Skip to content or view screen version

Why Tanya and @OccupyLSX need to cut ties with Oasis.

@freethepeeps | 10.12.2011 17:25 | Occupy Everywhere | Education | Public sector cuts

I think that what a lot of the discussions that Occupy have brought up is the fact the dots are not necessarily being joined. There was a big banner outside Occupy London and it said “Capitalism is Crisis” and essentially I think that when I first started Occupy I didn’t look at it as, I looked at it as “Capitalism is IN Crisis” and the more I’ve learnt on this journey of being with Occupy, and the more research I’ve done, and the more I’ve talked to people, and discovered and read about what is going on with our economy, with the global economy, with the financial crisis, with the political instability in Europe, I mean, effectively there isn’t a day when you can’t open the paper and find something that really does directly link to capitalism being completely and utterly in crisis. One of the things that capitalism can’t do, is it can’t add value to our lives. You can’t buy your childrens joy. You can’t buy anything that gives you quality in life. And the idea that capitalism can just continue and continue and continue is just to simply, it is utterly the most unsustainable system that could ever have been created, because it relies on continual growth.

Tanya Paton – InterFaith coordinator at #OccupyLSX speaking at Ethical Capitalism? debate jointly organised by #OccupyLSX and Oasis.


Sadly, it seems that Tanya has many more dots to join however, as asset-stripping Oasis, her partner for the event is also heavily involved in Academies, which, along with Free Schools, are one of the prime vehicles for the commodification of schools in this country. Such commodifcation being part of a trend recently described thus by Ursula Huws:

Now one of the trends that had actually been going on, rather unnoticed for at least the last 15 years or so, was that one of the biggest fields of expansion for multinational companies has actually been the public sector. The commodification of public services isn't a primitive accumulation in the sense that we know it, of generating new commodities out of areas of life that were previously outside the money economy, like domestic labour or the body, it is actually a commodification of the collective assets of the working class. Because what the welfare state is, if you like, is what workers over the last century managed to claw back from capital. It's their share of surplus value that was re-appropriated by our parents and our grandparents, very heroically actually – not making short-term economistic demands, but demanding things for the whole working class. This is now what's being expropriated. And so for these TNCs, the financial crisis was kind of like Christmas - this wonderful opportunity for forcing governments to commodify huge new swathes of the public sector, to create a new field of accumulation of capital in the name of cutting public budgets to balance the books.

The Oasis empire, run by Baptist minister Steve Chalke MBE has acquired a number of Academies including twelve secondary schools and two primary schools. Steve Chalke has said of his plans for the schools, “we will end up with a church which is also a school…a school that is also a church…” But management style has not been particularly caring to date, and it cannot be said that his academies have been great examples of the ‘ethical capitalism’ that was the subject under discussion.

Recently pupils at Salford’s Oasis MediaCityUK Academy were involved in a near riot after Oasis announced plans to make almost a quarter of teachers redundant, and teachers are now currently involved in strike action. According to Year 10 protestors:

"The head teacher blamed everyone else but himself – he said the ones before had overspent and left him to deal with it, that there were too many teachers and not enough pupils…But the school's spent money on all these ridiculous things like two whiteboards that cost five grand each and are never used.

"There's also a radio station that cost around £8,000 that's not used…There's Apple laptops that have been there for three years and never been used - they've got all this high tech equipment and no teachers!" they added "And now they're moving to a school that's three times as big as this one and no pupils to go in it. It's getting ridiculous."

For Oasis this was the second ‘near riot’ in their short history, with a head teacher resigning after another pupil protest over school management which resulted in five pupils being permanently excluded and 25 Year 11 students suspended.

Another feather in the Oasis ‘ethical capitalism’ cap is its partnership with homophobe Brian Souter. owner of Stagecoach and worth an estimated $328m or more.

Recently Rupert Murdoch caused concern when he described the US educational system as a $500Bn market and Michael Gove who worked for Murdoch, reported a number of meetings with Murdoch "most of which have been about education".

Even the Tories might not be able to manage to persuade Britons that we should hand over working class assets directly to the likes of Murdoch, and thus ‘charitable’ organisations such as Oasis and the Church of England, have been prominent in the acquisition of schools, along with CarpetRight tycoon Lord Harris.

However, it isn’t difficult to see how the likes of Murdoch and Serco are likely to move in and hoover up any Academy that experiences financial problems, in order to exploit education for profit in the future. After all ruthless acquisitions are what they do best.

Once people became aware that a link was being built with Oasis, representations were made to try and stop it happening. As Steve Chalke said at the meeting, it was only through Tanya's persistence that the meeting did happen. What is strange then, is that Tanya is also quoted as saying:

‘Occupy is amorphous, Everyone is included in the 99 per cent. I have no doubt that the system has no way of sustaining itself. I say to the one per cent watch out, we are not prepared to pay for your crisis.’

Whilst Tanya has made it clear that she believes that the Occupy movement is a " a mechanism by which to open a dialogue with the people who have caused the crisis as much as with the governments who have avoided actually finding any solution themselves", Occupiers who attended the meeting in the name of the 99% chose not to confront Oasis with a critique of its own unethical and harmful behaviour.

In the dying gasps of neoliberalism, the multinationals are now expanding themselves through taking control of the last of the working class assets. Once they control them, we can be sure that they will not give them back. We end up paying for them, because the state will be forced to bail them out if they fail. For them it is a win-win situation. For us the opposite. And it seems Tanya is determined to press ahead with partnering those who enable that process, even when presented with the reasons not to. It seems she is in a state of confusion. Consensus means listening to, and addressing concerns, (even if they are only presented after a decision has been made because more information comes to light).

Tanya is building a name for herself in her Occupy London role, and the Occupy movement must be wary of those who begin to act outside of consensus. It must also be wary of creating specialised roles which put individuals into a position where they begin to enjoy their five minutes of fame. So too should it be wary of organisations like Oasis who try to deflect the harm they are doing by building such links, and helping themselves to some of the media limelight created by Occupy, in the process.

At Wednesday nights meeting Steve Chalke announced plans for further colloboration between Oasis and Occupy London. Tanya needs to start joining the dots quickly, and to ensure that she does not allow Oasis to whitewash its reputation by exploiting the Occupy movement for its own benefit. Oasis is happy to get into bed with the one percent and is quite probably a small step away from handing over our schools to some of the very corporations that have got Occupiers onto the streets. At the least, any future interaction involving Occupy and Oasis must ensure that it reveals the full ugly story about what it is that Oasis stands for.

Academies on the Newswire;
Liverpool school strikes over academy plans | Teachers protest over St Edward’s Academy plans | Oppose Orimiston Academy! | Anti-City Academy Teachers Take To The Trees | Academies Talk hosted at Impington VC, Cambridge

Other links:
Schools: Not Open For Business [PDF] | The battle against privatisation | The Anti Academies Alliance | The threat of schools’ privatisation | Nov 9: Defend education fight privatisation



@freethepeeps

Comments

Hide the following 7 comments

In Response

10.12.2011 23:16

I don't profess to know much about academies, or even much about PFI's, but I think there is a seriously biased slant on the article in what the purpose of the debate was about. In no way or shape was Oasis being "partnered" in the debate with Occupy and certainly there is and was no attempt to "co-opt" Occupy's discussion in the debate on Ethical Capitalism. Also, stating "five minutes of fame" as to why I wanted this debate to go ahead, is simply just as bad as the Cathedral stating "heath and safety" in their reasons for closing. It is a cop out! The truth is that many people who are NOT Occupy came to the debate as they are interested in discussions on Ethical Capitalism, which in my opinion is a juxtaposition in itself putting those two words together. It was a form of OUTREACH to invite people to have a discussion one of the many subjects that clearly is something that we are raising at Occupy. Many of the Occupiers attending came up to me afterwards and said how much they enjoyed the debate - why not ask the Economics Working group people that supported, as in Alistair and Anesu, as well as Inka who does the filming, Kandice who sang and the many people who are not Occupiers that came up afterwards and said they really enjoyed having a place to hold these discussions and thanked me for asking for the debate to go on. Either Occupy wants to be talking to people or we all sit around in a circle and speak to each other - because of course we all happily will have the same basic ideas .... If you want to change the system - Which I fundamentally do - then you have to do so from within - which means talking to people you don't necessarily like and certainly talking to those you don't agree with! If I had more knowledge on PFIs or Academies then I'd happily have raised that in the discussion, but I don't, I can only speak on what I know and it would be foolish for me to have said something I could not back up in presenting an argument. If you were there and had all these issues and knowledge of them - why didn't you have the courage of your convictions to raise the issues from a perspective of knowledge?

Tanya
mail e-mail: jimimyhero@hotmail.co.uk


Dialogue

11.12.2011 00:06

Tanya has been an extraordinary and totally sacrificial voice for Occupy who faces bitter opposition from powerful people in the system, and whom she fearlessly stands up against. She has done an amazing job of building dialogue with people we may strongly disagree with. I think the Consensus is a wonderful structure for internal engagement by ourselves as people and friends who believe in Occupy. But the system is limited, and has nothing in its architecture to enable us to talk to outside forces (maybe even hostile forces), and that is the kind of engagement we must do if we are going to bring change and deliver justice for the 99%.

Muhammad


5 minutes of fame

11.12.2011 00:30

Its the role thats given you the 5 minutes of fame Tanya. Try googling this: "Tanya Paton" Occupy London

Its fine to talk to the asset strippers, but not even challenging them on that, or their poor record of pupil and staff relations, seems like an exercise in navel gazing to me.

If your talks change the system from the inside then great.

I suspect something a little more forceful is needed though.

I won't be the only one jeering Steve Chalke MBE* when he launches his initiative on the steps of St. Pauls

*Man Breaking Education?

@freethepeeps


Custard Pie for Rev Chalke - Tanya let's talk....

11.12.2011 09:33

Tanya

Remind us why Steve Chalke said the talk wouldn't have happened without YOUR persistence.

I listened to the whole love-in and whilst the song was quite sweet, I don't think it achieved anything more than a boost for Chalkies ego.

What do you think it achieved?






@freethepeeps


Working with people we don't agree with

11.12.2011 16:12

Occupy has been brilliant at getting people to start talking and taking action on the greed and corruption which have reached almost epidemic proportions in our society. The movement needs to grow, and not just as Occupy, but across our communities we need people to be picking up and challenging Government and the City these issues. Different people, different organisations, different faiths and no faiths, must all play a part.

I saw something very different on the student march on November the 9th. On earlier marches students that I had seen looked a little nervous about taking to the streets. How things have changed! They have connected with each other, student communities coming together and having fun. "You're sexy, you're cute, take off your riot suit" being chanted with humour and importantly with confidence to aggressive police. The students have little money or until recently political power, but I can see communities building, gaining strength, and beginning to realise that in standing together for a fairer society they and we can see change.

Students and me, Occupy and me, Oasis and me, Occupy and Oasis. We will all have things that we can agree on and campaign on (whether together or separately) and things we disagree on. We can find where we differ and if we are so minded refuse to work together, and having effectively divided ourselves, our challenges are less effective. Or we can choose to keep focussed on our common goals, reforming our society to work for the many and not the few. We can forge alliances with groups and people with whom we have differences, but critically, where we agree common goals. If we can work with others then this movement will keep growing, and growing and growing, and we can keep challenging effectively. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Roger


Roger

11.12.2011 17:23

"Students and me, Occupy and me, Oasis and me, Occupy and Oasis. We will all have things that we can agree on and campaign on (whether together or separately) and things we disagree on."

If those that went to the meeting in the name of #OccupyLSX had at least acknowledged that there is no small irony in the debating of the obvious oxymoron "Ethical Capitalism" with a host whose staff are striking because he wants to sack them and take some of them back for less cash, then I wouldn't have written the article.

We can dilute the message till it is meaningless but that won't necessarily make it more inclusive, because people WILL walk away in disgust. Some people want REAL change.

"Or we can choose to keep focussed on our common goals, reforming our society to work for the many and not the few."

Presumably you mean changing our society then, because capitalism has never worked for the many. There are those who just want it to go back to how it was when credit was being thrown at consumers in the west (and never mind what is happening in the continents where people are literally starving to pay for it) and it seems that they don't quite get what the 99% is yet. Should we just pretend that its westerners only?

"If we can work with others then this movement will keep growing, and growing and growing, and we can keep challenging effectively."

And once again here is the point - acting in the name of the 99% NO EFFECTIVE CHALLENGE WAS OFFERED at that meeting.

As for the Holy Man with the British Empire gong shouldn't he have been saving the jobs of the teachers and education of the pupils he dragged out of the public sector instead of pretending he gives a damn?

@freethepeeps


whats for dinner?

15.12.2011 13:07

Even if you know that a right fancy slap up dinner is the long term objective...... sometimes its better to settle for a less fancy dinner in the short term so that you dont starve to death whilst waiting. We all need to eat regularly so lets take it one plate at a time and continue to aspire.
vegetarian is better, vegan is even betterer.... but then it could argued that vegan is not enough, we all need to eat raw..... but then thats not enough so lets all be mother fucking breatharians.....

rachel