I've been struggling to think what annoys me more about the whole St Paul's/Protesters saga. The reporting by the BBC, the Church's bizarre conceit or the Tories' response and the Lib Dems' lack of one. At every turn, the protesters have behaved correctly. Their message is what many of us, who sat cross legged in front of the local vicar at school, were assured was Jesus' message. Remember all that stuff about why the fat camel couldn't find heaven in a big pile of needles unless he was rich? Or something like that.
When it started, the management at St. Paul's said that the protesters could stay for as long as they felt the need to. Ahhhh, nice. Then it said that protesters were 'getting in the way of church business'. We then realised that 'church business' meant rich peoples' weddings and tourism. Times are hard of course; the whole 'loving the poor and helping the disenfranchised' gig is obviously not bringing in what it used to.
Millionaire Landowner David Cameron, who is always at pains to show just how "New-Friendly-Tory" he is, announced that the way to break down the barriers between rich and poor, between Big Society and the establishment was... to ban squatting. That's right, the problems Britain faces, in what we are told is the worst we've ever had it, aren't going to be solved by effective financial management wasting all that precious parliamentary time. No, what's apparently needed is a law that helps millionaire landowners. Kerrrrching! Sorry I mean Hurrah!
Millionaire Landowner Nick Clegg, sworn enemy of poverty and inequality was down at the camp campaigning for the changes needed to the economic system. Standing shoulder to shoulder with those he promised to get a better deal fo...... HAHAHAHAHA!!!! sorry I can't type it!! Could you imagine...?
The resignations from the management of St. Paul's Tourist and Wedding association were presumably designed to do something, but I'm not sure what. The only thing that would make sense is that they seriously believe that they have some kind of authority role in all this; that resigning would send such shockwaves through society that the protesters would feel they'd made their point and move on. The fact is of course that they aren't. Their role is actually more like any other local business and no amount of solemn press conferences can or should change that perception of them. Who cares if their little hierarchy is without leadership? The flower woman will still do her tours at the weekend and I'm sure you can still feed the birds on the steps.
The BBC have done their bit by trying to stoke up some kind of hostility between the church and the protesters. Again, not sure what their point is. The people the protesters are protesting are sat in the top floor offices in the buildings around them. I guess that they couldn't get interviews with them or didn't want them to upset them. I'm not belittling public right of way campaigners but the two sides in the story aren't the protesters and the land owners it's the protesters and the businesses. Those are the two sides who should be talking. Those are the two sides who should be making their cases and until they do, the protesters will stay and are right to. They haven't been heard yet.
I would like to see Dave, Boris and some other millionaires tell the protesters why they are wrong to think that capitalism has failed. Why it was better for us to all chip in a few trillion to prop it up than changing everything. Presumably it isn't a difficult argument to make, is it? We'd all be reassured of its rightness if millionaire politicians stood up and defended capitalism, wouldn't we?