A commentator on this blog this morning has said:
I really don't think this post is a useful contribution to what's happening. You appear to be trying to make St Paul's the enemy and every time we do this, the press make this more about OccupyLSX versus St Paul's and less about the real reasons for the occupation.
St Paul's initially welcomed the occupation and I reckon they'd continue to if more effort was made to let them carry on as normal.
The church is not an example of capitalism. It is not trying to make a profit. It is just trying to hold services (which are free by the way) and pull in enough money to keep a magnificent building in good repair.
We have an important argument to make about the state of modern capitalism but instead of doing that we're taking potshots at a body that should be our natural friend.
Respectfully, he's wrong.
Of course St Paul's was not the original target of the #OccupyLondon movement. That it has become so is an accident, but not an unfortunate one, or even one that was inappropriate. And there are good reason for saying so.
As Dan Plesch noted in the Guardian yesterday this site outside the West end of St Paul's has for centuries been a location where the right to free speech and dissent has been exercised. That the #occupylondon site is there is therefore part of a long and largely honourable tradition. The simple fact is that the rights we have in this country are not ours by luck or chance, they arose because over decades and centuries people argued for them, protested for them, and even on occasion were utterly unreasonable in demanding them.
So votes for all, and especially for woman, were hard won. Employment rights were hard won. Many civil rights were similarly the result of hard, patient and sometimes impetuous and intemperate struggle. And we're richer for all these things.
It would be great to say the Church of England had always been on the side of those demanding these rights: that they had lived up to the testament of the Gospels that all stand equal. It's a sad fact that with some honourable and notable exceptions this is not true. The Church of England is the establishment church, and it shows.
I have shown how especially true this is in the case of St Paul's - where the Foundation is dominated by the City and the list of sponsors is a roll call of the institutions that are to be found there. And as the Times is reporting this morning the result is that St Paul's itself is now divided. The Dean and some other members of the Chapter want to evict #occupylondon, siding with the City - the state within a state in the UK that has unique powers to rule the Square Mile on behalf of the elite in this country. And apparently opposed to them is Giles Fraser - to whom I owe an apology if this is true.
But this is not just a fight about the duty of the Church to side with the poor - although for me that is why I have become involved in and I hope helped fuel this debate. It is about the capture of a body which has a very clear and unambiguous duty to the oppressed so that it is instead standing up for the rights of a tiny minority to oppress the majority - which is exactly what is going on, and which is precisely what neoliberal economics is designed to do.
And as I have shown I have no doubt at all that St Paul's has been captured for that purpose. The appointment of a Dean who was previously Bishop of the Isle of Man where he showed no problem with tax haven behaviour was, I am sure, no coincidence. He was selected to do the City's work and looks like he is doing it admirably, even if, as the Guardian has said:
This rather messy and absurd situation has handed the dean and chapter of St Paul's a truly historic opportunity to discredit Christianity in this country. They seem determined to take it. They should think, and stop.
So what is this really about? It's about the power of money to capture all that is in its path to ensure that the opportunity for an elite to make money without impediment is not interrupted. St Paul's should be ensuring that ability is impeded where it oppresses, as it clearly does at present. The fact that it is not opening its doors to the protestors; that is it not outside with them; that the clergy are not appearing (as I have) in Tent City University; all those things make clear the Cathedral is part of the problem because it has been captured by the City for the benefit of the City.
It's that fact that St Paul's is in the pay of the City - as are also so many of our politicians - that means they are not peripheral to this debate but are now properly at the core of it. Since the Dean, and his Bishop, Richard Chartres, have so clearly aligned themselves with wealth, the status quo and oppression they are absolutely appropriately now the target of protest as the paymasters who have put them in post and publicly support them. When an institution is captured it becomes synonymous with those who captured it: St Paul's has been captured and as such is as much a problem as Goldman Sachs.
That's why the occupation must continue.
I am in London today and will try to get there.
If I don't I will next week.
All of which again suggests that the argument about night-time occupation is irrelevant - this is a protest by people from all walks of life- not all of whom can stay overnight. And it will not be going away.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
You seem to have a personal issue with the Church of England, which is your right. However, you seem to be suggesting St Paul’s and those who are responsible for it, are wishing to move the occupation because they side with the City. Isn’t it the case that St Paul’s is a place of worship for christians, who cannot now use it. Why should they be prevented from doing so? Does the occupation not care about others liberties? It’s basic stuff and alienates someone like me who would happily protest in front of Lehmans / Barclays Capital. You’re making a fool of yourself.
even Mark Field Tory Mp for the City has made clear he can see no reason at all why St Paul’s is not open
St Paul’s is closed for purely political reasons
It is denying Christians the opportunity to worship
That’s the fact of this
I am quite sure I am not making a fool of myself
Well said Richard. Another issue this raises is the control of public space which was highlighted by the banning of protesters from Paternoster Square.
Charlie: Until St Paul’s closed, the occupation did work with health and safety authorities and ensure access was retained to allow the Cathedral so that Christians (and everyone else who visits) could go and worship through services or admiring the art and architecture.
It cannot be stressed enough that it is St Paul’s that *chose* to close under “health and safety advice that they will not disclose. It is St Paul’s that has initiated the stand-off and continues to draw attention to itself, away from the cause of economic justice, through its various media statements. It is St Paul’s, who through the Bishop of London, has decided it is already doing enough through its St Paul’s Institute debates on economic justice and its “talks” with the City on remuneration. It’s a sorry tale of St Paul’s Cathedral’s quest for self-preservation over seizing the opportunity to take action and stand with the 99% who are paying for the City’s failures and excesses.
Seconded
Thirded! (is that a word?)
Yes – as of now
You do really that most people couldn’t give a damn about this protest nor the closure of St Paul’s?
You do or you would not have commented
That’s another step achieved on a long journey
‘The simple fact is that the rights we have in this country are not ours by luck or chance, they arose because over decades and centuries people argued for them, protested for them, and even on occasion were utterly unreasonable in demanding them.’
And died for them, too, Richard – both here and abroad.
As far as the rest of your argument goes, I agree, but would put it in slightly different terms. The action St Paul’s took (shutting the cathedral) was conceived to provoke a certain course of action, part of which was to polarise public opinion as between protesters and ‘the church’, but also dragging in tourists and worshipers. It has also given the anti protest brigade (mainly Tories) a script they can respond to. Very conveniently – but obviously intentional – is that it drags the debate away from what it’s really about – The City and endless promotion of inequality that it’s centrally involved in.
Furthermore, by refusing to enter into a dialogue that could easily reach a compromise (which it could not do anyway once it agreed to side with and promote the underlying interests of the City) St Paul’s knows that the agenda (witness the vast majority of the media) remains focussed away from the real debate.
I have not doubt that if we got below the surface we’d discover that very well paid media/reputation management professionals, or people of similar ilk, have been advising St Paul’s since shortly after the initial supportive comments were made, albeit indirectly, I suspect. And that this is coordinated through the relavant people within the City of London authority.
I am sure you are right
The OccupyLSX and Occupy Wall Street and the rest are trying to wrest the control of the economy out of the hands of the corporations and the financiers and back into the hands of democracy, or so I believe anyway.
Corporations and the banking system have FAR too much power over our lives and it is about time we took it back again.
Surely the church would be in favour of that surely?
“The appointment of a Dean who was previously Bishop of the Isle of Man where he showed no problem with tax haven behaviour was, I am sure, no coincidence.”
To be fair, the Isle of Man has been absolutely rolling in dosh for the past decade or two. And with there being very few unclean poor people on our beautiful Island these days I doubt Graeme will have an awful lot of empathy with what these tentie people are saying.
Beautiful island – Yes;
Warm and generous people – Yes
A devious government composed of an elitist oligarchy which controls and manipulates EVERYTHING of any worth (including the church) on the island – Yes
As for the “tentie people” :-
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” – Matthew 5:3
Thank you for some very wise words Richard.
The City is omnipotent and controlled by an (almost) faceless, geopolitical elite whose revolving door allows in only those with parallel beliefs – the appointment of the Dean of St Paul’s who was previously Bishop of the Isle of Man providing clear example.
The City will exercise that amount of invisible control over St. Paul’s as is sufficient to meet its own selfish purpose — as it does over its web of tax havens scattered throughout the world. The City really does think it is God and has stolen the hymn/lyrics of William Cowper as its own
“God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plans His footsteps in the sea,
and rides upon the storm”
But Christians take heart in Isaiah 55: 8-9:-
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts”.
Probably misquoting, but it has often been said the the “Church of England is the Conservative Party at prayer”. St Paul’s seems to demonstrate that rather well.
And I thought this blog was all about Tax Research and not whether the Church should be siding with the protestors or vice versa. Having listened to various radio shows, it is clear to me that this argument with St. Paul’s in really to deflect from the fact that most of these protestors really don’t know what they are protesting for. My suggestion would be that, if they really want to make a difference, then form their own political party, hold rally’s in public parks and then get themselves elected so that they can make a difference. Also, I’m not sure whether you want to be the PM or the Bishop of London?
If you think tax stands detached from the rest of life you are sadly mistaken
And since the Bishop of London sits in the Lirds technically both are possible….
Arise my Lord then…..
The church has already sided with the 1%.
Not much of a surprise really.
I note that in the ODNB article on Christopher Wren by Kerry Downes that while St. Paul’s was being built the whole process was mired in accusations of ‘fraud and irregularities’.
Still looking for that list of funders for the £40m restoration. The Lottery turned them down. Trustees, yes, on the blog on the 21st, but not funders – charitable trusts, private philanthropists etc. I’d be most surprised if there isn’t considerable overlap with the city types who find the protestors unphotogenic. Maybe I just don’t know my way around your pages. A pointer would be welcome.
Please search ‘courageous church’ on this blog and you will find it
Got it, thank you. An unsurprising list. I’m all for philanthropy but not when the result is manipulation of this sort.
It’s interesting that those controlling St Paul’s can AFFORD to close it, losing out on revenue of over half a million pounds a month and promoting an important tourist spot? Doesnt’ this put into perspective that the capitalists paradise really is the commercial aspect over the moral or spiritual purpose ?
They must have agreed insurance cover to be able to close it – which highlights the ‘cold war’ that is going on across Britain between the Plutocracy minority controlling the masses with their ‘on-off’ switch, aided and abetted by all the “social structures’ and quangos they have set up – including ‘elf & safety & the police who are there 24/7 at the beck and call of the Oligarchy. (PS: All roads lead to Rotchshild & Goldman Sachs)
Of course – the City may have agreed to fund the closure – I think that possible
The church just trotted-out the health and safety excuse.
The fire service have no problems.
The HSE have no problems.
Health and safety is an easily way around a problem, needing no qualification.
Richard
If you think unemployment stands detached from the rest of life you are sadly mistaken. For those who are unemployed it is central to life.
Your stand on the St Paul’s issue, with which I have no quarrel, is very much out of sinc with your refusal to grasp the nettle on globalised labour, which involves the same forces, i.e. how corporations/investors shift work to cheap labour areas and bring in cheap labour here, putting people here out of work. Also similar is the factor of a government that encourages and faciliates this.
Under these conditions, your protestations are beginning to smack at best of one-eyed selectivity, and at worst opportunistic hypocrisy.
I have to say that the only one eyed person here is you who cannot see how time and again I embrace the issues you say I ignore
Regular and respected contributor Ivan Horrocks posted a similar note some weeks ago ..
Those wanting to learn more about what really goes on in the City of London should read Nicholas Shaxon : “Treasure Islands” – Chapter 12 – Pages 244 to 278
If this is does not chill you blood then you are err — very cold blooded!
Scared the life out of me!
St Paul’s is private property, so they ought to be able to allow whoever they wish on to it.
And how does the CoE decide?
Does it ask the congregation?
where?
I can’t fairly say that I’m familiar with the power structure of the C of E, I’m afraid. The organisation owns the property, and so however decision making is done within the C of E – that decision should be held up. Be that by having a vote amongst the congregation of St Paul’s, of the whole country, or just dictat from the equivalent of the CEO. If they produce a decision, consistent with how power is distributed, which says that they do or do not wish certain people to be on their land, then that should be held up.
In just the same way, if some protesters decided to camp on my front garden, me, as the rightful owner of the land, should have the power to turf them off. Or if they camped in the corner shop down my street – the owner of the corner shop should be able to get them to leave. Similarly, whoever it is that owns St Paul’s should be allowed to push the protesters off, if they so desire.
Ah
I see you live in a world where only property rights matter and ethics are in consequential
Thankfully that is not the real one
Richard,
I don’t really see what you mean. I read over my post and couldn’t see anywhere where I indicated that “only property rights matter”, nor anywhere where I suggested that the right set of ethics are consequentialist ones. In fact, neither of those statements are my belief! Perhaps you could point out where you saw that in my post?
My point was merely that, as we usually think that property rights do exist (in some capacity), and live out almost all our lives assuming that, we should probably accord the owner of St Paul’s (whoever it may be) the same gratitude.
Do you not agree?
The ‘owners’ of SDt Paul’s act as trustees for the Christian faith
If you think that’s just a property right then you’re seriously mistaken
As I said before – I’m not familiar with the C of E hierarchy. What is a ‘trustee for the Christian faith’? Do you mean the vicar(s) at St Paul’s?
If so, then I guess they are trustees for the Christian faith. That doesn’t seem to diminish their property right, though. Perhaps that’s not what you meant?
No it wasn’t what I meant
All you prove time after time is that your deeply flaws logic leaves you profoundly lacking in understanding of hman relationships
Hey now – there’s no reason to be rude. I’ve just been asking questions regarding, what seems to me to be a legitimate property right. You’ve not pointed to my “deeply flaws logic”, as far as I can see. Last post you seemed to imply that I thought that being a trustee for the Christian faith was a property right, which clearly wasn’t what I meant. I have absolutely no idea how deduced that I am lacking in “understanding of hman relationships”.
My point was simply that, given that we think that property rights exist, unless there is some very special reason to think that this is an exception, the owners of St Paul’s (whoever that may be), ought to be able to say who can come on and off their land. If you disagree with that, please explain why – rather than saying that I think things like that, “only property rights matter”, when I give no indication of the sort. And please don’t be rude – it’s very unbecoming of the “#1 economics blogger in the UK” to resort to ad-hominem attacks instead of replying to the questions I have asked in good faith.
Respectfully, I was not being rude, but I was sure as heck showing frustration
Your argument is disingenuous if genuine, and of course irrelevant if not. As you’ve assured me it’s genuine I will regard it as such.
The issue then is a simple one, which is that jus because someone has a so called right the do not need to use it. So even if St Paul’s can evict it does not mean they should evict. This is, of course, the naturalistic fallacy: you can’t get an ought from an is. You seem to utterly miss this point, repeatedly
My point is very simple. I’m saying ‘so what that St Paul’s can evict?’ You seem to suspend any judgement on the issue
That may be why you do not also understand my responses.
The simple fact is that resolving this dispute by resort to the law will be sure sign the church as failed