You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
What are you, personally, going to do to try to make the government act meaningfully on the climate emergency?
I’m going to cause some serious disruption and glue myself to the wine aisle at Waitrose
It’s a desperate, angry, last-ditch attempt at getting governments to do *something* to save the planet.
Indeed and it's poorly conceived. Because public opinion will go against them, and that makes it very easy for a populist government to ignore because it will side with the majority public opinion.
As to what I'm doing? Nothing, because I really have no idea what to do. I would be doing stuff like this if I thought it'd work though.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but shouldn’t that Range Rover be equipped with active safety braking etc etc. Probably is, but given the number of electrical faults these have, the woman is lucky she could actually get it off the drive, oh and then to be stopped.
I think there is sometimes a minimum speed required for it to activate, as demonstrated numerous times at press launches when they run over the journalist.
Well I’m going to go against the stw grain and and say I have zero sympathy whatsoever for the daft prick sitting in front of the car.
Having read the initial comments I had assumed she’d driven hard at a protester. I watched the video, it’s a small nudge. No way she’ll get done for dangerous driving , and rightly so.
As for their cause… i agree with it but their methods are doing far more harm than good. They lost me at the point I saw a video of a woman pleading with them to let them through so she could visit their ill mother in hospital. They point blank refused.
Places that wealthy people, typically men, frequented were also burnt and destroyed whilst left unattended so that there was little risk to life, including cricket pavilions, horse-racing pavilions, churches, castles and the second homes
If Insulate Britain switched to those as targets I'm sure their actions would gain more popular support...
I think disrupting the road network as a tactic is a mistake - people don't vent their frustration on the government for not giving in to the reasonable demands of IB, they just vent their frustration at IB and make it easy for the government to divert all the media attention and blame to IB.
That said I don't know what would be effective, years of reasoned debate have proved largely fruitless so some sort of direct action is really the only option left but direct action against government (e.g. disrupting the Houses of Parliament) isn't really an option these days
Nothing, because I really have no idea what to do.
Maybe get an idea, before criticising those who have decided to do *something, anything* while they still can?
protesters need to remember that they need to change and influence popular opinion if they want to actually effect change. I’m not sure how blocking roads actually helps with that objective
Exactly this. Stopping people going about their every day business, isn't really gathering support for the group, even if many people agree with the cause. Not everyone in their car is a lazy entitled person willing to run people over on a school run. Some are missing hospital appointments, medical emergencies and the like. The protestors need to be a little more inventive IMO.
Because public opinion will go against them
You keep saying this, Molgrips, until there are opinion polls it's far from given.
I've been pleasantly surprised by how much popular support there is for protest movements in France and Germany. Opinion polls told Macron which of the gilets jaunes' demands had popular support and those were the ones that were acted on by the government.
The German withdrawal from nuclear was very much driven by protests and popular demand. If Germany goes back into nuclear it will be in response to popular demand not against it.
I watched the video, it’s a small nudge. No way she’ll get done for dangerous driving , and rightly so.
@piha - I’m sure some were to start with; I’m sure others joined the thinking as the issues were discussed and debated. Why were those issues so regularly debated? Because women were chaining themselves to stuff, throwing themselves in front of horses etc. If all these men were ardent supporters of women getting the vote, then why did women not have the vote? The first (?) campaigns for womens votes started in the 1860s. Even when some women got the vote in 1918 it was some ten years later before they were able to vote on equal terms - that doesn’t seem like an issue the every husband and father of a woman had as their no 1 priority!
There are analogies here - people have been politely lobbying for climate action for years and getting lip service. The majority of people agree government should act - but (along with other governments) they do little of substance and show no leadership, credible opposition parties don’t seem to have more substantial proposals. How then do the citizens get this on the agenda? Lobbying? V’s commercial interests? Creating their own political party (in a country who’s politics are biased around a two party system)? Or by making their voices heard in the media? You can of course argue whether that is working or not - but it’s probably at least causing some special advisor or junior minister to take a look… albeit the response seems to be how can we ban these inconvenient people rather than how can we resolve the issue.
You keep saying this, Molgrips, until there are opinion polls it’s far from given.
Of course not, but this is my feeling on the subject.
Protestors need public support. As I said, if you start protesting on something that there is already latent support for OR you can piggyback some other reservoir of support or sentiment then you are already onto a winner. That's why WWF use pandas, leopards, elephants and other cool animals on their posters because people love cool animals and it gets support. People are already wary of nuclear power so you can exploit that if you want to reduce nuclear generation. Even if you are actually secretly promoting coal.
Insulation doesn't have the same emotive content, so when you start doing something that pisses pepole off and gets into the news, and other people read it and sympathise with the motorists instead of the protesters, you're just wasting your time and possibly even setting your cause back, which is the opposite of what we need.
25% of tory party donations are from the construction industry. The explains how they are still getting away with creating shit boxes that leak energy like a sieve, despite insane house prices.
I’m going to cause some serious disruption and glue myself to the wine aisle at Waitrose
You are Ollie Smith and I claim my £5.
watched the video, it’s a small nudge. No way she’ll get done for dangerous driving , and rightly so.
I beg to differ. There’s no way that intentionally driving a vehicle to cause contact with a pedestrian doesn’t meet the legal definition of dangerous driving (all the more so if you are angry at the time and the pedestrian is sitting down and unable to quickly get out your way).
I have no doubt that the law will consider the protestor to be a pedestrian.
Now whether the protestors will be willing to complain and risk possible contempt of court proceedings (I’m unclear exactly what the court order stops them doing) or other charges may be a different issue.
when you start doing something that pisses pepole off and gets into the news, and other people read it and sympathise with the motorists instead of the protesters, you’re just wasting your time and possibly even setting your cause back, which is the opposite of what we need.
Exactly. And this discussion is mainly about the nature of the protests, not the reasons for them, which kind of highlights their failure to communicate their message as effectively as possible.
I have zero sympathy whatsoever for the daft prick sitting in front of the car.
But 'daft pricks' like that are kind of the reason why you enjoy many rights within our society. Such as free speech...
You keep saying this, Molgrips, until there are opinion polls it’s far from given.
Available polling suggest unpopular getting more unpopular. There are very few things you can get more than two thirds to agree on.
Edukator - are you confusing Britain with the functioning democracy of Germany or the emotional passion of France?
protesters need to remember that they need to change and influence popular opinion if they want to actually effect change.
Maybe they consider that they are not at the point of influencing popular opinion and are just trying to get the issue of insulation into peoples' skulls.
As for alternaive tactics, well XR tried singing songs and being nice this summer, and the police targetted their musicians and the Beeb refused to report on their protests, so IB clearly felt they had to be more extreme to get the message out.
Thanks for the poll, Tomd, even if it is YouGouv It's interesting that support has declined. Perhaps an indication about how the media are playing it.
It smacks very much of "gotta support the troops" propaganda in the Iraq war. In that case people against the war were duped into supporting the troops (which meant they were supporting the war they were against). In this case supporters of environmental issues are being duped into objecting to protesters because of the inconvenience they cause (which means they are against Insulate Britain, a cause they are in favour of).
Whatever the methods insulation is now an issue the public is more aware of. A burning tower block because of sub-standard materials has given insulation a bad press, it's a subject that needs a higher profile.
In this case supporters of environmental issues are being duped into objecting to protesters because of the inconvenience they cause
I don't think anyone is being 'duped'. Insulate Britain's actions are just pissing loads of people off, not actually highlighting their cause very effectively. Same as how some XR protests ended up being counter-productive, as I've mentioned earlier. Some people will have lost jobs as a result of XR protestors actions; it's all well and good supporting a 'cause' from a position of privilege or where you aren't personally affected, but if you've lost your job etc, you aren't going to be very sympathetic. As before; people have bills to pay, appointments they need to get to. Hindering them in their progress isn't going to win hearts and minds. So they need to come up with a better solution. I think all such actions will achieve, will be even more clamping down on the right to protest. So we'll all lose. Should we allow a tiny minority to be allowed to damage all our rights?
As for alternaive tactics
This. Distributed disturbance of every day life is exactly the way to get noticed now. All other forms of protest are being shut down, muted, legislated against, or just ignored. I hate this kind of protest because it effects people indiscriminately, but they have arrived at it for a reason... the more we criminalise protest, and the more we shield legislators and the public from traditional protests, the more we push protestors to use these kinds of means.
I am 100% against anyone sitting in the road.
If their actions affect others livelihood then they get all they deserve as life is already hard as it is.
So you're quite happy for someone protesting by sitting in the road to be murdered by someone driving a car? After all, "they deserve all they get".
What's worse are the people cheering on her assault and the fact that the police won't do anything. This woman would almost certainly be prepared to knock you off your bike if she deemed you to be holding her up in any way.
Made me feel sick watching that video and the fact that you're condoning the physical injury of a peaceful protester is disgusting.
Should we allow a tiny minority to be allowed to damage all our rights?
Hook, line and sinker. You've swallowed all the narrative. If you were talking about the Tory party and their lobby group mates you might have a point.
Some people will have lost jobs as a result of XR protestors actions
I believe this to be a load of wheelbarrow content, if you're moving bull manure from one place to another, in a wheelbarrow.
What are you, personally, going to do to try to make the government act meaningfully on the climate emergency?
I can't force the government to do anything but I do the following:
I walk much more than drive as much as I can now for short journeys. My current car is a very economical small engine. I don't use the heating at home unless I'm still cold with all the windows closed and layers on. I recycle everything that I can.
Some people will have lost jobs as a result of XR protestors actions
I think its far worse than that since the protesters have been blocking ambulances too.
Is it just me that sees the irony of an overweight parent driving a huge polluting RR on the school run, objecting to environmental protesters???
"Ive got to get buy 11 y/o to school!!" Walking obviously not an option.
I can’t force the government to do anything but I do the following:
I walk much more than drive as much as I can now for short journeys. My current car is a very economical small engine. I don’t use the heating at home unless I’m still cold with all the windows closed and layers on. I recycle everything that I can.
Exactly the point - your actions have precisely zero effect, hence the need to do something with wider impact. Hint: a strongly worded letter to the local paper probably isn't enough.
But it's not precisely zero effect is it? Clearly he is reducing his CO2 footprint by a measurable amount. We just need more people, particularly those will some decision making ability to do the same.
poly
I beg to differ. There’s no way that intentionally driving a vehicle to cause contact with a pedestrian doesn’t meet the legal definition of dangerous driving (all the more so if you are angry at the time and the pedestrian is sitting down and unable to quickly get out your way).
I have no doubt that the law will consider the protestor to be a pedestrian.
Now whether the protestors will be willing to complain and risk possible contempt of court proceedings (I’m unclear exactly what the court order stops them doing) or other charges may be a different issue.
meh she can just say she 'has no recollection' and walk away free
But it’s not precisely zero effect is it?
Sure but the question was actually
"What are you, personally, going to do to try to make the government act meaningfully on the climate emergency?"
so reducing his CO2 footprint by the square root of bugger all doesn't really do anythkng in terms of government action.
Oh look a poll by you.gov, beyond risible. They are a Tory front organisation and they poll in a way that supports the status quo. Mori or any other polling company would be more believable but no one from the government will commission them as they may not get the answers they desire.
They are disrupting the lives of the wrong people. It’s Westminster They should be blockading, not the people going about their normal lives.
You have noticed that the current Government are trying to "silence" protests, and can effectively prevent people from protesting in numbers outside Parliament right? It is inevitable that these sort of protests are going to impact "ordinary folk" because they vote for the very politicians who have placed barriers around themselves so they are not inconvenienced by protesters.
Places that wealthy people, typically men, frequented were also burnt and destroyed whilst left unattended so that there was little risk to life, including cricket pavilions, horse-racing pavilions, churches, castles and the second homes
If Insulate Britain switched to those as targets I’m sure their actions would gain more popular support…
How do you think that will work out? There will be Police and more even more justification for private security firms to "protect" property...even in previously public areas.
The story is about insulation...insulate to help the environment, and the increasing layers of insulation the politicians and the wealthy will use between us and them.
The irony of course is the whole heat pump/ban gas boilers "policy" that the Government announced a few days ago would make more sense to the public if insulating homes was also part of it. Its almost as if they just chose heat pumps because they didn't want to be seen siding with insulate Britain.
I know that I'd much rather sit and have a chat with the protesters than the chubby chav in the Range Rover.
Question … can we only attack annoying protesters if they are on the road? Or can we assault them wherever they are holding their protests?
I missed the bit in my driving theory where it said you can slowly drive into a human if they are on the road for a reason you disagree with.
Its almost as if they just chose heat pumps because they didn’t want to be seen siding with insulate Britain.
Insulation is old hat and the overall concept/process/product is run of the mill. Heat pumps and the like are more 'modern' and thus more open to entry from 'consultancies' and new entrants who can shape the rules or refuse to invest. Venture capital and the like. Much more to the ENP's liking.
And don't forget all the plucky little startup legal firms cold calling ripped off customers in five years time when they start breaking down.
Deregulate to accumulate.
it’s a small nudge. No way she’ll get done for dangerous driving , and rightly so.
You'll be ok with someone in a car/bus/HGV giving you a small nudge next time you're out on your bike then?
To be fair, subsidies for heat pumps (no matter how small) should help with scaling up and reducing prices long term. But it’s a side issue compared to legislating and funding the refit or replacement of social and private rented homes, and updating planning for new builds so as not to add to the problem.
Look at scandinavia.
Why the resistance to doing something? Why wouldn't you want a more sustainable home?
Because it costs more money? Well it doesn't after the payback period does it?
Why are are all so short termist?
Protestors need public support.
Neither the Suffragettes or the Mass Trespass had much public support at the time.
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.
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?