Occupy London

After a little rant against the Cathedrals handling of the situation, I thought it was time to give a view on the actual issues raised (or trying to be raised) by the group who are camped outside of St Paul's

They have an initial statement here http://occupylsx.org/?p=221
And due to a lack of any more up-to-date manifesto, I will be mainly looking at these aims:

1 The current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust. We need alternatives; this is where we work towards them.

The current system of (for example) giving the top echelons in financial companies 40% pay rises when the company has not increased in value (or at least not by anything like that much) while giving most employees a 2% pay rise - that is unsustainable.
Partly because one day the company won't have enough money to keep giving pay rises of that amount, but mainly because people are fed up with the injustice.

We need alternative: - ok like what?
Oh so you claim to be hammering this out while in the camp site? ok.

2 We are of all ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, generations, sexualities dis/abilities and faiths. We stand together with occupations all over the world.

Ok so you're not just one group who think they're being picked on. Ok... and what do you want?


3 We refuse to pay for the banks’ crisis.

Too late. And what do you propose as the alternative? Thanks to the fiat system of currency we have, to let all the banks collapse would not be good news for the rest of us (or our pensions).
Also I think this shows a common mis-understanding (that will likely stay for a long time) - the current UK government money problems are not the result of the bailouts. It is due to the excessive government spending that caused a deficit to be formed.

In brief- imagine that the UK had £100 and then gained another £100 every year due to tax etc. They decided to spend £200 every year so that they could do more - the result was that the debt level grew and grew.
One day the UK gave an extra £200 to the banks - and hence had a larger debt.
But the real problem was that they were spending £200 every year but only got £100. After a few years those who lend money to the UK start to say 'hold on, it doesn't look like you'll ever be able to pay as back - maybe we should stop lending you money'.
The UK can't just stop spending this money easily - as it is tied up with peoples salaries, and hence jobs will eventually be lost in trying to rebalance this.

The figures (obviously) and proportions are not like that in reality, but the point is we are spending more than we have - all the time. Choosing to not spending money on bailing out banks wouldn't have made much of a difference to our current financial situation.

4 We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable. We demand an end to global tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people.

I think I already said my piece on cuts - until you can generate more income to the government the cuts are inevitable.
An end to global tax injustice? What injustice? They need to be clearer.
They especially need to be clear about what it is with democracy that they think is an example of representing corporations not people.

5 We want regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate.

That is something I definitely support. It makes so much common sense.

6 We support the strike on the 30th November and the student action on the 9thNovember, and actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment, and to stop wars and arms dealing.

Ok. I think they need to be clear as to what causes they support not what actions. No one is openly against the health services, or education or employment. Some people are against welfare in its current state.

7 We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world’s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the rich.

Ok - what sort of proportions are we talking about? If you spend less on the military that will mean job cuts.

I will say that I agree in principle - world governments spend far too little on caring for the planet.
Take http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38326&Cr=Ivoire&Cr1 for example.
Why does the UN need to ask for $160 million?( = £100 million in real money ;)
Obama has more lost down the back of his metaphorical sofa.

That's not a large amount of money these days (for countries). There are more examples I could give- however it does appear that the UK is slightly ahead of the curve in terms of giving aid.

8 We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions of our government and others in causing this oppression.

Who's oppressed? It sounds like a nice soundbite, but one person’s minimum wage is another mans oppressed etc.

9 This is what democracy looks like. Come and join us!

Democracy looks like a large number of vague points that could be interpreted very differently by different people? Oh dear.
In fairness the 'Come and join us' line does seem to have born fruit. They have managed to continually debate the issues and welcome others who want to join in. Ofcourse that does mean finding out what they now believe is very difficult - they have no central leadership (as far as I can tell), and according to newspapers alot of people now distance themselves from the initial statement.



So - do I support this?
Well some parts I do and some parts I don't. Many have said it's better to be doing something than nothing - and this is a mantra I have often used. However when I use it, it's part of a justification for escalating an action into a mini-coup d'état or something else serious. When used in this situation I feel that the apapthy it is tyring to combat is being replaced by a new type of apathy - people are sitting in tents, talking, and doing various "things" like wearing a funny mask and somehow hoping that will be enough to topple a world system.

I think I am against it - it would be better for people to blog to each other, or talk on the book of faces, or similar.
It would actually be better to organise a series of forums to discuss what is wrong with society and to then make a series of demands to the government for a new law that says X and then another that says Y. If you really want you can then start encampments.

Now with such an unclear message, it is easy for people to ignore- and ignore it they will.


Because to be honest, the much more interesting issues are what on earth St Paul's can do next to make the situation worse? And why is it that there are a few people who actually believe the rubbish they've been saying?