's decoy of the banks.
2. Setting out to pointlessly protest against the decoy.
3. Managing to leave the decoy alone and end up annoying St Pauls.
4. Trashing their public support by appearing foolish and annoying a much loved building.

As I've said before the Government and the banks could wish for nothing that would destroy the credibility of the protesters quicker and more completely than having them do what they they're doing.

Now on the other hand if the protesters moved towards Westminster they'd stand far more of a chance of actually getting something done.

the St Pauls's letter about why it has to close won#t load on my computer - have waited 5 minutes already. So can someone explain it to me please?

I can't comment on what Christians feel about the protest - doubt any one Christian, even the Pope, is an authoritative enough voice to do that, and I (as a non-christian) certainly can't begin to comment.

Re tourists, however, the other group claimed as 'victims' of the protests, I was v amused to read that apparently the Occupy camp is now one of London's tourist sites and that far from putting off tourists to London/St Paul's, the protest has actually blended in nicely as a new tourist attraction. An irony which I suspect would not pass the protesters by. :)

If anyone wants the link, I'll dig it out, or google at your pleasure. :)

Sorry - 'tourist sights' rather than 'tourist sites'. Though both make sense, I prefer the former. :)