Not so much on-upmanship as a response of anger and revenge for having had to queue on the motorway or similar. How can you express your displeasure - spoil the thing the protestors care about.
Aaaahhh…. The eternal knot of vendetta.
(Says I, having the last word 
)
Unlikely, I think, because most of us have already changed our behaviour (haven’t we?).
And if the desire is that the masses put pressure on the government, causing significant irritation to those masses is unlikely to be productive, I would have thought.
You can be eye-catching without being attention-seeking, with a bit of ingenuity (I’m thinking of those naked protests which happen occasionally, though - for the peace of mind of all here - I would not be taking part).
They are synonymous depending on the context and connotations. Naked in public is both.
2 Likes
If putting mental itching powder on people is what it takes to get them thinking then it is probably worth it.
I’d be very wary of that ‘most of us’ because it smells of confirmation bias to me, I think an awful lot of people don’t think the way you or I or whoever may.
2 Likes
This argument to squash protest because it disrupts the public’s individual day sounds dangerously like moving in the direction of disallowing all protests and strikes.
Hello China! Hello Russia!
May be coming to a government near you soon anyway
1 Like
If anyone is making that argument I’d disagree wholeheartedly.
What I’m suggesting is that if you support a cause, it’s wise to try to take people with you, rather than to antagonise them.
1 Like
That would be wise but I think they have tried and run out of more moderate options to get something moving at this 11th hour. They are young and earnest and frankly, their cause is just. I wish them well.
1 Like
A lot of people have changed their behaviour a bit, but not enough people and not big enough change. Moreover, the most important changes are not ones that people can make as individuals, because they need government action. It’s no good me deciding to give up my car and use public transport if there is no public transport to where I want to go (just one example).
It’s also interesting that protest is seen by some as all about persuading people of a cause - it rarely is. In the case of climate/ecological breakdown there is no ‘persuading people’ issue. It’s not a question on which there are really different opinions - there are facts, which pretty near all scientists accept, and there is ignorance - the key thing is to bring the truth to people’s attention, and to keep on reminding them. Any action, whether silly or unpopular or not, can work - and the fact that people are discussing it all over social media, etc, proves it does work.
1 Like
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “working”.
Attracting attention to the antics of a small number of people - yes.
Talking about the cause - again, yes.
Effecting real change - perhaps not so much. For that, it looks like we will have to wait for a Labour government.
You have more faith in Starmer’s Labour than I do.
There’s a lot of research (Monbiot, etc) showing the links of Truss, Kwarteng, etc, to ‘dirty’ industry, especially tobacco and fossil fuels. These links extend to many others on the right of the Tory party; I’m not sure about Sunak personally, but I think the ERG have already asserted their effective control over him by extracting his promise not to halt the EU Law Revocation or NI Protocol bills - the key de-regulation instruments, which therefore express the whole purpose of brexit as far as dirty industries go.
So I think simply because they are not the creatures of dirty industry, Labour are bound to be at least a little better. But to repeat: scanning all major social progression I can think of throughout history, it is always driven first by protest and rebellion, which conservatives always try to rubbish, but to which legislators generally belatedly respond.
1 Like
By the way, on the historical links between protests, like that between the soup throwers and suffragettes, I happen to be reading Joseph Arch’s autobiography at present (the great 19th century trade unionist).
I was fascinated to read both his own acknowledgement of the inspiration he drew from his own family’s role (passed down by word of mouth) in the English Revolution, and the broader historical linkage remarked by his sponsor, the Countess of Warwick, between Arch’s agricultural rebellion and the English Revolution and Commonwealth, via the personal links between the noncomformist preachers that were among its leaders in the 19th, and the puritans of the 17th centuries.
I was already aware (from Morton and other historians) that the English Revolution was directly linked with the Peasants Revolt of the 14th century via Wycliffe and the Lollards - fascinating how these threads descend through pretty much the whole history of capitalism - and of course via Arch and others directly to trade unionists and other activists today.
2 Likes
Watt?
2 Likes
In his account of his first speeches when forming the Agricultural Workers Union, Arch refers to himself as ‘a peaceable Wat Tyler’ !
But back on topic, two important new studies reported today…
This one by The Lancet:
“The climate crisis is killing us. It is undermining not just the health of our planet, but the health of people everywhere – through toxic air pollution, diminishing food security, higher risks of infectious disease outbreaks, record extreme heat, drought, floods and more. The science is clear: massive, commonsense investments in renewable energy and climate resilience will secure a healthier, safer life for people in every country.”
And this one by the World Resources Institute:
“Meat consumption should be reduced to the equivalent of about two burgers a week in the developed world, and public transport expanded about six times faster than its current rate, if the world is to avoid the worst ravages of the climate crisis, research has suggested.”
1 Like
And hard on their heels:
So, not accurate…
This is the unvarnished future plan for the suffocation of free speech:
“Amnesty International said the proposed law on SDPOs would “go further” than similar legislation in Russia, by giving courts the power to issue them without a conviction. The range of conditions that can be imposed on individuals under the orders include 24/7 GPS monitoring and restricted internet usage.”
The UK is becoming the sort of country I for one do not think our forefathers fought and died to preserve.
5 Likes
Certainly agree, maybe retirement wont be in the UK…
I wasn’t referring to ambulances (I don’t read either of those papers as a rule, though I found the story about cannibalism in the DM and couldn’t resist the joke).
Here’s an example from not-the-Right-wing press: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/moment-just-stop-oil-protesters-25246773
And something about OpenDemocracy: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/opendemocracy/
Your source, quote:
‘Opinion pieces are labeled appropriately and news stories are generally factual and sourced to credible links. In general, most stories favor the left and denigrate the right.’
‘A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check.
Overall, the evidence-based reporting helps balance the progressive bias and therefore we rate this source Left-Center. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.’
Fine by me!
As for the first link, I wouldn’t form opinions from tabloid press. A better source, with warning not to believe everything you read and see in the popular press:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-guardian-insulate-idUSL1N2R71WB
Fact checking the recent news will take a bit more time. Time to take a breath
3 Likes
https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022
The report shows that updated national pledges since COP26 – held in 2021 in Glasgow, UK – make a negligible difference to predicted 2030 emissions and that we are far from the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C. Policies currently in place point to a 2.8°C temperature rise by the end of the century. Implementation of the current pledges will only reduce this to a 2.4-2.6°C temperature rise by the end of the century, for conditional and unconditional pledges respectively.
Facts are facts.
1 Like