Protestors need public support.

Do they? Does it really matter if they’re not popular?

Essentially they are trying to force action from a Government that only ever pays lip service to the topic of climate change, but does very little that has genuine impact.
Nobody really disagrees that what they want is generally sensible do they?
It’s basically this:

– The government should fund the insulation of all social housing by 2025.

– The government should have a “legally-binding national plan” for a low energy and low carbon retrofit of all homes in Britain by 2030

I mean those aren’t utterly crazy demands, there would probably be some commercial opportunities for ‘chums’ to exploit if those measures were implemented, but they’re not being met, so the tactic is to cause (peaceful) disruption, disproportionate disruption, eventually to the point where it’s probably easier to just do what they are asking I suppose?
How else do you go about influencing government policy when you’re not in the million pound plus Tory donors club, or a media tycoon able to adjust population’s opinions with targeted propaganda?

Climate “Commitments” generally come with no real consequences when they’re missed, so the “legally binding” bit is probably what the government doesn’t like, that and paying for poor people to be less poor/cold/polluting….

Interestingly they’re suspending protesting during COP-26 which I think is a mistake, they should probably ramp it up to really embarrass Boris and Co. while they do their annual slapping on of the greenwash.

As for ‘shoving’ climate protesters with a Range Rover?
I reckon it’s a pretty fitting allegory for the topic as a whole, an absolute gift TBH…

“ 25% of tory party donations are from the construction industry. ”

I’ll bite. What’s the source data and to enable a fair contrast, how much cash have Labour MPs and the party received from the construction industry?

To start the list off – Angela Rayner has railed against the construction industry and cronyism but accepted a donation of £10k from a developer after that.

Like it or loathe it the current protest strategy of XR or Insulate Britain is effective. In the past couple of years it’s got everyone taking about the climate crisis in staff rooms, chat forums, national and international news and Westminster etc . This has had the effect of pushing the response to the climate crisis in a postive direction – further than it has in years.

This style of protest won’t be disappearing anytime soon because its working. In fact, I think we’ll see more of it in the not too distant future.

how much cash have Labour MPs and the party received from the construction industry?

That doesn’t counter the point. The more MPs that are speaking for the construction industry, no matter what party, the harder it is to get more onerous legal insulation obligations put on developers for new builds.

In fact, I think we’ll see more of it in the not too distant future.

I don’t think protestors will have much choice, as laws and policing are changed to prevent more targeted protests the switch to “pop up” nuisance protests is all that’s really available. And they are difficult to keep away from the eyes of the pubic, it forces discussion, it can’t be compartmentalised away as having nothing to do with normal day to day life.

What’s the source data and to enable a fair contrast, how much cash have Labour MPs and the party received from the construction industry?

It’s not a Tory vs Labour issue. It’s about the party in power not doing nearly enough

While I think of it, to those getting all agitated about the one-off XR events they’ve seen reported in the Tory-supporting press ‘Preventing good ordinary people getting to work!’ or ‘Blocking ambulances!’ … those aren’t the only XR events that have ever happened, you know?

Peaceful, non-disruptive and positive events are going on all the time.

They just don’t get reported …

Oh it also seems that this point needs to be made for the benefit of some on here:

Protestors don’t *want* to have to sit in the road to get run over by untaxed Range Rovers; don’t *want* to glue themselves to bank windows; don’t *want* to risk their jobs and livelihoods by getting arrested for conducting legal and peaceful protest.

They do it because they are desperate to make just one degree of change happen, or failing that, the ability to say in the decades to come “I tried”.

People who criticise them for that should be ashamed.

You can see for yourself here

Without checking too hard I can see multiple donations from JCB, Total Plant, Countrywide, Bridgemere. Thakeham Homes. It really is noticeable once you start to look

You are just reinforcing my point. There should be no party donating allowed and MPs should not be able to have second jobs, sit on boards or join companies related to their positions within 5 years of leaving. These measures would have a profound effect on policies.

Like it or loathe it the current protest strategy of XR or Insulate Britain is effective

Is it? has anything actually changed as a result?

While I think of it, to those getting all agitated about the one-off XR events they’ve seen reported in the Tory-supporting press ‘Preventing good ordinary people getting to work!’ or ‘Blocking ambulances!’ … those aren’t the only XR events that have ever happened, you know?

But if they are the only ones most people know about then they’re not doing well as campaigners are they?

Do they? Does it really matter if they’re not popular?

Yes, of course! The whole point about democracy is that governments do things that are popular. If some group becomes hated by the public, it’s much harder for a government to do what that group asks because they’re seen as ‘caving into those weirdos’ and it damages their credibility at the ballot box.

There should be no party donating allowed

+1

Political parties need to be state funded. I’m not optimistic that it will ever happen.

Is it? has anything actually changed as a result?

You do know you are literally talking about it don’t you? They are trying to raise awareness.

Yes, of course! The whole point about democracy is that governments do things that are popular. If some group becomes hated by the public, it’s much harder for a government to do what that group asks because they’re seen as ‘caving into those weirdos’ and it damages their credibility at the ballot box.

+1

The prominent role played by a large housebuilding company and Tory donor in last week’s Conservative party conference has been called “terrifying” by a leading environmentalist who founded one of the most successful rewilding projects in England.

Isabella Tree, co-owner of the Knepp estate in West Sussex and author of Wilding, her 2018 book about how turning loss-making farmland into the largest rewilding experiment in lowland England, said the “cosy” relationship between developers such as Thakeham, which in effect sponsored parts of the conference, and the Tory party, was deeply worrying and threatening to green causes.

Addressing a fringe meeting at the conference in Manchester last week, Tree said it was “very troubling” that Thakeham, which has given more than £500,000 to the Conservatives since 2017, had the most prominent stand at the entrance to the event, sponsored a meeting, hosted a drinks party and had its name on lanyards worn by everyone with a pass to the four-day event.

Tories be Torying.

If some group becomes hated by the public

Like foreigners, for example? Did they do something to be hated?

how much cash have Labour MPs and the party received from the construction industry?

Who knows, I’m certainly not saying politics is played as a squeaky clean on the opposition benches.
Just noting that current government policy decisions are unduly influenced by those with the financial means to either make donations and attend some luncheons and/or able to brainwash the sweaty masses with the Sun/LBC/FB so that those in power pursue apparently “popular” policies in order to stay in power… It’s not called populism for nothing.

Yes, of course! The whole point about democracy is that governments do things that are popular. If some group becomes hated by the public, it’s much harder for a government to do what that group asks because they’re seen as ‘caving into those weirdos’ and it damages their credibility at the ballot box.

Isn’t that what spin doctors are for?
It’s never presented as “Caving into Weirdos” it’s always “Enacting our forward thinking vision for a Greener, more prosperous future!” Ultimately I don’t think IB/XR would actually care about taking credit for changing government policy, it’s the outcome that matters not the Kudos.

There are three basic ways to get Boris and chums to do something you need to provide them with your demands and at least one of the following:
-Money
-Votes
-Massive inconvenience/Disruption

The whole point about democracy is that governments do things that are popular. If some group becomes hated by the public, it’s much harder for a government to do what that group asks because they’re seen as ‘caving into those weirdos’ and it damages their credibility at the ballot box.

Or alternatively, rather than be populist a Government could make take a difficult decision in the qider public interest i.e. to divest from oil/gas. Imagine!

In this case ideology and a need to ‘other’the greens has got in the way of their ability to do what is so obviously needed.

You are just reinforcing my point. There should be no party donating allowed and MPs should not be able to have second jobs, sit on boards or join companies related to their positions within 5 years of leaving. These measures would have a profound effect on policies.

Now at the risk of getting so far off topic that we can’t recall why we are here: I agree with much of the sentiments but:

1. if parties are not funded by donations then how? if say from central gov based on past results how does a new party get funding? if no new parties then no threat to the status quo. If only from membership – then are we saying a party that has wealthier members who can afford a higher membership should have more clout?

2. so if a doctor or lawyer decides to stand for election they must give up their day job and not even keep their skills up? possibly part of the reason they stood or got elected was because they were close to the coal face and new what was going on – how connected will they still be after 10 yrs?

3. so if a politician loses their seat they can’t return to the job they did before? imagine a doctor gets elected, becomes health minister, then is unseated – you want them to wait 5 years before doing any doctoring, or sitting on a healthboard, or joining the UN in a health service advisory capacity, or say working with the gates foundation on health. Now consider the same for QC’s, university lecturers, head teachers, all of who have made good politicians in the past. Are we going to pay them for the 5 yrs they can’t work for? Otherwise I think you’ll find it even harder to get good politicians who know how the real world works rather than career politicians.

If the conflicts whilst in office are so bad why are the public (re)electing them?

meh she can just say she ‘has no recollection‘ and walk away free

Except there would be very clear evidence from multiple witnesses and video to explain exactly what happened. I’ve not read the road.cc take on that case, but I was rather heartened to see quite a few sensible responses here from people who remembered the jury sat through all the evidence for several days rather than read a few interesting quotes in a newspaper. I *think* without the “causing death by” element dangerous driving is typically not tried by a jury which means you have a perhaps more predictable outcome too.

I N R A T S but I do keep popping in to see if someone has posted a link to the vile excuse for a human driving the Range Rover being charged.
Maybe next time 🤞

Or alternatively, rather than be populist a Government could make take a difficult decision in the qider public interest i.e. to divest from oil/gas. Imagine!

Right but then if it’s unpopular, they won’t get re-elected next time will they?

molgrips
Full Member
Or alternatively, rather than be populist a Government could make take a difficult decision in the qider public interest i.e. to divest from oil/gas. Imagine!

Right but then if it’s unpopular, they won’t get re-elected next time will they?

It’s not just unpopular, it’s just not fundable in the current scenario, the best you can ask for just now is low scale initiatives and some ‘serious’ planning.

That footage is an absolute disgrace.

I’ve seen some disgusting behaviour in my time but that really was beyond the pale.

Imagine owning a Range Rover without a personalised license plate.

1. if parties are not funded by donations then how? if say from central gov based on past results how does a new party get funding? if no new parties then no threat to the status quo. If only from membership – then are we saying a party that has wealthier members who can afford a higher membership should have more clout?

Good points – but we could start by having a maximum donation limit and not just trusting the parties to do the right thing. There are clear conflicts of interests happening all the time and the electoral commission is toothless.

so if a doctor or lawyer decides to stand for election they must give up their day job and not even keep their skills up? possibly part of the reason they stood or got elected was because they were close to the coal face and new what was going on – how connected will they still be after 10 yrs?

Well yes, it’s a full time job. MP pay is less than most lawyers and doctors and they should be closer to the coal face dealing with their constituents.

so if a politician loses their seat they can’t return to the job they did before?

No reason a doctor could not go back to their day job, but taking a board position at a private company that got awarded a nhs contract during their tenure, no. Every politician should have a blacklist of companies they can not work for.

Is it? has anything actually changed as a result?

You do know you are literally talking about it don’t you? They are trying to raise awareness.

I’ve been aware of climate change for 30 years long before most of the protest  groups existed. I also don’t count talking about it as an achievement. I’m interested in actual real change. If talking about it was enough then politicians would be huge successes

Real change looks like eco-communism.

Not many people want their lives controlled that way.

Right but then if it’s unpopular, they won’t get re-elected next time will they?

Incredibly, some governments have done things because they were right, not because they were popular, and that has led to respect and re-election.

Sounds alien as I write it.

I’m interested in actual real change.

Please tell us how. According to most, any form of personal responsibility is a waste of time.

any form of personal responsibility is a waste of time

It’s not a waste of time. But it’s not going to get a large development of social housing upgraded to half decent (or better) energy efficiency standards. It’s not going to place a legal obligation on developers to make new homes properly energy efficient. And so on… the government need to be pushed to implement such changes, as part of a real plan, rather than hand waving and talking about distant targets.

eco-communism

Quick…. man the barricades! Keep out the eco-communists! Reds/Greens under the bed!

The government has a crucial role to play in all this, expecting them to do so is not “communism” of any kind.

it’s just not fundable in the current scenario

“Unfundable” in the scenatio in which the chancellor prefers to keep giving tax breaks to his pals in banking, while propagatong the fiction for the rest of us that we “have no money”. The fact is that money is not an obstacle to doing what we need to do.

Right but then if it’s unpopular, they won’t get re-elected next time will they?

Sure there will always be dinosaurs who refuse any change, but if the Govt communicated a compelling need for change then there’d be no political capital to be made by their main opponents.

And early action in a term would give unpalateable policies time to bed in and the electorate time to come to terms with it.

Maybe.

if the Govt communicated a compelling need for change then there’d be no political capital to be made by their main opponents.

Yeah, of course – look, I’m not advocating for this, I’m just spelling out what happens. We all know what we want and need – a competent forward thinking progressive government – but the real question is how to actually get there.

According to most, any form of personal responsibility is a waste of time.

Er no, that’s not what’s being said (why are people so hard of comprehension here?). What’s being said is that we can’t RELY on personal responsibility to solve the problems.

Er no, that’s not what’s being said (why are people so hard of comprehension here?). What’s being said is that we can’t RELY on personal responsibility to solve the problems.

It’s what the majority of people think.

Personal responsibility can only go so far. It won’t insulate social housing projects, or get developers to make new homes more efficient.

What’s being said is that we can’t RELY on personal responsibility to solve the problems.

to me its clear from what folk are saying on this thread that most folk will not take any action if it has any effects on them at all. Can’t put up petrol prices, must have out of season veg and fruit, still need to flay for holidays etc

@Poly
Doctoring is one thing, but can it really be used as an example when in truth the politician isnt going back to such a profession and is in fact taking up directorship for an arms firm or oil company doing 20 hours a month for £200,000 a year.
Any way you swing it it’s corruption. But unfortunately and as with the winners of war write the history books, the government writes the rules as to what constitutes corruption and such practices are not included, nor really frowned upon, but are in fact encouraged.

Real change looks like eco-communism.

Weird, everything you don’t like you label as communism.

Not many people want their lives controlled that way.

What most people haven’t really comprehend yet is that they’ll like the results of not doing it a lot less.

Climate change isn’t something we *should* do something about, it’s something we *have* to do something about.

As unpalatable as it may be to many the ‘somethings’ are both drastic and required quickly. Dithering about slowly make small changes ain’t gonna cut it.

XR and IB aren’t trying to get public support, they’re trying to make enough noise and disruption to get things moving.

But @dyna-ti that’s the problem with your blanket ban to second jobs and follow on jobs after being a minister. It means people with legitimate jobs would be excluded.

Presumably Teressa may would be banned from almost any senior job for another 3 yrs. But it’s Ok for Nick clegg to work for Facebook? you might not like the woman – but that seems crazy.

XR and IB aren’t trying to get public support, they’re trying to make enough noise and disruption to get things moving.

But you need public support in order to get things moving! What do you think is going to happen? You think people are going to watch the news footage of people blocking roads and go ‘oh actually yes I must get my house insulated or lobby my MP for a grant?’ How do you think people’s minds work?