About me
I grew up in a northern mining village, the son of socialist parents, and spent 10 years in the Royal Navy. I now trade currencies and renovate properties in Tenerife, having left the UK when the previous government decided it was going to impose a 50% tax rate on me. Some of you might think that that makes me one of the 1%. But, as I will detail later in this post, I think the 1% / 99% rhetoric is bollocks that harms the protest.
My beliefs
I believe in a level playing field for all, but I do not subscribe to the big-state governments that have afflicted the UK for the past 50 years. I believe that it is irresponsible for governments to sink the economy by bailing out failed businesses. That is not capitalism. That is socialism. It is simply wrong, and should never again be countenanced.
The good
It is fairly clear to most people, that the current political system does not serve the country well. Vested interests are allowed to influence policy decisions, for their benefit, rather than the benefit of the people. Businesses and unions fund political parties for one reason only: they are buying influence to the detriment of the individual.
For that reason, I support point 1 of Occupy St Paul's initial statement.
• The current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust. We need alternatives; this is where we work towards them.
It seems to me that the simplest way to deal with the vested interests is to criminalise lobbying and tighten up the rules on party funding. To my mind, this is a trivial matter that can be achieved by following the steps set out below.
• Write a statute criminalising lobbying by business, unions, charities, and other interest groups
• Launch a petition to collect 1+ million signatures demanding parliament enacts the anti-lobbying statute
• Present the statue to parliament for enactment
All else will flow from those steps. My feeling is that Parliament will ignore protests until protesters can demonstrate that they have a popular mandate. Hence the need to not only prepare statute but also the need to demonstrate a popular mandate through a petition, or mass demonstrations. Only with a popular mandate that the protest can demonstrate to Parliament the will of the people.The bad
It seems to me, that one of the key problems that occupy St Paul's faces, is a lack of strategic direction and a lack of control over its membership. Now I know that some people will assert that everyone is equal and all opinions are valid etc etc. They will also assert that this is the 'new way' of doing things, and we will just have to get used to it. However, this mentality fails to appreciate that most of the so-called 99% are not versed in the 'new way', and do not get their news via social networking sites, such as Twitter.
Most of the population still rely on mainstream media, such as the BBC, Sky News, and various flavours of newspaper. This being the case, it is hardly surprising that when members of the protest chase news reporters out of the camp, the reporters and the newspapers for whom they report start to publish negative stories about the protest.
This has resulted in Occupy St Paul's, being distracted by various public relations disasters which have turned into full-scale wars against the media. Bear in mind, that this is the same media that the 99% rely on for their information.
The ugly
From the outset, occupy St Paul's has made a great deal about the necessity of transparency and has said that it will act in a transparent and democratic way. However, the protest is developed a habit of publishing minutes and then taking them down again, and then republishing the minutes with whole paragraphs missing. The whole point of minutes is to create an accurate record of what occurred at a meeting. Retrospectively deleting of information from minutes, is not transparent. Indeed, it seems that the deleted passages were simply deleted to save embarrassment. Democracy can be messy and untidy at times. Attempting to hide the mess and disagreements, is not democratic, and is not a true representation of what happened at a meeting.
Again, I have had conversations with protesters who simply say that smoke this is the way we do it we have agreed that we are going to modify the minutes. This is not the way that you do it this is the 'new way'. Again I would simply refer you back to the point I made earlier on, when I say that the 99% do not behave like that. They expect to read something, particularly minutes, and for those minutes to be accurate. How can they trust the minutes if they keep getting changed. What is the point of having them?
Another issue which I find disturbing is the list of demands been issues to the Corporation of London. Before I go any further, I should say that I actually agree with those demands. However, Occupy St Paul's didn't bother to get a popular mandate before making the demands. This is incredible, given that the protest purports to represent the 99%. They purport to represent the 99%, but they cannot be bothered to ask the 99% if they agreed with the demands are about to be made.
This is not democracy. If this is the 'new way', it is no better than the system we currently have, whereby politicians create statute and statutory instruments without any reference to the electorate. It is unacceptable and it is a terrible, terrible mistake.
The 99%
The 99% slogan is beset with problems. Obviously the main problem is that the protest does not represent the 99%. At no point has occupy St Paul's attempted to get a popular mandate for its protest. Neither is the slogan true, because when millionaires turn to St Paul's, who happen to be sympathetic to the protests they are lauded. When politicians address the protest they are lauded, despite receiving sponsorship from business.
The 99% slogan is a real weakness because it is so easy to demonstrate it is a lie.
Factionalism
Again, referring back to the 99% slogan, it seems as the protest drags on, it becomes more marginalised and seems to be garnering support only from unions and the Left. This protest should not be about the Left versus Right. It should be about right versus wrong, and people regaining control of parliament. Once you start introducing unions, who my opinion part of the problem, you will become marginalised. You will be seen as a front for union demands.
It is important to understand where the problem lies. And to me, the problem lies with politicians, with businesses, and with unions. Getting into bed with any of those groups is a mistake. The process needs to be strong and rely on the power of the population.
The future
So what can Occupy St Paul's achieve? Potentially it could achieve a great deal, but it needs to keep its demands simple, and it needs to demonstrate that it has public support, not just the support of people who are sleeping in tents in London and elsewhere. Whether you think this is the 'new way' or not, you must carry the people with you. And at the moment, thanks to horrifically badly managed media relations, this is unlikely to happen because the media and now against the protest.
I guess what all this means, is that Occupy St Paul's needs to get a grip, articulate an achievable alternative, and carry the people with you. Because, as it stands, a historic opportunity to create real change is slipping away.
Contact your Fat Councillor here
