You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
we have laws to protect our democratic process otherwise everything turns into a free for all.
It would be great if that were actually all that laws were used for.
the IB protesters have fallen into the trap of thinking they are above the law and they are not.
they don't think that, they recognise that getting arrested for breaking the law is what will happen and they want that to happen. Although there are lots of people who strongly believe in a cause there aren't that many that want to go that far and they are using that fact to get their voices heard. Normally it is only one or two willing to do that but in this case the cause is that widely felt that the numbers are much larger. Voting is one way of having your voice heard, this is another
Can a person who gets up in the morning and goes and sits in the middle of a busy road with the sole intention of disrupting other peoples lives really call themselves “a victim” . . .
I'm pretty sure they were ready for all sorts of vitriol thrown their way, and while I reckon they thought they get all sorts of threats (including being run over) I don't think any of them thought that someone would actually try it.
The whole protest is utterly pointless. Nothing will change as a result of this protest
emily davidson? do you think history might look at these people in a similar light?
No.
isnt that what they said about her, at the time?
The whole protest is utterly pointless. Nothing will change as a result of this protest
Certainly hasn't gained any media traction, has it.
Sitting in the road to protest is now a busted flush (well more accurately a called bluff), unless the police prosecute the woman driving the Range Rover.
Other people will just copy her actions and it will escalate until someone is badly hurt or killed.
But with limited resources – practically much more likely to be a priority if there is a complainant; if you were one of the dozens cyclists who uploaded videos this week would you be happy if your case was delayed for one where nobody had even complained?
I think most would be happy to see overly aggressive drivers removed from the road. And in publicly visible cases like this, if no action is taken it sends out a message that it's acceptable to use your car as a weapon, and potentially makes the roads more dangerous for everyone.
Comparisons with suffragettes are futile, IMO. The social and political context is utterly different in so many ways.
I don’t think any of them thought that someone would actually try it
If they didn’t think someone would eventually drive into them they are more stupid than they seem, and they already seem pretty damn stupid. Of course it was going to happen eventually, have you never cycled on the roads and seen all the angry clowns who are prepared to run you over to get to their destination in time? I have experienced many acts of dangerous driving that have been far more likely to kill me than what’s on display in the OP I’m afraid
The driver was never going to get charged for that (lol at some people claiming it’s attempted murder). And if she is charged nothing will come of it. The problem, as others have pointed out, is that eventually someone will drive into one of them at a speed that may actually do damage, which won’t end up well for anyone
Other people will just copy her actions and it will escalate until someone is badly hurt or killed.
Welcome to Great England.
We got rid of the foreigners, now we can start hating the lefties, the liberals, the perverts and the weirdos*.
^ this is irony
* don't forget the cyclists
Comparisons with suffragettes are futile, IMO. The social and political context is utterly different in so many ways.
And in so many other ways, very similar. The comparison with the women's suffrage movement is a good one, IMO.
Denied legitimate means of protest, a minority of the women engaged in damage to private and public property - mass window smashing, firing empty buildings or destroying mail in postboxes.
No the suffragette movement was completely different, they had no way to voice their views, the IB protestors do, just because they don't like the outcome of the way the country voted (and neither do i for the record) doesn't mean they didn't have a legitimate voice. That's democracy for you, the least worst way of running a country.
Certainly hasn’t gained any media traction, has it.
Yes but it's not been positive, the government is only interested in the mood music, if the general feeling is they are a entitled bunch of obstructive middle class moaners (which is what many see them as) the government will happily ignore them or worse use them as an excuse to tighten protest laws. It's been said repeatedly they need to get the public and press on side, blocking the M25, however worthy isn't going to achieve that.
So much wrong with that, both historically and as regards current laws around public protest, that I don’t know where to begin. Of course the suffragettes had ways to “voice their views”, that’s exactly the means the suffragists used… what made them suffragettes is that they crossed the line into “unacceptable” behaviour. The WSPU went well beyond what these modern day protestors are doing, who are more like the WFL… peacefully being awkward and disturbing normal life, rather than using violence or causing criminal damage.
And in so many other ways, very similar. The comparison with the women’s suffrage movement is a good one, IMO.
I agree with this as well, at the time it was seen as a movement that was disagreeable, as is IB.
This morning I was listening to "Witness History" on the radio (BBC 4/World Service) about the Greenham Common anti-nuclear protests in the early eighties. I remember at the time I had two very young kids and was struggling to make ends meet on a meagre wage, and I had no time for what I thought were unwashed wasters with no sense of reality (probably influenced by the fact that I read newspapers every day back then). With hindsight I now realise that it was a very worthy cause and the protesters were very brave people. The reason for this is probably that I am no longer struggling and at my age (63) have a great deal of hindsight. I can now see movements and injustices that I maybe should've got behind and supported more, and regret that I didn't as I was too busy holding my family together.
This view probably accounts for the comments people have made about the IB protesters being middle class and old farts. When you get time and space to reflect on the past, and have hopes for future generations (2 grandchildren in my case) you realise that maybe it's not to late to do something!
Right, I'm off to join XR! 😀
Denied legitimate means of protest, a minority of the women engaged in damage to private and public property – mass window smashing, firing empty buildings or destroying mail in postboxes.
They did the same stuff, but it was different group if people doing it, who were viewed differently, so their actions had a different impression on the people in charge who were arguing against what they wanted on different grounds. But otherwise yea the same.
Back then it was new and shocking for women to speak up like that. 100 years later there's nothing shocking about it, in fact most people now regard it as a tedious annoyance after hearing about it for the 100th time.
What do they even want? Do they want government to insulate everyone's house for free? Or just some? Or is it just discounted insulation? What are the specifics? Becaue I think there are already grants available for some people, my sister's got one. So it's far to easy to come back at the protesters by saying that it's being worked on. Obviously not enough but by making the public hate you you're giving them reason to side with the government here.
Back then it was new and shocking for women to speak up like that. 100 years later there’s nothing shocking about it, in fact most people now regard it as a tedious annoyance after hearing about it for the 100th time.
Um, did I hear you right?
I think most would be happy to see overly aggressive drivers removed from the road. And in publicly visible cases like this, if no action is taken it sends out a message that it’s acceptable to use your car as a weapon, and potentially makes the roads more dangerous for everyone.
I agree. I'd also like to see the police, CPS (PF) and courts funded so that the most likely criminal cause of death in this country could be acted on quicker, and especially that intentionally bad drivers who don't kill or injure are treated with the same seriousness as the cases where the driver isn't so lucky. BUT will it make any real difference if she was questioned or charged on Wednesday, next week or even next month? If she pleads not guilty it will probably be 2023 before it goes to trial!
We got rid of the foreigners, now we can start hating the lefties, the liberals, the perverts and the weirdos*.
^ this is irony
* don’t forget the cyclists
Not sure you need the * - are all cyclists not already members of at least one of the other groups?
Um, did I hear you right?
You can read my post as many times as you like, so if you have a point please get to it!
For the avoidance of doubt, I meant that there is nothing shocking about a small group doing this kind of protest these days, as at this point it has been going on for years.
I meant that there is nothing shocking about a small group doing this kind of protest these days
Well it's sustained us for 9 pages
I meant that there is nothing shocking about a small group doing this kind of protest these days
So, are you saying people will just ignore this kind of protest these days? This thread suggests they will at least talk about it. Especially if it provokes a physical reaction (as also happened with the suffragettes). All it needs now is the government to instruct the police to be more "decisive" with their reaction to these pop-up protests, and physically detain protestors quicker and more often, and the escalation will result in even more attention.
What are the specifics?
Well, their first requirement is for a plan to get all social housing insulated as quickly as possible. Only the government can make this happen. No one is saying the government is doing nothing at all... but these protestors say that it should plan, fund and legislate for a far quicker move to better insulated housing stock, especially for homes not owned by the people who live in them (and who therefore can't insulate their homes themselves, and are paying for that deficiency with their ever higher heating bills, as well as having no real choice but be part of the problem when it comes to climate change).
The driver was never going to get charged for that (lol at some people claiming it’s attempted murder). And if she is charged nothing will come of it. The problem, as others have pointed out, is that eventually someone will drive into one of them at a speed that may actually do damage, which won’t end up well for anyone
That alone would be a good reason to throw the book at her.
but the IB protesters have fallen into the trap of thinking they are above the law and they are not.
This doesnt appear to be the case. Indeed a major part of their platform seemed to have been to be arrested which would be embarrassing for the government with the upcoming summit (this part of their plan is clearly flawed since I am not sure what would embarrass the current government but am certain it would need more than this).
Right, I’m off to join XR!
Excellent 🙂
https://twitter.com/newsforalluk/status/1453336245673865219?s=21
https://twitter.com/newsforalluk/status/1453272984546947072?s=21
Replies to those tweets are depressing. Can we do better here? I’m not sure.
Very depressing reading indeed.
They're a lot calmer than I would be about having a stranger squirt some unknown liquid over me, **** that
I'm also assuming they'll be protesting a lot more now it's clear there's no provision in the budget for doing anything about insulation etc.
Picture in the paper today of a driver playing the bagpipes in the face of a (I assume) superglued protester.
Bagpipes wow that's against the Geneva convention
Interesting that Fergal Sharkey and the sewage campaigners have forced bigger concessions out of the government in the space of a few days than several years of XR terrorism activism has.
There is a video in The Guardian (online edition) of a short interview with one of the Insulate Britain members. I don’t have the skills to link it here but worth a look. There’s no hope for this world was my conclusion!
The inker is being called a motorist, but after attacking the protestors he walks off down the pavement, rather than the road back to a car, and why has he a large container of ink with him 😕 is that a normal bit of car kit motorists carry with them ? Tow rope, jerry can, spare wheel, bottle of ink 😕
And who did he attack ?,a 77yr old retired doctor who's spent his life helping people. And the way the inker was taking pleasure with a grin as he was doing it.
I guess you’re referring to https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/well-this-made-me-chuckle-😂-warning-knucklehead-content/
Bagpipes wow that’s against the Geneva convention
Certainly comes under the heading of cruel and unusual punishment! I don’t think they went that far in Gitmo! 🤪
Interesting that Fergal Sharkey and the sewage campaigners have forced bigger concessions out of the government in the space of a few days than several years of XRterrorismactivism has.
Open Water swimming and Stand Up Paddle Boarding is really quite popular these days. Whereas XR are a threat to my ski holiday so **** them.
I agree with the message from the protesters but the way they’re going about it is ridiculous.
+1.
Their actions are futile as they've not got the public behind them - the Government know this and have no interest in engaging with them.
The only thing that'll happen as a result of their actions is restrictions on the sale of superglue.
Pour loads of cold water into their jacket and soak them wet cos ink is expensive and they all have to get off the road to change into something dry. LOL!
You really are a deeply unpleasant person, aren't you?
Nah, I doubt it. He's just a div.
He did start off by saying :
No need to run over anyone or hurt anyone.
Shirley the best thing IB could do to raise their profile and get public support would be to insulate Britain.
The only thing that’ll happen as a result of their actions is restrictions on the sale of superglue.
I fully expect new laws to be introduced, which classify 'obstructing the highway' as a terrorist offence, thus carrying far more severe penalties. Because currently, even repeat offenders can only get very limited jail time at least. I'm totally against such a thing happening, which is why I feel protestors need to be made aware of the potential consequences of their actions. If such behaviour could lead to even greater restrictions on our freedoms, then it creates a whole new moral argument against such actions. If the egos of those involved don't allow them to see their social responsibilities clearly, then they makes themselves targets for counter-action, which may well be morally just as justifiable as their own. Without condoning violence and abuse against protestors, there is at least a growing moral argument for action against them by other members of the public, who have exactly the same rights as the protestors.
We got rid of the foreigners, now we can start hating the lefties, the liberals, the perverts and the weirdos*.
^ this is irony
* don’t forget the cyclists
Not sure you need the * – are all cyclists not already members of at least one of the other groups?
*Yes, but they are a useful subspecies of all of the above.
Very easy to diversify scapegoats in order to sell newspapers tabloids/talk-shows and outrage/clickbait if you have a wide selection of ‘others’ (under the same umbrella of course).
ie
Nation’s outrage at ‘enviro-weirdoes’
Pensioner’s outrage at cyclists
Lefty teacher brainwashed pupils about ‘gender-inclusivity’
All of those could fly on their own merit. You could get, say, a million impressions per each of those?
Immigrant transexual lefty cyclist ‘enviroweirdoes’ cause fury
Nah. Keep it simple. Teacher? Got to be a lefty. Cyclist? Got to be a lefty. Immigrant? Loved by lefties, probably a lefty. Weirdoes? Lefties. Everyone ‘knows’ this by now, but if you keep them all separate for ‘news’ and ‘opinion’ pieces then the public nonetheless enjoy filling in the blanks and there are more stories/tweets to go around. If you just use the term ‘lefty’ then you’ll become boring eventually. See also the terms ‘wokies’ and ‘racists’.
Terms such as ‘cyclist’ and ‘pervert’ are like reserve copy.
‘What’s on the front page today, Jacqui?’
‘Well we were running with ‘study finds that lefty doom-mongers are more depressed’ but it turns out the study was out of context/questiinable causality ffs’
‘So what, run it anyway’
‘Too late, binned it. What else have you got?’
‘Immigrants’?
‘Did a double yesterday’
‘Ok what-about cyclists, haven’t done them for ages? I’ve got ‘two wheeled pervert takes a dump in church garden’?
‘F-yes.’
a growing moral argument for action against them by other members of the public
What do we want?
Viglantes taking out protestors!
The UK gets more depressing by the day.
Open question - is it getting worse or is it the fact that with modern tech we're seeing so many more instances. Instance that wouldn't have been even aired for the wider country.
It seems so easy these days to put any old sh8t out on the web.
Without condoning violence and abuse against protestors, there is at least a growing moral argument for action against them by other members of the public
"Without condoning violence, I think we're getting to the point where we can condone violence."
If they feel that strongly about it why don't they set up and organisation/charity to raise money and make it happen. Everything does not have to be done by the goverment.
Some of this does have to be done by the government. Not just because of the funds required, but because it requires changes to rules and laws to compel developers, social housing providers and landlords to act.
No, but in a situation where capitalism rules, unless it is mandated by government/law, it is never going to happen.
Builders will build as cheaply as they can and maximise their profits (because they can). Extra insulation, or micro solar, or whatever is added cost that comes from their bottom line and will be deprioritised.
Make it a legal requirement that all new housing stock must have x, y and z and it will happen, otherwise people will not be able to get mortgages, or insure the property, or just not want to buy them.
They don't need to compel anyone, they can raise money and pay for it to be done, for existing buildings and new build.
It really does not need to be done by government, thats just the usual cop out from people who think its someone else's job to put in place stuff they want.
No, but in a situation where capitalism rules, unless it is mandated by government/law, it is never going to happen.
Again if its what people want they will pay for it. Bottom line is this is just like taxation people always want OTHER people to be taxed more and not them. There are plenty of ways where an organisation could work in a capitalist framework to make this work.
Change starts with you, no one else.
We live in a world where even people who actually care to some extent do nothing personally. What needed is a change in people not a change in law.
Are you suggesting that they trespass and forcibly update the existing housing stock? What if a landlord isn't interested? What if housing associations don't want to take on the liability for the work done? How do they make changes to new developments?
Are you suggesting that they trespass and forcibly update the existing housing stock? What if a landlord isn’t interested? What if housing associations don’t want to take on the liability for the work done? How do they make changes to new developments?
No but you seem to be suggesting that they would not want the work done if it was free of charge and would potentially increase the value of their property.
Also its a case of perfect is the enemy of the good, if they got a 80%-90% take up we would be in a better position than we are now.
It just seems to me people want to blame the government then they can feel comfortable that is not their fault.
Also if you were giving to a charity organisation that that's sole purpose was to insulate Britain then the money would be by its very nature ring fenced unlike the taxation that would be the alternative way of paying for it.
If they feel that strongly about it why don’t they set up and organisation/charity to raise money and make it happen. Everything does not have to be done by the goverment.
People aren’t funding it for their own houses, because they don’t have to. How many do you think would pay to do other peoples?
Even if the govt don’t fund it, making it mandatory would make setting up companies to do it a lot more compelling.
People aren’t funding it for their own houses, because they don’t have to. How many do you think would pay to do other peoples?
So this is the real reason that its not done then, the people of the country don't value it enough to do it. So the government are doing what the people want, that sounds like democracy to me.
Edited to add :-
Mandating it and not funding it sounds like a really regressive measure that would impact the poor more than everyone else.
5 million households don't have "their own houses"... they rent a property off someone else. That is why IB's first "demand" is that the government steps up to the plate to get social housing sorted first, and then privately rented accommodation. This isn't about each home owner doing their little bit to insulate their own property (and save themselves heating costs in the process)... this is primarily about updating the homes that people rent... the ones that can't be insulated but the people living in them taking on "personal responsibility" for a society wide problem. They are not stopping you addressing your own home (if you own it that is)... by all means crack on and do that yourself.
Governing isn’t just giving people what they want.
£5 million households don’t have “their own houses”… that is what IB’s first “demand” is that the government steps up to the plate to get social housing sorted first, and then privately rented accommodation. This isn’t about each home owner doing their little bit to insulate their own property (and save themselves heating costs in the process)… this is primarily all about updating the home that people rent. They are not stopping you addressing your own home (if you own it)… by all means crack on and do that yourself.
It still does not mean that IB can't raise the money and offer the service to landlords. It just comes down to doing rather than moaning.
If the government are not interested in taking action then take action yourself and make it useful rather than supergluing yourself to the road.
The RNLA and the Air Ambulance are great examples of non government organisations providing a service that most would probably think should be provided by government. In these cases people actually did something useful and made it happen rather than moaning.
a really regressive measure that would impact the poor more than everyone else
That would be leaving people in social housing at the mercy of ever rising energy bill because the properties they live in, and can't insulate themselves, are poorly insulated. Which is the top, first, and foremost thing that IB are requesting: that the government has a plan to insulate those properties in the next few years. Properties that are inhabited by some of the poorest in society who can not afford what not insulating their homes is about to do to their household finances.
It still does not mean that IB can’t raise the money and offer the service to landlords. It just comes down to doing rather than moaning.
If the government are not interested in taking action then take action yourself and make it useful rather than supergluing yourself to the road.
Without government involvement, who takes on the liability for the insulation measures that this "charity" installs in social housing? I mean, I love your hopefully naive ideas about how to make all this happen, but it is not addressing even the most basic legal issue. And charities can't make laws.
Mandating it and not funding it sounds like a really regressive measure that would impact the poor more than everyone else.
It would be developers, in the case of new builds (that I’m talking about). I’m sure they could find a few quid down the back of the sofa, if they really tried.
After that, landlords, again I’m sure they can take the hit.
After that we can look at grants for those on lower incomes.
That would be leaving people in social housing at the mercy of ever rising energy bill because the properties they live in, and can’t insulate themselves, are poorly insulated. Which is the top, first, and foremost thing that IB are requesting: that the government has a plan to insulate those properties in the next few years. Properties that are inhabited by some of the poorest in society who can not afford what not insulating their homes is about to do to their household finances.
You are pushing against an open door with that it would make a lot of sense to insulate those homes. I would also be quite happy to support an organisation that made it happen. More so than pouring my money into the black hole that is the treasury.
The RNLA and the Air Ambulance are great examples of non government organisations providing a service that most would probably think should be provided by government. In these cases people actually did something useful and made it happen rather than moaning.
But remember most of us ( in the RNLI) are volunteers ...
I would also be quite happy to support an organisation that made it happen.
That's the government.
There could be an arms length not for profit organisation or two involved in funding and regulation etc, but it would need to be backed up by a legal framework, AND A PLAN, from the government.
Without government involvement, who takes on the liability for the insulation measures that this “charity” installs in social housing?
Err the contractors they engage to carry out the work, the exact same people who would take on the liability if the government engaged them. Its not rocket science is it.
I am not expecting the old retired doctor that got ink sprayed in his face to climb into a loft with a roll of insulation. He can stand on the corner of a street with a pot to raise the money.
There could be an arms length not for profit organisation or two involved in funding and regulation etc, but it would need to be backed up by a legal framework, AND A PLAN, from the government.
It really doesn't!! Other organisations manage to operate massively complex logistical operations without government.
But remember most of us ( in the RNLI) are volunteers …
Exactly and you get on with it, you give up your time and money to make it happen. You are not celotaping yourself to railing protesting for the government to do it.
Err the contractors they engage to carry out the work
And if the contractor doesn't exist at all in five years time, when a problem occurs with the refit, and needs ripping out? Across all your housing stock? Housing associations and private landlords alike are going to be very wary of handing over the keys to a third party to do what they will without a legal framework from the government. What if this third party installs insulation that doesn't match the standards that the government eventually mandates further down the line? Because this is going to happen eventually... IB are just saying it should happen sooner. It needs to be government led, everything else is just wishful thinking.
And if the contractor doesn’t exist at all in five years time, when a problem occurs with the refit, and needs ripping out? Across all your housing stock?
How do you think they manage that with contractors now?, usually it involves company having to be fully insured to be allowed to carry out the work. I think you are the naïve one not me.
It needs to be government led, everything else is just wishful thinking.
That is ideology talking not reality, it could be done by government or by a non government organisation if enough people were prepared to make it happen. There is no reason why it couldn't, all of your arguments are surmountable with the right will.
Edited to add
It needs to be government led, everything else is just wishful thinking.
You are right but only because 90% of the people in the UK don't give a damn. So we have come full circle and its democracy in action.
What needed is a change in people not a change in law.
Yes but that's not going to happen as explained earlier. The government could mandate this tomorrow, it'd take 20 years to change attitudes if it were possible to change them enough to make a difference.
What if landlords say no, you can't come onto our properties and make changes to them?
What if landlords say no, you can’t come onto our properties and make changes to them?
If the proposition was attractive enough why would they? You seem obsessed with thinking people would not want something that is beneficial to them. Also so what if a small proportion of them did say no, we would still end up with most doing it and the county would be in a better place. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
Yes but that’s not going to happen as explained earlier. The government could mandate this tomorrow, it’d take 20 years to change attitudes if it were possible to change them enough to make a difference.
Do you mean mandate it in rented accommodation or across all housing in the UK?
First up ... mandate it in new builds by law, and have a plan to update all social housing (as per IB's suggestion). If you think this can be done by fund raising and good will, with zero government involvement... please, do crack on.
mandate it in new builds
You mean mandate more? There are already building regulation that detail the minimum U values for walls and roofing.
You mean mandate more?
Yes. Exactly.
Or, you know, leave it to the buyers and renters of new builds, because, well...
Change starts with you, no one else.
Why have any rules and laws as regards energy efficiency of homes? [ That's rhetorical, of course. ]
The harder bit is retrospectively improving the existing housing stock, which is what IB are asking to be addressed, by the government.
New builds are insulated so not sure why you think buyers or renters of new builds would need to do it?
The majority of the existing stock are lived in by their owners and they are clearly not bothered enough to do it.
So we have new build covered and we have majority of existing stock covered.
I would concede that mandating that if a property is rented to someone else then meeting a standard could be a good thing. A bit like having a gas and electrical certificate, it would need an insulation cert. The rest is the will of the people.
Does bazzer really think this can be funded by a doctor standing on a street corner with a collection pot? Let's think about just private rented homes. There were about 4.44 million in 2020. That's a huge cost for a charity to raise - a quick example age UK's net income (can't find gross) for 2019-20 was 5.86 million which is barely more than a pound per rented household. So you're suggesting IB set up a charity many times bigger than that, in a matter of months? Remember they're asking the government because it needs doing NOW.
The rest is the will of the people.
I see.
New builds are insulated so not sure why you think buyers or renters of new builds would need to do it?
As you yourself pointed out, there are rules as regards new builds. We don't just leave it to then end buyer or renter, we mandate minimum standards. They need to be tightened up. You can't argue "no to government action" when we already have government action, it's just that it doesn't go far enough given the urgency to reduce emissions related to home heating.
I would concede that mandating that if a property is rented to someone else then meeting a standard could be a good thing
Well, that's a good start. Could be the basis of the "plan" that IB want government to come up with. I think a carrot and stick approach would be better... minimum standards, with a reasonable timescale for compliance... paired with financial help from government, at the very least for social housing suppliers... but if you want a stick only plan... at least you can see that a government plan might be required, or at least beneficial, to move things on fast enough.
For what it's worth, when IB started all this street blocking stuff, I was dead against it. But then I talked to others about the other means of protest that I personally thought they should/could try instead... and it became clear quite quickly that the right to protest is all but gone here. So much protest has been made either illegal, or siloed off out of the way of government and public alike, that I couldn't honestly say that there is a better way for IB to get attention for their message than the way they have chosen. It's not a good option, it's a poor one, in my opinion... but it still might be the best of whole long list of poor options.
Arguing the detail of whether it should be voluntary/charitably funded is pointless for two reasons.
Firstly, The Govt has a moral responsibility to do this. The change needs to happen now but the negative consequences of no action are future. The negative consequences of no action are catastrophic - it's the government's job to protect us against that whatever we think. The markets will not sort as they do not carry the future costs of climate change and many householders have lots of other stuff to pay for/worry about to expect them to prioritise insulation (and other climate change mitigations).
Secondly, the sums involved are enormous so the only realistic way to get that degree of spend is through government action.
Using the eg RNLI turns over c£195m per year of which £135m is legacies and only £50m is donations - the rest is investments and trading.
A quick google suggests around £1000 to fully insulate roof and cavity walls for a 3 bed semi. Multiples of that if there are solid walls and more again if need new doors and glazing. There are 25 million dwellings in the England - say 30million in the UK. Taking lowest cost £1000 x eg 50 % of homes (15million) is £15billion pounds. Obviously this is a guestimate but illustrate the magnitude is right and point is we are talking multiple £billions... and that's just insulation. There are further infrastructure costs to rolling out ASHP or hydrogen gas fired systems or whatever the heating solution is. Only governments can mobilise this scale of spending on something that does not generate an immediate return, but society will reap and benefit over decades by avoiding the negative consequences of climate change
That then leaves 2 routes for government - indirect and direct.
Indirect through: grants (eg for householders), taxes (up fuel duty so people want to save energy, regulation (eg mandate on new builds, landlords), etc
Direct - fund local authorities to do the work through taxation/borrowing
or a combination of both.
My basic point is the sums are huge but the consequences of not taking action will be catastrophic but down the road - so the only solution is concerted government action