Our Motion of the Week series has hitherto been directed at Holyrood but with Edinburgh Council putting forward a brave and seemingly truly historic motion yesterday, there could be only one winner.
I was only able to find the original motion put forward (by Maggie Chapman of the Scottish Greens) so if the motion was amended I shall update the below accordingly (see bottom of post for the motion).
It is sad though, and not a little bit depressing, that the concept of industry and business being a vehicle for social equality and tackling poverty is now held up as being an extreme view, a radical position.
Alex Massie, not altogether unsurprisingly, has labelled Edinburgh Council ‘the dumbest council in Britain’ with a bafflingly circular argument that goes thus:
“Given that financial services are a significant, even vital, part of Edinburgh’s economy and the campers are expressly and especially hostile to financial services this could be considered an odd move by the council. Nevertheless and naturally, all parties with the merciful exception of the Conservatives agreed to recognise and endorse the Occupy movement. This alone provides some reason to support the Tories at the next election.”
So because financial services are the Occupy movement’s ‘baddies’, and Edinburgh Council is backing the aims of Occupy, it somehow follows quid pro quo that Edinburgh Council considers financial services as a whole to be their ‘baddies’ by extension. I fear Alex has been reading too many comic books again.
Of course councils want to boost business in their local areas, financial services or otherwise, but there’s an overdue question that needs answered as to whether billion-pound profit companies are a credit to society or a drain when it’s not at all clear how the wealth that is created, both commercially and individually, percolates down to those that need it most.
After all, the direction of travel is worrying. The Financial Stability Board recently released a list of 29 “systemically important banks” that have been deemed so crucial to the global economy that they are effectively too big to fail. These include RBS, Lloyds, HSBC and Barclays, firewalling them from ever going to the wall (though coming at the price of increased capital ratios).
Can Capitalism work on behalf of the neediest in society when the richest and most powerful institutions not only consider themselves to be above the fray but are considered by others to be above the fray? I would say definitely not when there isn’t the political will to stand up to business and Capitalism and mould it into what it needs to be, particularly when there is so much public complacency and almost guilty acquiescence.
So a hearty congratulations to Edinburgh for inviting the unavoidable opprobrium by challenging Capitalism as it currently stands today.
THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL
24th November 2011
GREEN GROUP MOTION
Support for Occupy Edinburgh motion
Council:
Notes that the encampment of citizens in St. Andrew Square, ‘Occupy Edinburgh’, represents one part of a growing, global movement for real democracy, authentic global equality and justice, and a sustainable economic and ecological future;
Notes that this occupation, together with the more than 1000 others worldwide, is not simply a protest, but an effort to bring to life the inclusive, equitable and sustainable systems desired;
Notes that this movement, and its participants in Edinburgh, have significant support in the wider population;
Believes that given the mistakes made by financial traders, the profits of these companies and their shareholders should be tapped before cuts are made to public sector spending. It is unacceptable that bailouts are being paid for at the expense of public services, and this must never be allowed to happen again;
Believes that an economy functional only on top of endlessly growing consumption is causing significant environmental damage and must ultimately deplete our planet’s resources and cause irreversible environmental damage. This must end now;
Believes that these demands are not only fair, but are in fact the only reasonable response in the face of the crisis faced by our current economic system, our communities and our planet;
Believes that, by setting a example, Edinburgh can help our national governments, and the wider world, to finally accept the real and fundamental changes that are so desperately needed to salvage a sustainable future;
Thus supports the values of Occupy Edinburgh;
Supports the participants of the St. Andrew Square occupation in demanding that these values be recognised and acted upon by all governmental bodies in the UK, and worldwide;
Commits to return our democracy to the people, and to work together immediately to create a new, sustainable and equitable Scotland.
Proposed: Maggie Chapman
#1 by Observer on November 26, 2011 - 11:29 am
I particularly agree with this section of the motion:
”Believes that given the mistakes made by financial traders, the profits of these companies and their shareholders should be tapped before cuts are made to public sector spending. It is unacceptable that bailouts are being paid for at the expense of public services, and this must never be allowed to happen again;”
That can’t be said too often, what I would also add is that the bailouts are also being paid for by the poorest people in society & the sick & disabled due to the callous cuts to the welfare bill being made by the Tories, regardless of the catastrophic affects these cuts will have on individuals.
Edinburgh may be a financial centre, but that doesn’t mean that its citizens need to hold back from supporting valid criticism of policies which benefit the few at the expense of the many, just because some of the few happen to be based in Edinburgh.
#2 by Barbarian on November 26, 2011 - 1:52 pm
Will the Council be so accommodating if the protestors decide to occupy the council chambers?
#3 by Jeff on November 26, 2011 - 2:14 pm
Why would the protesters occupy the council Chambers?
#4 by Iain Menzies on November 26, 2011 - 4:28 pm
where is the sense in protesters camping outside of St Pauls?
#5 by Barbarian on November 26, 2011 - 4:44 pm
They might once the final bill for the trams comes through!
#6 by Shooter on November 26, 2011 - 4:06 pm
First, the both the author of this piece and, indeed, the motion have managed to say nothing with a lot of words. Engaging in lots of meaningless platitudes doesn’t really help anyone. Indeed, if you actually think about what the first paragraph of the motion is saying…well, democracy…ecological…sustainable…congrats, on hitting the buzz-words, not great on the content.
Second, the above trend is unsuprising seeing that politicians rarely have to deal with the actual coal face of business. This leads to strange straw men argument the author has done well to parrot like capitalists think they are above you or that businesses are somehow hostile to social equality. This simply isn’t true (I don’t know how it could be) and it shows from vain attempts to fit this into the case of Edinburgh.
Just the asset management businesses alone in Edinburgh is probablly worth between £10-20b to the economy. This is roughly one-quarter of the private sector output for the whole of Scotland. I don’t understand how you can accuse these businesses of fostering inequality…they support a massive professional services industry and represent one of the few industries that qualified people in Scotland can actually get a productive job in at the moment.
It is ironic that the motion talks about ‘real democracy’ because what is more likely is that this movement, in Scotland, is the last dying breaths of public sector interest groups. There is no society that promotes equality more than Scotland, it is easy to get a degree (university is free after all), and if you have a good degree it is actually fairly straightforward to get a job. However, for most people that is just a bit too much like hard work.
#7 by Craig on November 26, 2011 - 5:22 pm
Type your comment here
What profit? Any bank that isn’t making major losses is needing every penny of their profit to shore up the balance sheet and meet the new capital requirements (on top of paying Corporation Tax, tax on disposals and the bank levy on balance sheets).
Meanwhile many of the largest shareholders (outside of the Government) are pension funds. It’s rather sickening that the public sector is quite happy to rob the pension funds of many private sector workers just to ensure their guaranteed pensions are paid out.
As for the public sector – in no way should they even think they should somehow be exempt. Before the financial crisis, the financial sector was one of the largest sources of tax revenue. Even then that wasn’t enough – at the height of the boom the public sector was being funded by borrowing (the structural deficit). Anyway you look at it, the public sector is unsustainable. Large cuts are inevitable because we simply cannot afford to go back to the days of living well beyond our means even once the economy recovers. To return to the habits of 2002-07 merely invites another debt crisis – only the next one will be far greater and far more serious because we will have barely reduced the existing level of debt before we pile it up again.
Virtually nobody in this country can be unaffected – because the crisis of the past few years has been much more than just a financial crisis involving a few banks. Banks, governments, councils, businesses, households and individuals were all happy to live beyond their means.
The sooner the public sector in particular realises this the sooner this country might begin to build a sustainable future.
#8 by Ross on November 26, 2011 - 6:52 pm
as a Glasgow occupier, we’d only be occupying the City Chambers if they comprehensively deserved it. Considering how accomodating both Edinburgh and Glassgow councils have been that is unlikely.
Councils aren’t perfect but credit where credit is due, Edinburgh has made the right decision, excellent motion.
#9 by Douglas McLellan on November 26, 2011 - 7:40 pm
Um. My pension, and everyone else with a private pension small or large, have bank shares as part of their investment portfolios. So why should I be “tapped” (btw – tapped!?!)?
I am all for proper, open and transparent taxation. Perhaps when we get proper, open and transparent public expenditure we can use that as an example to change the private sector.
Democracy is with the people so I don’t know how to return it. Democracy is perhaps not used as by the people (or even at all) but that is a different argument.
The aims of the Occupy movement are laudable. The method is, frankly, useless.
#10 by Barbarian on November 26, 2011 - 11:15 pm
When will people realise that public sector pensions are not “gold plated”. I’ve worked in public, private, armed forces and charity sectors. I get a pension from armed forces when I’m 60 (thank you John Major for my redundancy, git).
Public sector pensions only become higher if continuous service of at least 15 to 20 years is worked. The media continually throw up a frenzy, aided by the government.
True, the public sector needs slimmed down, but efficiency does not necessarily mean job losses. And don’t forget, many public sector jobs are necessary. Privatising services still costs the taxpayer and does not always provide a more efficient service.
Ross, if you are an Occupier in Glasgow, how long do you intend to sit on your backside doing nothing? There are better ways to protest. This method is doing nothing.
I work in Glasgow CIty Centre two blocks from where I think you lot are now. No one gives a damn and most have forgotten. There’s only one bank near to you, all the nasty financial companies are down the hill.
#11 by Observer on November 26, 2011 - 11:59 pm
Craig I have rarely read such a wrong headed post in my life. Your (immediate) historical revisionism is worthy of Stalin.
However I cant respond in detail just now – tomorrow I will.
(Shakes head in disbelief)
#12 by Indy on November 27, 2011 - 9:17 am
I think it’s all complicated by the fact that the UK has the highest level of personal debt in the world. Is that not part of the reason the bank’s kind of have us by the short and curlies? They own us, basically. That’s the underlying problem I think.
#13 by Observer on November 27, 2011 - 1:09 pm
Craig – it was the unregulated financial sector that caused the economic crash, not the public sector. The public sector could indeed have been accused of being bloated before the crash, but it isn’t now, as it has shrunk due to recessionary pressure, the same as everywhere else.
The issue that the Occupy protestors have identified is a real one – the people who are paying the price of the economic crisis are the people at the bottom of the heap who a) didn’t cause it, and b) didn’t actually gain anything out of the boom years. That is simply unfair.
The costs of the bail out should be recovered as far as possible from the people who were bailed out. There should not be an assumption that government spending normally funded by general taxation should be raided to pay for the rescue of a series of private companies.
Especially when we see, thanks to the High Pay Commission report, what they are paying themselves to reward failure.
#14 by Barbarian on November 27, 2011 - 2:14 pm
Not all of us have racked up huge personal debts. I learned my lesson years ago and now only have a reasonable mortgage. I had store cards, loans and credit cards.
Part of the problems lies with the ease money could be lent, but personal responsiblity also has a part to play.
What is worrying these days are the short term loans. Talk about legalised loan sharking!
#15 by Indy on November 28, 2011 - 10:04 am
I’m not saying everybody has racked up huge personal debts, but it is a fact that the UK has one of the highest level of personal debt going.
An OECD report found that, as of 2009, average UK household debt was 170.7 per cent of disposable household income. And clearly the vast majority of that debt is to banks/building societies.