The rise and fall of Occupy London

No, you’re not

One night last week the BBC news ran an item about the Tobin Tax on financial transactions. An economist bobbed his head up and down speaking rather earnestly about why it would be damaging. Then something extraordinary happened; the report cut to a rather nondescript person standing at the Occupy LSX camp outside St Pauls Cathedral who maintained that it definitely would be a good idea.

Why, I wondered, were they giving a few dozen oiks* like this a national platform? Why not drag someone out of the Dog and Duck and ask them? I felt like Jacobin Mugatu in Zoolander when confronted with Blue Steel; “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!”.

Occupylsx began back on October 15th when protestors were, entirely predictably, denied permission to ‘occupy’ the London Stock Exchange, a building which is already pretty well used and not apparently in any urgent need of further occupation. They found an eager welcome at St Pauls Cathedral. Fewer people attend Church of England services each week than watch Eggheads on BBC 2 nowadays so the clergy, which also has a fair degree of sympathy with the protestors, probably thought it would be fun to have some new people to hang out with for a couple of days.

Alas the Church had underestimated the protestors’ staying power and sheer ingratitude. When the church was forced to close its doors for the first time since World War Two a number of high ranking churchmen at St Pauls resigned. Faced with a loss of tourist revenue the church asked the protestors it had given shelter and succour to when they were turned away from the Stock Exchange to leave. The protestors repaid the church’s generosity by telling them to get stuffed. Church politics drowned out actual politics and the protest, instead of being about capitalism, turned out like a scruffy episode of The Barchester Chronicles.

Recognising the loss of focus the protestors launched a new occupation on October 21st, this time of Finsbury Square, a square outside the City only notable for being where the 271 bus terminates. This occupation attracted almost no attention and the attempt to refocus the movement fizzled. Compared to 32,988 ‘likes’ for the Facebook page of Occupy the London Stock Exchange, the Occupy London Finsbury Square page has just 51.

With interest dwindling even in the main occupation at St Pauls the protestors decided on another attempt to refocus the movement. November 18th saw the occupation, or breaking and entering to give it its legal name, of an empty office building in Hackney owned by the bank UBS.

Once inside the protestors opened a ‘Bank of Ideas’, as one occupier put it “The Bank of Ideas is an educational space where people will be able to trade in ideas and creativity rather than cash”

If this all sounds a little vague don’t worry. According to minutes of the meetings at the Bank of Ideas concrete proposals for radical change are being made. November 21st saw a “Proposal to make a white board to illustrate decisions made” and another “To establish an ‘Art School’ and ‘Healing Space’ for healers, group therapy, art and movement, music, dance. Space for WG’s (Working Groups) and individuals, for occupy volunteers and general public”. That was as nothing compared to the minutes of the first meeting which declared “you have to BELIEVE you are going to be here longer, the energy can push us through! ‘feel the magic’”

And these are the people the BBC is asking about the Tobin Tax. When you see them being taken seriously perhaps you can understand why someone might feel like Will Ferrell’s elaborately coiffured fashion designer.

Unlike the occupy protestors in New York, who have still failed to come up with a list of demands after two months, the London occupiers issued a statement almost immediately. But it was striking how much it looked like statements issued at every protest over at least the last twelve years. That is because they are a hard core of activists, do not have mass support, and they represent very few but themselves. They are seasoned activists who are launching one occupation after another to try and hold the media’s attention.

On October 22nd more than 2,000 people demonstrated outside Parliament in favour of a referendum on Britain’s EU membership but you’d never have known from the BBC. That is ten times as many as are sat outside St Pauls playing pan pipes for Palestine. Yet it is the small, unrepresentative, hard core members of the occupy movement who are put on the TV. They are not the 99%. They do not have numbers. Just persistence and a favourable tailwind wind from the media.

This article originally appeared at Global Politics

* Substituted by the editor for the original ‘drug addicts’

Miliband says Cameron should apologise…but what on earth for?

No straw left ungrasped

Britain used to be a place where innocent until proven guilty was the way things were done. But such is the hysteria around ‘Hackgate’ that that has gone out of the window.

Ed Miliband has today called on David Cameron to apologise for having hired Andy Coulson as his PR guy. But you have to ask what, exactly, Cameron is supposed to apologise for?

In 2007 Andy Coulson resigned as editor of the News of the World. Under his editorship a reporter was jailed for hiring a private detective to hack into the phones of celebrities. Both the reporter and the gumshoe were jailed. A few months later, Cameron hired Coulson.

When Cameron took Coulson on board there was no serious suspicion that Coulson had authorised the hacking. Indeed, he resigned as editor not for what he did know but for what he should have known. It was an error of omission, not commission.

So, to recap, back in 2007 David Cameron hired a guy who had resigned from his previous role because of actions undertaken by those working under him, actions he knew nothing about.

Is that what Cameron is supposed to apologise for? Pull the other one.

However, Andy Coulson, like several others, has recently been arrested over suspicion he did, in fact, know about the hacking. Arrested, you’ll notice, not charged, not convicted.

And yet, prejudging an ongoing investigation, Miliband thinks Cameron should apologise. To see how silly this is try and imagine what form Cameron’s apology might take;

“I apologise for hiring a man who authorised the hacking of phones”

Well, we dont know that Coulson did do we?

“I apologise for hiring a guy employed people who hacked phones without his knowledge at his previous job, for which he resigned”

Again, we dont know that either, but its hardly the crime of the century is it?

If Coulson is found guilty perhaps Cameron might have to apologise. It could go something like this

“I apologise for hiring a guy who, at his old job, did something I didn’t know about”

Fair enough perhaps, but does Cameron really need to apologise for a lack of clairvoyance?

This rubbish is a blatant attempt by a cluless bufoon disliked by even his own party members less than three weeks ago to get a few brownie points. In the short term it might even work. His nasal calls for, er, something or other to be done have impressed one Labourite after another, and another

The truth for Miliband is likely to be less of a renaissance, a bit like when Neil Young releases an album slightly less crap than most of his recent stuff people start comparing it to Harvest. In reality Ed Miliband was an incompetent party leader before ‘Hackgate’ and ‘Hackgate’ hasn’t changed that. After its done Ed Miliband will still be an incompetent party leader.

Rupert Murdoch doesn’t have a monopoly, now quit whining!

Cheer up Rupe

Right thinking people were sickened by the revelations that the phone of murdered teenager Milly Dowler had been hacked by journalists from the News of the World. Disappointed not to find anything interesting, they deleted messages to make room for something hopefully juicier. This gave hope to Milly’s parents that she was still alive and receiving her messages. The people responsible should be jailed.

Some left thinking people saw all this as a chance to go after Rupert Murdoch. This week the euro lurched closer to disaster, the United States approached default, a forty year civil war ended in the creation of a brand new country, South Sudan, and the Syrian unrest continued. But you’d never have known from the British media which was obsessed with the fate of Murdoch’s ‘monopoly’.

To continue reading click here