/ Out of touch PM - NOT BREXIT related

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
subtle 08 Oct 2019

Oh dear - if the report is true then how out of touch is Johnson with the feeling of the people

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49967784

This isn't just Swampy and his pals, this is across the spectrum of society 

Report
Tringa 08 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:

I think it is just the PM becoming more like Trump - go to an event (in this case a book launch of the final volume of a biography of Margaret Thatcher) where the audience will be favourable and then make a jibe to get approval and so you can feel good.

Dave

Report
Bob Kemp 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Tringa:

I think you're probably right , it's appealing to what he seems to think is his core audience (older right Tory/ Brexiters) and potential electorate (disenchanted working class). It fits with what seems to be an overall strategy to promote a kind of cultural war that will resonate with these groups. 

Post edited at 09:36
Report
toad 08 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:

Hes a similar age to me. I reckon he has a few confused memories of the hippy/ peace convoy and just assumes that time has stood still for them as well. He sees contemporary protestors and paints them with the same prejudices he had in the 80s and 90s. The groups he meets at work are so homogenous that he can't comprehend diversity beyond his dated stereotypes

Report
PaulJepson 08 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:

I'm fully strapped in for the dislikes I'm going to get but a bunch of smelly white guys with dreads banging drums is more likely to alienate the general public rather than galvanise support for a very important cause. 

Unfortunately a lot of the people drawing attention to the XR movement are crusties, at least where I live (Bristol) anyway. A lot of the mass protests in other cities may well be a more even cross section of society but the people blocking roads during rush hour in my city may be raising awareness but don't put the movement across in the best light. 

Report
LastBoyScout 08 Oct 2019
In reply to PaulJepson:

For a bunch of eco-protesters, they do seem to have a lot of plastic stuff - plenty of synthetic clothing and waterproofs on display and I've seen loads of plastic crates and so on in the pics.

Most of their tents seem to be the cheaper, festival spec, end of things, as, I expect, are all the sleeping bags and mats - no doubt in case they get trashed or have to abandon them when they get arrested.

Doing themselves no favours queueing up for lunch at McDonalds and Pret, either.

I do hope they're going to clean up after themselves!

Report
MG 08 Oct 2019
In reply to PaulJepson:

I do also worry about the tactics being used by XR.  They are basically right but it will be very easy them to alienate exactly those they need to attract, or to have their movement highjacked by usual left rent-a-mob types.  Seeing graffiti on motorway bridge about XR is already very offputting for me, for example.

They don't seem very sophisticated politically.

Report
MonkeyPuzzle 08 Oct 2019
In reply to MG:

The question is what *will* people pay attention to?

IPCC Reports? Ignored. Awareness of the consequences? Ignored. Greenpeace-style direct action? Ignored. Organised, licenced protests? Ignored.

What then? How? Or give up?

Report
Eric9Points 08 Oct 2019
In reply to MG:

> I do also worry about the tactics being used by XR.  They are basically right ....

While their broad aim of doing more to combat climate change us laudable the details of their demands are laughable.

2025 for carbon neutrality is a joke. Their idea of people's assemblies is a joke. If they do bring London to a halt and people start to understand what the specific consequences of their demands are they will lose support but more importantly weaken the argument for doing more to address the climate emergency.

Report
mullermn 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

It’s the same as any sudden protest movement. It starts off with a body of otherwise grounded and normal people who get pissed off about something, come out to protest and make a sensible impact.

Then they get joined by the ‘professional’ protestors who turn it in to a hippy circus that disappears up its own ass as they take charge of fleshing out the demands, and finally the normal people all have to go back to giving their actual jobs and lives their focus and the nutters are left owning the whole thing. 

Report
summo 08 Oct 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> What then? How? Or give up?

Create a credible political party with educated credible people. One which will promote achievable goals, whilst maintaining a functioning economy and have the data to back it up. 

They could save all the monry from cheap camping gear, banners, red dye, fire engines etc.. and use it towards the deposits for the next election. 

And before you say it, the problem with the green party is they have no credible economic plan. 

The protestors should maybe protest at out of town shopping centres and campaign against pointless driving and excess consumption, instead of currently stopping people from getting to work, which will just lose them support. 

Post edited at 13:26
Report
Arms Cliff 08 Oct 2019
In reply to PaulJepson:

> Unfortunately a lot of the people drawing attention to the XR movement are crusties, at least where I live (Bristol) anyway.

surely you could have just shortened this to ‘a lot of people where I live (Bristol) are Christie’s  

Report
subtle 08 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

> The protestors should maybe protest at out of town shopping centres and campaign against pointless driving and excess consumption, instead of currently stopping people from getting to work, which will just lose them support. 

Now this is something I agree with you on.

Report
mick taylor 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

100% spot on. Sadly, he's just galvanised his existing support PLUS gained a few more, whilst the opposition helplessly looks on.

Report
MonkeyPuzzle 08 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

> Create a credible political party with educated credible people. One which will promote achievable goals, whilst maintaining a functioning economy and have the data to back it up. 

> They could save all the monry from cheap camping gear, banners, red dye, fire engines etc.. and use it towards the deposits for the next election. 

> And before you say it, the problem with the green party is they have no credible economic plan. 

That, and a first past the post system that maintains the two-party status quo in perpetuity.

> The protestors should maybe protest at out of town shopping centres and campaign against pointless driving and excess consumption, instead of currently stopping people from getting to work, which will just lose them support. 

It's about getting governments to enact sweeping structural and legislative reform, not stopping people nipping across town.

Report
Ramblin dave 08 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

Next time on UKC: "rather than making a fuss, Rosa Parks should have given up her seat but written a strongly worded letter to her congressman when she got home."

Post edited at 16:37
Report
wercat 08 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:

depersonalises them - first step to dehumanising the enemy of the people.

He Needs getting rid of as he is occupying a position in which he can do lots of harm

Post edited at 16:42
Report
Flinticus 08 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

> Create a credible political party with educated credible people. One which will promote achievable goals, whilst maintaining a functioning economy and have the data to back it up. 

> They could save all the monry from cheap camping gear, banners, red dye, fire engines etc.. and use it towards the deposits for the next election. 

> And before you say it, the problem with the green party is they have no credible economic plan. 

Show me a party with one.

Report
fire_munki 08 Oct 2019
In reply to wercat:

> depersonalises them - first step to dehumanising the enemy of the people.

> He Needs getting rid of as he is occupying a position in which he can do lots of harm

Very, very close: 

he is occupying a position in which he can do lots of harm this should be in which he is already doing lots of harm

Report
summo 08 Oct 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> It's about getting governments to enact sweeping structural and legislative reform, not stopping people nipping across town.

I'm sure if people made choices in the way they shop and live industry would change too. 

Folk can't just chant on the streets blaming the government for not putting legislation in place that forces them to live more environmental friendly. They can do that themselves anyway. 

Post edited at 18:10
Report
MeMeMe 08 Oct 2019
summo 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Next time on UKC: "rather than making a fuss, Rosa Parks should have given up her seat but written a strongly worded letter to her congressman when she got home."

It's hardly the same thing is it. No one is denying something needs to be done. 

It's pretty much a scientific fact the UK could never by carbon neutral in the timeline the protestors desire. They are devaluing their own argument and losing public support along the way with this current strategy. Why not protest at the gates of the ten largest polluting corporations in the UK? Coal power stations etc..  

They need to avoid it turning into some soap dodging peace camp, keep it professional, sensible achievable goals, educated literate leaders who engage with national media in a professional manner, using a precise message and justifiable responses. 

Then send all the guitar players, tambourine shakers and drum beaters home. 

Post edited at 18:10
Report
Bob Kemp 08 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

> And before you say it, the problem with the green party is they have no credible economic plan. 

Nor have Labour or the Tories, so what's the problem there? Seriously, what is the problem with the Green Party's economic plan?

> The protestors should maybe protest at out of town shopping centres and campaign against pointless driving and excess consumption, instead of currently stopping people from getting to work, which will just lose them support. 

Report
summo 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Nor have Labour or the Tories, so what's the problem there? Seriously, what is the problem with the Green Party's economic plan?

That's my point. There isn't a credible environmental friendly party.

If the greens had any ability they wouldn't have just 1 mp. 

Edit. The greens are just a protest group really. I'm pretty sure they'd wreck the economy for the sake of saving a rabbit or two. 

Post edited at 18:14
Report
Bob Kemp 08 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

I know what your point is but I'm not sure what it is that you find wrong with their economic policies.

Report
Pan Ron 08 Oct 2019
In reply to PaulJepson:

There was a lovely film of the non-crusty element doing yoga on Waterloo Bridge.  Their yoga mats looked suspiciously like products of the oil industry.  Likewise the diesel generator powering the encampment. 

Lots of finger-pointing at everyone else, when even the most activist-of-activists can't seem to sacrifice convenience for petroleum products, probably has a lot of people in agreement with Boris.

If we only have ten years to live until "tipping point" the activists look less than credible when unable to do anything beyond basic changes to their lives.  

  

Report
Pan Ron 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

If you can point to any area when they create incentives for individuals to cut consumption by half and have less kids then I'd agree with you.

But their economic policy doesn't seem to do that.   

I get that they dislike capitalism.  But that's the system that has brought us wealth and health that is reducing our fertility rate to manageable levels.  Prior to around 150 years ago the average life expectancy was 35, primarily a result of child mortality.  We live in a privileged world where micro-aggressions are an animating issue for 20-30 year olds rather than the likelihood that of a third of your offspring die violently, or of illness or hunger, before even reaching school-age.  Prior to industrialisation, this was the way of life for humanity since we stopped swinging from trees.

The prosperity of human-kind these days is revolutionary.  We've only recently become aware of the environmental footprint that comes with that and in decades have managed pretty massive changes to mitigate that.  They are likely to improve much much more in the coming decades.  And again, it will be capitalism that drives those innovations. 

I don't see the Greens being able to do that.  They are lobbyists and awareness raisers.  Not politicians dealing with tough trade-offs that go against their own beliefs.  Equally though, the XR protesters need to get real.  Holding a placard and cycling a lot doesn't get around the fact that their own consumer lifestyles are likely way in excess of what they expect others to adhere to, if they are serious about the targets they claim. 

Chances are, Boris has his finger much more on the pulse than the OP realises.

Report
Blunderbuss 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> There was a lovely film of the non-crusty element doing yoga on Waterloo Bridge.  Their yoga mats looked suspiciously like products of the oil industry.  Likewise the diesel generator powering the encampment. 

> Lots of finger-pointing at everyone else, when even the most activist-of-activists can't seem to sacrifice convenience for petroleum products, probably has a lot of people in agreement with Boris.

> If we only have ten years to live until "tipping point" the activists look less than credible when unable to do anything beyond basic changes to their lives.  

Some XR protesters spotted ordering food from McDonalds...haha

Report
john arran 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> There was a lovely film of the non-crusty element doing yoga on Waterloo Bridge.  Their yoga mats looked suspiciously like products of the oil industry.  Likewise the diesel generator powering the encampment. 

If we're dismissing out of hand any voice in favour of environmental change, on the grounds that it doesn't belong to a confirmed saint, then we definitely are all fukced.

Report
summo 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> I know what your point is but I'm not sure what it is that you find wrong with their economic policies.

Where to start. 

Universal citizens income or salary. 

Replacing normal economic indicators with measures such as sustainability. 

Have a read.. https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ec.html

Lots of deluded waffle. 

Apparently when they make an annual surplus they will pay off some of the national debt. oh the joys... I remembering dreaming as a sixth former too. 

Post edited at 19:23
Report
Flinticus 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I agree with a lot of what you say. 

However one way to really spur on capitalism to provide the answer would be taking on board more of the environmental cost of their products. Then efficiencies and  resource management would come forward in leaps amd bounds.

Of course how to get this applied across open markets?

Report
Pan Ron 08 Oct 2019
In reply to john arran:

> If we're dismissing out of hand any voice in favour of environmental change, on the grounds that it doesn't belong to a confirmed saint, then we definitely are all fukced.

We're not dismissing any voice in favour of environmental change.  We're dismissing the kinds of people who seem to saying "do as I say, not as I do" and who seem to blame others and hold themselves up as exemplars.

If we are f*cked in 10 years if we don't do "X", and even the people gnashing their teeth at everyone else can't even manage to forego the comforts capitalism and the oil industry provide, then they are basically all talk and meaningless action....then yes, we don't have much hope. 

Report
MonkeyPuzzle 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> There was a lovely film of the non-crusty element doing yoga on Waterloo Bridge.  Their yoga mats looked suspiciously like products of the oil industry.  Likewise the diesel generator powering the encampment. 

> Lots of finger-pointing at everyone else, when even the most activist-of-activists can't seem to sacrifice convenience for petroleum products, probably has a lot of people in agreement with Boris.

And if they didn't have yoga mats (FFS) we'd find another way to point a finger and say "hypocrite" and ignore them. Their yoga mats, diesel generator and even if they'd started a f*cking tyre fire don't even make statistical noise in a country way behind maximising our zero carbon energy sources and where it's cheaper by five times to fly from Bristol to Newcastle than get the train

> If we only have ten years to live until "tipping point" the activists look less than credible when unable to do anything beyond basic changes to their lives.  

You've gathered that from guessing what their yoga mats are made of? Yeah, it's the protesters' fault that we are where we are; down with them.

People need to start being more honest with themselves that we're just deflecting because we like our lives and think change will be hard. 

Report
Ramblin dave 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I must have missed the bit where XR said that we were f*cked in ten years unless everyone stopped owning even a single piece of plastic-based equipment or eating sandwiches that they didn't make themselves.

Report
Bob Kemp 08 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

Universal basic income is not a deluded idea. It's perfectly respectable in economic terms. And current economic indicators are inadequate. 

Report
Bob Kemp 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> We're not dismissing any voice in favour of environmental change.  We're dismissing the kinds of people who seem to saying "do as I say, not as I do" and who seem to blame others and hold themselves up as exemplars.

This is just an ad hominem attack writ large. With a hint of straw man. Take care with the logical fallacies!

Report
Blunderbuss 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> I must have missed the bit where XR said that we were f*cked in ten years unless everyone stopped owning even a single piece of plastic-based equipment or eating sandwiches that they didn't make themselves.

They want us to carbon neutral by 2025....if they can't be arsed to put some real effort in now then why should I? 

Report
summo 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Universal basic income is not a deluded idea. It's perfectly respectable in economic terms. And current economic indicators are inadequate. 

A bit like the 4 day or 30 hour week.. it's been tested in a few places. I believe the test results in Finland were described as disappointing.  

Report
MonkeyPuzzle 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> They want us to carbon neutral by 2025....if they can't be arsed to put some real effort in now then why should I? 

They organised a mass protest, spent many hours on the streets and lots have been arrested. Your incitement to doing f*ck all is pathetic.

Report
Bob Kemp 08 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

I’d heard about the mixed results in practice. My point was not that it was a successful idea but that in economic terms it was not a deluded idea. A lot depends on the context - what alternative forms of providing social security exists, what the political landscape is like. If the existing social security system is a disaster that costs a fortune (do we know one like that?) then UBI may actually be a better option. 

Report
Blunderbuss 08 Oct 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> They organised a mass protest, spent many hours on the streets and lots have been arrested. Your incitement to doing f*ck all is pathetic.

Thanks for your feedback... 

Report
NorthernGrit 08 Oct 2019
In reply to everyone:

FYI - Anyone trotting out the "you bought a McDonalds".....You own some plastic....You engage in any way with the capitalist society you exist in so you are hypocritical and can be completely dismissed" comes across as a total cretin. Just so you're aware like.

Post edited at 21:43
Report
Bobling 08 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:

David King, until recently the UK government;s Chief Scientific Officer, was on PM yesterday and had an interesting response to the 2025 target.  Essentially he thought that would be very difficult to achieve but it was clear we needed to reduce emissions as quickly as possible.  What we do in the next ten years determines the fate of humanity.

And someone up thread is getting pissy because they used yoga mats?  I applaud them all, if you are in London stop by and give them support.

Don't get me started on the amount of energy that has been wasted rearranging the constitutional deck chairs for Brexit, talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

Report
Blunderbuss 08 Oct 2019
In reply to NorthernGrit:

> FYI - Anyone trotting out the "you bought a McDonalds".....You own some plastic....You engage in any way with the capitalist society you exist in so you are hypocritical and can be completely dismissed" comes across as a total cretin. Just so you're aware like.

I can live with that  

Any people on these protests that are making serious sacrifices on a daily basis to back up the cause have my respect...those that don't because they can't be arsed or it would mean proper sacrifices are total hypocrites. 

Report
Blunderbuss 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Bobling:

> David King, until recently the UK government;s Chief Scientific Officer, was on PM yesterday and had an interesting response to the 2025 target.  Essentially he thought that would be very difficult to achieve but it was clear we needed to reduce emissions as quickly as possible.  What we do in the next ten years determines the fate of humanity.

> And someone up thread is getting pissy because they used yoga mats?  I applaud them all, if you are in London stop by and give them support.

> Don't get me started on the amount of energy that has been wasted rearranging the constitutional deck chairs for Brexit, talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

If we have just 10 years they want to get some protests going quick sharp in Moscow, Beijing and Washington.... 

Report
off-duty 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> I must have missed the bit where XR said that we were f*cked in ten years unless everyone stopped owning even a single piece of plastic-based equipment or eating sandwiches that they didn't make themselves.

To be fair, that is their core tenet. They don't believe that we can take small steps by giving up plastic or recycling sandwiches - "reformism", nothing less than a rebellion is required to achieve the goals that the organisation professes.

So, if those participating do agree with their principles, then we shouldn't be seeing trips to McDonald's and stocking up on disposable camping gear etc.

Report
Bob Kemp 08 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

Where do they say that they "don't believe that we can take small steps"? As far as I can see their line is "XR does not take a position on solutions to the ecological crisis", which doesn't rule out small steps at all.

Report
Pan Ron 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Bobling:

Ahh, I get it. Turn up and do yoga on a bridge "for the environment" and you are virtuous, able to righteously point fingers at the people you inconvenience.

George Monbiot was banging on about how climate protesters are full of love, harmony and goodness the other day too. Then proceeded to call his opponents murderers and a slew of other epithets. So much loving.

It's like Bush's "you're with us or against us" all over again.

Report
Pan Ron 08 Oct 2019
In reply to NorthernGrit:

Really? The option does exist to remove yourself from the capitalist economy if it really is the cause of global catastrophe they claim it to be. 

Few seem willing to do so, to live lives like the vast majority of the world's population.

Instead they seem keener to criticise the system that has delivered luxury...then go back to enjoying that luxury. 

Report
Bob Kemp 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

You just can't give up the ad hominem attacks can you? Have you got any real arguments?

Report
off-duty 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Where do they say that they "don't believe that we can take small steps"? As far as I can see their line is "XR does not take a position on solutions to the ecological crisis", which doesn't rule out small steps at all.

I appreciate there is a lot of obfuscation about exactly what they would be prepared to accept in answer to their second demand about government action, but the failure of, and their unwillingness to accept reformism is detailed in Roger Hallam's pamphlet - https://www.rogerhallam.com/

Worth noting that their 3 demands, regarding declaration of a emergency, government action and the creation of citizens assemblies aren't "either/or".

The XR goal of political system change is specified more clearly than its goals in climate change, regardless of the eco-friendliness of those who appear to have come along, potentially unwittingly. 

Report
Bob Kemp 08 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Back to the 1960s eh? Tried and failed...

Report
off-duty 09 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:

> Oh dear - if the report is true then how out of touch is Johnson with the feeling of the people

> This isn't just Swampy and his pals, this is across the spectrum of society 

It's still a relatively tiny proportion of the UK, exploiting the probably disproportionate media coverage that a small part of London gets.

A lot of well meaning people getting unnecessarily and expensively criminalised for a goal - "regime change" - that many probably don't even realise they have been conscripted to fight for.

Post edited at 00:11
Report
In reply to summo:

> It's hardly the same thing is it. No one is denying something needs to be done. 

No one? You have more than a handful saying its natural and cyclical warming. And a good chunk of people saying it is happening but why should we do it when x and y aren't or that it will cause too much economic harm to commit and go hard

Report
summo 09 Oct 2019
In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):

> No one? You have more than a handful saying its natural and cyclical warming. And a good chunk of people saying it is happening but why should we do it when x and y aren't or that it will cause too much economic harm to commit and go hard

And you think banging a drum and street yoga constitutes a good form of education for climate change deniers? Neither will it change the view of or motivate politicians. Money and votes are the drivers. This protest impacts neither of them. 

Report
Northern Star 09 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:

Shall we just leave this debate here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feeFO_LHOu8

Report
jethro kiernan 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

Beat me too it 😏

if all you can do is stand on the sidelines and point out the hypocrisy of those trying to do something then your an arsehole 😏

Report
Andy Hardy 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Really? The option does exist to remove yourself from the capitalist economy if it really is the cause of global catastrophe they claim it to be. 

1. I'm really struggling to think of a way that anyone could live outside the capitalist economy, maybe you could enlighten us?

2. Capitalism seems to me to be strictly neutral (or amoral). If you have control over the production of fossil fuels, the capitalist system demands that you make the most money out of that in the shortest time. There is no inherent value in not screwing the environment, so if screwing the environment costs less than preserving it, that's what capitalism does.

In short, capitalism does not consider the environment and, as a result is the major cause of anthropogenic climate change.

Report
summo 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

What do non capitalists use for energy sources? 

Report
Northern Star 09 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

> What do non capitalists use for energy sources?

They use the same energy sources as we all do because there is currently little alternative.  I think the nub behind their campaign is that they are trying to make the government give us a genuine alternative.

Report
nawface 09 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:

Seems like a timely Jonathan Pie clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuCmdtcWKog

Report
Bob Kemp 09 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> I appreciate there is a lot of obfuscation about exactly what they would be prepared to accept in answer to their second demand about government action, but the failure of, and their unwillingness to accept reformism is detailed in Roger Hallam's pamphlet - https://www.rogerhallam.com/

Thanks for the link to Hallam's booklet - I hadn't read the whole 'manifesto', and it does make it clear that a revolutionary change is part of the agenda. 

> Worth noting that their 3 demands, regarding declaration of a emergency, government action and the creation of citizens assemblies aren't "either/or".

> The XR goal of political system change is specified more clearly than its goals in climate change, regardless of the eco-friendliness of those who appear to have come along, potentially unwittingly. 

Their point is that the system change is intrinsically connected with dealing with climate change. But much is still unclear, as ever with revolutionary movements. And there is a touch of the old Leninist 'the end justifies the means' about it. 

Report
Bob Kemp 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> You just can't give up the ad hominem attacks can you? Have you got any real arguments?

There are real arguments to be had, rather than personalising things and focusing on 'crusties' or 'hypocrites'. Off-duty has indicated one of them, about XR's goals. And concealed behind the personalising response lies a more substantive issue, that this response shows the potential that XR has for polarising the debate with its tactics. Coincidentally, this piece by an Australian 'veteran activist' appeared on the Guardian's website this morning:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/extinction-rebellion-risks-polarising-public-on-climate-veteran-activist-says

Report
Eric9Points 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> 1. I'm really struggling to think of a way that anyone could live outside the capitalist economy, maybe you could enlighten us?

> 2. Capitalism seems to me to be strictly neutral (or amoral). If you have control over the production of fossil fuels, the capitalist system demands that you make the most money out of that in the shortest time. There is no inherent value in not screwing the environment, so if screwing the environment costs less than preserving it, that's what capitalism does.

> In short, capitalism does not consider the environment and, as a result is the major cause of anthropogenic climate change.


Trouble is that Marxist countries were the world's worst polluters when they existed.

Report
Bob Kemp 09 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

> What do non capitalists use for energy sources? 

I thought you knew - turbines powered by dogs on strings and biofuel from recycled muesli.

Report
Eric9Points 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> As far as I can see their line is "XR does not take a position on solutions to the ecological crisis"

Did they really admit they don't have a clue how their demands could be met?

Christonabike. The world has lost its marbled.

Report
Bob Kemp 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Trouble is that Marxist countries were the world's worst polluters when they existed.

Are you sure about that? It's hard to get comparable data, but how about this?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/01/climate/us-biggest-carbon-polluter-in-history-will-it-walk-away-from-the-paris-climate-deal.html

Report
Bob Kemp 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Did they really admit they don't have a clue how their demands could be met?

It's not quite as extreme as that - read the book though: you can download it for free from Roger Hallam's website (in Off-duty's post).  

Their basic idea appears to be that they are trying to be non-prescriptive, and allow a range of input and ideas, hence the Citizens' Assembly. 

Post edited at 09:14
Report
Eric9Points 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> If we have just 10 years they want to get some protests going quick sharp in Moscow, Beijing and Washington.... 


Alternatively they could be organising boycotts of Brazilian and Indonesian products until those countries stop burning down forests. A bit like the way the countries of the Pacific, most notably Australia, stopped French nuclear tests by boycotting French goods.

Report
Eric9Points 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Are you sure about that? It's hard to get comparable data, but how about this?


In absolute terms no doubt the US lead but proportional to the size of their economy and output, I'm pretty sure.

My point is that pollution can't be blamed on a political system.

Report
off-duty 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> It's not quite as extreme as that - read the book though: you can download it for free from Roger Hallam's website (in Off-duty's post).  

> Their basic idea appears to be that they are trying to be non-prescriptive, and allow a range of input and ideas, hence the Citizens' Assembly. 

Which does highlight that their only concrete demand is a change of political structure and then their answer to climate change is "err... something"...

Report
summo 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> I thought you knew - turbines powered by dogs on strings and biofuel from recycled muesli.

I thought it was diesel generators. 

Dogs.. vegan diets I presume? 

Report
Bob Kemp 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> My point is that pollution can't be blamed on a political system.

An interesting idea. Surely the fact that both these systems pollute means that both could be blamed. You can't disconnect politics from pollution. For example, Paul Krugman asked a while back how it was that the Republican Party had become the party of pollution, the home of the climate change deniers, and there's no doubt there's a connection there. It might be truer to say that pollution can't be blamed on an ideology, and that there is more to politics than ideology.

Report
summo 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

> They use the same energy sources as we all do because there is currently little alternative.  

Aren't there countries already using these sources?.. it's only countries like Germany, China, Greece and some former eastern block nations that have been increasing their coal consumption.. perhaps they should be protesting outside eu hq in Brussels for allowing Germany to increase its pollution? 

Report
Pan Ron 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Ad-hom seems entirely appropriate if people are cultishly causing a scene for little gain, possibly misguided motives, and showing remarkable hypocrisy.  Yes, I find it ludicrous that people living lifestyles of relatively luxurious consumption resort to theatrics in the street, beating their chests about the consumption patterns of others, but apparently failing to adopt themselves the lifestyle changes to reverse that.  Hippie outfits, ultra-spirituality, yoga retreats, and eating less meat than your next-door neighbour doesn't mean you've done your bit.  Put the money where the mouth is.  

But I'll put this to you in another way.  We need to act now because if we haven't made x% change in our emissions in 10 years then "its all over".  There is no other choice between the life and death of our planet.  That is the message.  Loud and clear. 

So time travel forward ten years, and here we are on UKC, and those reductions haven't been met.

What then?

If the message today is absolute doom, and we then turn out to not achieve what is being demanded today to avert that, then one of two things will have occurred. 

Either we're f*cked, and might as well give up (and not have bothered anyway) because we absolutely, 100%, had to make those changes and anything less means complete failure

Or, we're fine because the changes demanded were never needed anyway.

Unless you think we're going to meet the emissions targets, the result is one of those options above.

The message is f*cked because even it's strongest proponents are nowhere close to achieving it.  And because its bound up in a "crusty" anti-capitalist argument that seems to be using the climate movement as a tool to push through their opposition to an economic system, its dooming itself to failure.

Likewise, the swing in the narrative that the science is "decided".  If you now question climate science you are a heretic.  What researcher these days would go out, with the best of intentions, to question or challenge the science?  We should be encouraging that.  But instead anyone who does so is automatically derided as a crank.  And if today's projections are in need of adjustment, or the message has been skewed by too much fervour, what then?

You think if an asteroid was going to smash into the earth in a decade, Greta's pleading face would be off our screens for a day?  Yet we've already mostly moved on to Brexit, or Trump's tweets, or who Boris has slept with.  All those people who claim with 100% certainty we need to act now and that its clear what we need to do (and usually, its someone else who has to do it) look to be more caught up in media drama.  No surprise that people are calling out a lack of clothes on the emperor and switching off.   

The movement has gone from one of reason to that of a cult.

Report
Bob Kemp 09 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

Where do you get the idea that Germany has been increasing its coal consumption? As far as I know it's declining. There's a graph here:

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts

It would probably be declining faster, but they're phasing out nuclear power first - not sure why, probably because of the mining vested interests and jobs aspect. 

Report
Bob Kemp 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

So you're doubling down on the 'ad hominem' and cranking up the 'tu quoque'? And why do I get the feeling you're a closet climate-change denier?

Report
MonkeyPuzzle 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

1) You don't know the people you're judging as hypocrites.

2) To protest climate change in the west is to unavoidably be a hypocrite at some level, but at least they're trying.

3) Ultra-challenging targets are shown to get results. I work in construction and the target of zero injuries is long-established and saw our best ever reduction in Injury Frequency Rate despite us never going a year without an injury.

4) Claiming science against man-made climate change would exist but for suppression is just a shit conspiracy theory trying to justify a lack of support for a discredited position.

5) We get it: You'll criticise anyone who's trying to do something about it; you'll claim it's a zero sum game or you're a despicable hypocrite; despite the overwhelming evidence you're inclined to conspiracy theories; and, anyway, whichever way it falls your solution is to do nothing. Inspiring stuff.

Post edited at 10:23
Report
Harry Jarvis 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Likewise, the swing in the narrative that the science is "decided".  If you now question climate science you are a heretic.  What researcher these days would go out, with the best of intentions, to question or challenge the science?  We should be encouraging that.  But instead anyone who does so is automatically derided as a crank.  And if today's projections are in need of adjustment, or the message has been skewed by too much fervour, what then?

You might be interested in the Berkeley Earth project. This was set up in 2010 by Richard Muller, a physicist at UCB and LBNL, and a self-confessed skeptic with regard to climate temperature studies. The project was established to investigate the quality of claims being made regarding the temperature record. In Muller's own words: "We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available. There will be no spin, whatever we find. We are doing this because it is the most important project in the world today."

The project was funded in its early stages by, among others, the Koch brothers - among the biggest funders of climate denial. It is noticeable that the Koch brothers withdrew their funding when it appeared that the results of the project did not appear to support their preferred position. 

The results were conclusive in that they convinced Muller that the claims made previously were sustainable and withstood rigorous analysis, and his mind was changed. So, in answer to your question "What researcher these days would go out, with the best of intentions, to question or challenge the science?" the answer is that Richard Muller did this, and his questioning, starting from a point of skepticism, verified the previous positions presented. 

You can read more about Berkeley Earth here:

http://berkeleyearth.org/

Post edited at 10:39
Report
MeMeMe 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Likewise, the swing in the narrative that the science is "decided".  If you now question climate science you are a heretic.  What researcher these days would go out, with the best of intentions, to question or challenge the science?  We should be encouraging that.  But instead anyone who does so is automatically derided as a crank.  And if today's projections are in need of adjustment, or the message has been skewed by too much fervour, what then?

The IPCC Climate Change report is apparently the most peer reviewed report in history are you saying those peer reviewers are being derided as cranks? 

Or, and I think this is what you are saying, those who make names for themselves taking pot shots from the sidelines rather than engaging in the scientific process aren't taken seriously?

Report
Eric9Points 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> An interesting idea. Surely the fact that both these systems pollute means that both could be blamed. You can't disconnect politics from pollution. For example, Paul Krugman asked a while back how it was that the Republican Party had become the party of pollution, the home of the climate change deniers, and there's no doubt there's a connection there. It might be truer to say that pollution can't be blamed on an ideology, and that there is more to politics than ideology.


Exactly! In the same political system one side is less concerned about pollution than the other. The issue is not with the political system but with the paradigms inside a society.

Report
Eric9Points 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I suspect those graphs are misleading in that they do not seem to include electricity imported from France. Electricity produced from nuclear power.

Germany decided to close all its nuclear plants after the Japanese tsunami. They have been making up the deficit by importing nuclear generated electricity from France instead.

Report
Bob Kemp 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Exactly! In the same political system one side is less concerned about pollution than the other. The issue is not with the political system but with the paradigms inside a society.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that conclusion, in that the paradigms within the society, if I understand correctly what you mean by that, are inevitably bound up with the political system. But I think what you're getting at is that there are a range of political and social views within a society, not all expressed by the dominant political system and ideology. So attitudes to, for example, pollution reduction vs. profit will vary hugely. 

Report
Lusk 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

If you look at those graphs you'll see that Germany exports a fair amount of its generation.
Also, looking at Gridwatch France, it appears France/Germany export/import for the last year is approximately zero.

Report
Harry Jarvis 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I suspect those graphs are misleading in that they do not seem to include electricity imported from France. Electricity produced from nuclear power.

> Germany decided to close all its nuclear plants after the Japanese tsunami. They have been making up the deficit by importing nuclear generated electricity from France instead.

In 2018, Germany imported 8.3 TWh from France. By contrast, Germany's remaining nuclear plants produced 72.1 TWh - although they have decided to close their nuclear plants, they are doing so on a phased basis, wit final closure in 2022. 

Report
cb294 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

We do export electricity to France so that net transfer is roughly zero. Unfortunately the stuff produced in Germany is made from an energy mix containing still much too much coal. However, much of the coal generated electricity in the former East is generated for export to Poland and the Czech Republic (and the plants are actually owned and operated by a Czech consortium). The German energy demand could easily be met even with closing these plants down. Of course, there are political objections (nothing much going but coal mining in these regions) as well as technical ones (no one benefits from grids in Poland or CR collapsing).

The main point I wanted to make but this rather rambling post is that it does not really make sense to discuss energy generation and CO2 pollution at the national level. Nevertheless any local reduction in CO2 production obviously helps. Also, electricity aside, we need to ask how much of the shit whose production we have outsourced to China (with added transport CO2 costs) we really need. We MUST change our consumption patterns, and an economic model built on continuous growth is a large part of the resistance to any proposed solutions.

CB

Report
summo 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points

> Germany decided to close all its nuclear plants after the Japanese tsunami. They have been making up the deficit by importing nuclear generated electricity from France instead.

It also generates around 25% from burning coal. Or more specifically open cast mined lignite. Chopping down forest to power it's industry. So it's not just the evil Brazilian president, it's happening very close by too. Macron forgot to mention that in his big speech two months ago. 

Report
Bob Kemp 09 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

At least they're making an effort, which is more than 'the evil Brazilian president', who doesn't give a toss. 

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/coal-germany

Why this obsession with Germany anyway?

Report
Eric9Points 09 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> I appreciate there is a lot of obfuscation about exactly what they would be prepared to accept in answer to their second demand about government action, but the failure of, and their unwillingness to accept reformism is detailed in Roger Hallam's pamphlet - https://www.rogerhallam.com/

Thanks for the link, so far I've read the first twenty pages. I must say I would find the ideas quite compelling if I were 16 years old again.

As a taster to encourage others to read the link I'll post the following extract:

"Given the complete moral failure of the government to respond, the demand should be: ‘The current government hands power to an administration which will call a national climate and ecological emergency and immediately enact measures to deal with the climate and ecological crisis.’ 
It is one thing to propose a rebellion or revolution, but it is another to work out what happens next. There has to be a plan for a credible and attractive alternative arrangement in place. This is a National Citizens’ Assembly selected by sortition to work out the programme of measures to deal with the crisis. Sortition involves selecting the members of the assembly randomly from the whole population and uses quota sampling to ensure that it is representative of the 
A Proposal for Rebellion 
 
 
22 
demographic composition of the country. This proposal then is both concrete and democratic. 
The National Citizens’ Assembly will become the new governing body of the UK and will deal with the climate crisis. It will make decisions on the following: • Legislation to transform the economy and society to respond to the existential climate and ecological emergency. • Other social legislation which follows the will of the assembly rather than the former political class. • Draw up a new constitutional settlement which creates a genuine participatory democracy fit for the 21st century. "

Sortition eh?

That'll work just great.

Post edited at 13:02
Report
Pan Ron 09 Oct 2019
jkarran 09 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

> Where to start. 

> Universal citizens income or salary. 

It would certainly be a bold experiment to roll it out at scale, the outcomes hard to predict in the long run, but it's widely trialled around the world. I wouldn't describe it as 'not credible', more like 'very challenging' given Britain's right wing inclinations and ongoing populist shitstorm.

> Replacing normal economic indicators with measures such as sustainability. 

What is an economy for?

> Lots of deluded waffle. 

LOL. Yes.

jk

Report
jkarran 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Why this obsession with Germany anyway?

The 4th Reich's (sorry, EU member Germany's) coal mining is near the top of Summo's whataboutery bingo card just below whatabout Greek debt. Don't hold your breath for a sensible answer.

jk

Report
MonkeyPuzzle 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> In their own words:

I don't see how that's a response to what I wrote, but...

XR have three specific demands. You don't need to get onboard with every idea that one of their founders has in order to work towards XR's stated aims. 

Report
MeMeMe 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> I'm not sure I'd agree with that conclusion, in that the paradigms within the society, if I understand correctly what you mean by that, are inevitably bound up with the political system. But I think what you're getting at is that there are a range of political and social views within a society, not all expressed by the dominant political system and ideology. So attitudes to, for example, pollution reduction vs. profit will vary hugely. 

This timely article discusses how the political system affects how the views in society are acted upon and how the first past the post system in particular is resistant as societal views change - https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/extinction-rebellion-protesters-first-past-the-post-electoral-system-proportional-representation-a8874971.html?fbclid=IwAR2LTq--rkr5z_B-cIbQa-FXp3w2TG_mOIR9ZlhubMboHNWSI2YeJmEiAx8

Report
Eric9Points 09 Oct 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> I don't see how that's a response to what I wrote, but...

> XR have three specific demands. You don't need to get onboard with every idea that one of their founders has in order to work towards XR's stated aims. 


I got the impression that the article did summarise XR's aim and that climate change happened to be a convenient vehicle to use to impose them. Do you have a better, more "official" document you can link to?

Report
summo 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Because the drum bangers and yoga masters should perhaps be targeting governments that aren't practicing what they preach. 

The eu which everyone hails for its environmental achievements isn't really that good. It's still happy burning masses of coal, the reductions in co2 output have in part been achieved simply by off shoring more production and the worst polluting industries. 

Obviously continental police are a little tougher on protestors, but that's the way goes.. it's all for a good cause. 

Report
Bob Kemp 09 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

The UK has benefited from offshoring in exactly the same way. Your obsession with the EU is clouding your vision.

Report
off-duty 09 Oct 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> I don't see how that's a response to what I wrote, but...

> XR have three specific demands. You don't need to get onboard with every idea that one of their founders has in order to work towards XR's stated aims. 

Of their three demands there are only two that are concrete - declare a climate emergency (which doesn't actually mean anything) and create a Citizens Assembly.

Their actual "climate" goal is remarkably vague and seems to consist of "just do much more", which fits very neatly into the anti-reformist agenda that has been written, by their founder, about the organisation that he founded, regardless of whether that is fully understood by those participating or not.

I hope that those that are taking part and getting arrested in the belief that this is purely an "eco" cause are fully aware of the other agenda that appears to drive all Hallam's campaigning 

Post edited at 17:23
Report
MonkeyPuzzle 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I got the impression that the article did summarise XR's aim and that climate change happened to be a convenient vehicle to use to impose them. Do you have a better, more "official" document you can link to?

Like googling "Extinction Rebellion" clicking on their website and looking at the section stating their aims?

Report
MonkeyPuzzle 09 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

If he's trying to keep it quiet he'll be kicking himself for writing all those blogs and giving interviews about it.

Report
Pan Ron 09 Oct 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> I don't see how that's a response to what I wrote, but...

Because you're not really engaging with the reasons I am putting forward for why people view XR protestors as a bunch of "crusties", are critical of their motives, and sceptical of their grip on science.

You don't have to like what I say.  But I'm spelling out for you the opposing point of view, as simply as I possibly can.

A big part of this are the naive, almost child-like, assertions that capitalism is a root cause of suffering and apparently, on-balance, a negative impact on human existence.  Add into that a healthy dose of SJW buzzword bingo (as in the Medium article) and you shouldn't be surprised that people want the protestors just to piss off back to their yurts (or daddy's trust-fund). 

The Medium article is telling as the writer, as do many in the environmental/anti-capitalist movements, emphasises the suffering of millions as a result of environmental degradation as if that summarises capitalism.  

They seem to be oblivious to how the slow march of capitalism has bought unbelievable human advancement.  The lives we live today, and the numbers of people alive to experience them, would be unimaginable to anyone just a century or two prior to now.  And before this epoch, humans and animals lived the same Hobbesian existence for hundreds of thousands of years with no hope for advancement.  At the extreme end, we're now inches from technology that would avert the sort of planetary cataclysms that wiped out the dinosaurs.  Where has this all come from all of a sudden?  You won't hear about it from the climate or anti-capitalist movement.  But there is a counter-argument out there (much vilified by these sorts of people) that gives a far more measured reading on where we are in human history.

We accuse climate change denialists of being short-sighted because they appear incapable of recognising their own frog-in-pot perception of climate change.  Equally though, a large number of humans seem incapable of appreciating the huge significance of similarly slow advancement through, at times brutal, capitalism.  XR looks to be part of that, as do a lot of run-of-the-mill climate activists.

You might be comfortable with having the global warming movement joined at the hip to the anti-capitalist movement.  But you're being sold a lemon and it undermines what you are trying to achieve. 

As it happens, after a decade or more of being firmly in the AGW camp, I'm now more of a global-warming agnostic.  I don't believe I (or most other people) have the tools to fairly judge the science, and my reading of the IPCC reports is more nuanced than the scenarios that get thrown in my face by lunatics who don't even appear to have read the same reports they claim as their gospel.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if we find ourselves in a couple of decades looking back on this as a ridiculous panic, and everyone will be awkwardly blaming everyone else for having bought into a fallacy.  However, my personal choices when it comes to ecological behaviour and consumption patterns (never owned a car, buy very little, earn a median salary, don't eat seafood and only a little meat, recycle etc) probably mean in practice my climate impact is no worse than the sorts of people who claim to be the standard-bearers of the environmental movement.  But, on account of my economic and political views I'm held in the same regard as the Koch brothers.  As no doubt are millions of others, doing their bit, but who don't fall within what "the movement" deems to be acceptable thought patterns or morality.

Can you see why people might just want them all to fuck off with their dogmas?

Post edited at 17:57
Report
Eric9Points 09 Oct 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Like googling "Extinction Rebellion" clicking on their website and looking at the section stating their aims?


I have.

There is nothing there that contradicts what is in either of the posted links.

Report
off-duty 09 Oct 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> If he's trying to keep it quiet he'll be kicking himself for writing all those blogs and giving interviews about it.

I guess I'm just less confident than you that all those well meaning mums, old age pensioners, "ordinary working people", who are all turning out in the rain to save the planet, actually realise that their arrest is actually a key step towards a core goal of regime change.

Report
Pefa 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I got to the bit in your reply where you wrote-  "almost child-like, assertions that capitalism is a root cause of suffering and apparently, on-balance, a negative impact on human existence."

Now if these ' crusties' of XR are all yoga practitioners as you say then they would clearly know that ' the root cause of suffering', arises not from capitalism but from the illusory separation of the finite from the infinate.

The capitalist system is however the cause of climate change and not the "root cause of suffering". 

I haven't read the rest of your post as I stopped at that mistake. 

Post edited at 19:20
Report
off-duty 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> In their own words:

Well, you couldn't get much clearer than that:

"Extinction Rebellion isn’t about the climate. It’s not even about ‘climate justice’"

Report
Pefa 09 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

So their popularity has rocketed recently because of the scientific reports wee Greta etc, so do you think all the new activists brought out on to the streets to save the world's ecosystems and wildlife through various direct actions and been arrested for that are doing so for the reason you think they are or for the reasons they say they are? 

Report
Bob Kemp 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

>Add into that a healthy dose of SJW buzzword bingo

Outing yourself as an alt-righter then Ron?

Report
off-duty 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> So their popularity has rocketed recently because of the scientific reports wee Greta etc, so do you think all the new activists brought out on to the streets to save the world's ecosystems and wildlife through various direct actions and been arrested for that are doing so for the reason you think they are or for the reasons they say they are? 

I think a large number of the activists (I use the word advisedly as many appear to be new to the protest 'scene') being arrested are doing it because they believe something along the lines of "we must take direct action, because we need the government to listen to us and take radical steps to cut emissions/protect trees/save the environment etc".

I'm not sure how many of the realise that they are doing it because Extinction Rebellion requires huge volumes of arrests as they believe this is a key step to overwhelm the government and cause regime change.

My evidence for this is that I haven't yet seen these ordinary members of the public, when questioned about what they are doing or why, mention anything about the creation of Citizens assemblies. Instead it's goals like saving the planet for their kids, grand kids etc.

Further evidence is that it appears that many of those posting supportively of XR, focussing on climate change, seemed unaware of this key aim, until links were posted.

Post edited at 20:26
Report
Pan Ron 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> >Add into that a healthy dose of SJW buzzword bingo

> Outing yourself as an alt-righter then Ron?

Yep. I realised a while back that opposing nonsense means one is alt-right.  And people wonder why the left fails to attract.

Report
jethro kiernan 09 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

A citizen assembly is a proven means of overcoming politically toxic problems, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Assembly_(Ireland)?wprov=sfti1

there are a number of these Gordion Knots that need untangling (Brexit , housing, welfare, reform of the voting system)

but the climate is truly irreversible once we reach tipping point, they are totally correct in concentrating in setting up a system that allows the scientific consensus to be heard and acted upon.

Post edited at 21:18
Report
Pefa 09 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

Yes that is why I asked you as people want to do something about the destruction of our ecosystems and species not bring down capitalism or make everyone live in tee-pee's. So to make out this is a serious attempt at regime change is, with respect not very credible. 

Report
Stone Idle 09 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:

Don’t have time to read all so apologies if it’s been addressed but why do the XR folk not find out what the UK governments of all stripes have done and what is proposed. Carbon neutral in 6 years won’t happen. The longer timescale is sensible and already has support. We could usefully help the big polluters - and I use the word help with care as China wont be coerced.

Report
elsewhere 09 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

>  a key step to overwhelm the government and cause regime change.

That does sound like fantasist nonsense. It's best not to take the contents of every website so seriously.

> My evidence for this is that I haven't yet seen these ordinary members of the public, when questioned about what they are doing or why, mention anything about the creation of Citizens assemblies. Instead it's goals like saving the planet for their kids, grand kids etc.

So you saying they are intent on stopping climate change rather than regime change and these people are not intent on regime change despite what you have read on a website. It even appears the protesters have not read this website or at least it has not motivated them towards regime change rather than stopping climate change.

> Further evidence is that it appears that many of those posting supportively of XR, focussing on climate change, seemed unaware of this key aim, until links were posted.

You mean the aim of regime change is on a website but not the aim of the supporters of the protesters.

Overall you are characterising regime change as a factor but state it is not motivating the protesters who appear to be unaware of it. This is a rather sinister mischaracterisation of those you have found not to be motivated by regime change. 

Report
off-duty 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Yes that is why I asked you as people want to do something about the destruction of our ecosystems and species not bring down capitalism or make everyone live in tee-pee's. So to make out this is a serious attempt at regime change is, with respect not very credible. 

It's a stated goal of XR, not "my claim". Although I'm fairly confident than many of those involved don't realise it.

I agree it's not very credible attempt, I think Hallam et al are in the position where for once the cause has overcome them.  In my opinion there are a vast number of people involved focussed on wanting change but stopping short of regime change.  I think there are also a lot of people caught up in the current zeitgeist of environmental activism who want to do "something" that will have an impact/make a difference.

It's possible that their aim of mass arrests and mass peaceful protest may lever more action from the government to tackle climate change, though I'm not convinced this will ever be radical enough to satisfy the demand of XR, but I'm pretty certain that most people will be relatively unconcerned if they get Govt. action, but not citizens assemblies.

It's certainly costing a lot of money in policing and the criminal justice system, as well as clogging it up, with an impact on policing across the country.

Will it be worth the long lasting impact of criminal convictions of otherwise law-abiding people? Not sure. That may depend on what is actually achieved and whether it could have been achieved by other means.

Report
Bob Kemp 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

You used a common alt-right signifier, that's the point. As for opposing nonsense, don't be so self-righteous - your diatribes are frequently full of errors and logical fallacies.

Report
off-duty 09 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> >  a key step to overwhelm the government and cause regime change.

> That does sound like fantasist nonsense. It's best not to take the contents of every website so seriously.

> So you saying they are intent on stopping climate change rather than regime change and these people are not intent on regime change despite what you have read on a website. It even appears the protesters have not read this website or at least it has not motivated them towards regime change rather than stopping climate change.

> You mean the aim of regime change is on a website but not the aim of the supporters of the protesters.

> Overall you are characterising regime change as a factor but state it is not motivating the protesters who appear to be unaware of it. This is a rather sinister mischaracterisation of those you have found not to be motivated by regime change. 

I agree it's fantasist nonsense. It is however a core demand of XR, a core demand of Hallam in the manifesto I linked to and a core demand of another co-founder in the medium piece also linked to.

It is that core aim which drives the XR method which is unashamedly about getting arrested.

And don't take my word for it, it's spelled out by Hallam.  It's a pivot of direct action, now it's all about the arrests less.about the action itself.

My personal opinion is that there are an awful lot of people involved who are unaware that THAT is the reason they are getting arrested and attempting to paralyse London. 

The positive result of that is that many of those will be satisfied if they feel the govt. makes some positive moves as a result of their efforts.

The negative side of that is that , amongst other things,  people will have the long lasting impact of a criminal conviction, it's costing a tonne of money and impact on policing and CJS across the UK. And I'm not convinced that there will be a significant change that wouldn't be achieved in any event, or without the same far reaching impact, including on those protesting.

Why does this misleading matter? Direct action doesn't have to end in arrest, and indeed a more fluid direct action where people moved to new locations after warnings but pre-arrest would receive just as much publicity, last just as long, but have significantly less impact on the future of those protesting.

Report
summo 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Stone Idle:

> and I use the word help with care as China wont be coerced.

I'll bet you a gallon of crude oil that Shanghai has all electric transport before London.

However, the electric might still be generated by coal elsewhere in China!! 

Report
elsewhere 09 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

From what you write XR/Hallam on the web is an irrelevance as largely unknown to the protesters or their supporters.

Hence it is sinister to characterise them as intent on regime change rather than climate change protesters or their supporters.

Report
off-duty 09 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> From what you write XR/Hallam on the web is an irrelevance as largely unknown to the protesters or their supporters.

> Hence it is sinister to characterise them as intent on regime change rather than climate change protesters or their supporters.

One of their key aims is regime change. They intend to bring this about by getting mass arrests.  These protests are organised by XR, with the intent of getting mass arrests, to pursue their goals.

Direct action does not need to end in an arrest.

If anything is sinister it's the drive to get ordinary people arrested to pursue a goal they don't realise they are pursuing, namely that the reason they "need" to be arrested isn't to "tackle climate change" or "make the government act" - it's to follow the XR fantasist theory that this will bring down the state.

Report
pasbury 09 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

> That's my point. There isn't a credible environmental friendly party.

> If the greens had any ability they wouldn't have just 1 mp. 

> Edit. The greens are just a protest group really. I'm pretty sure they'd wreck the economy for the sake of saving a rabbit or two. 

What a load of horseshit you grumpy old fart. They’ve won a significant proportion of the vote in several elections. Their chances of representation in parliament has nothing to do with their proportion of the vote. First past the post gives them little chance.

Report
elsewhere 09 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

I don't think the protesters or their supporters are dupes either. Some of them will be dupes but you describe them as ordinary people so they're adults making their own decisions.

Report
pasbury 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Can you see why people might just want them all to f*ck off with their dogmas?

You seem a little lacking in self awareness.

Report
off-duty 09 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> I don't think the protesters or their supporters are dupes either. Some of them will be dupes but you describe them as ordinary people so they're adults making their own decisions.

Well you can't have it both ways.

Either we have a protest trying to overthrow the government as a core goal, or we have protestors who don't fully understand the basis of XR.

I'd prefer "naïve" to "dupe" - but I certainly haven't seen any examples of ordinary protestors raising regime change and citizens assemblies when interviewed. And I have seen numerous examples of protestors and supporters giving various versions of "climate issues".

Report
pasbury 09 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> Well you can't have it both ways.

> Either we have a protest trying to overthrow the government as a core goal, or we have protestors who don't fully understand the basis of XR.

Where do you get this idea that ‘regime change’ Is a core aim, surely not from an opinion piece by one guy on Medium? System change maybe, political change definitely, some sort of change or no change at all. I mean they aren’t protesting and getting arrested for a laugh.

> I'd prefer "naïve" to "dupe" - but I certainly haven't seen any examples of ordinary protestors raising regime change and citizens assemblies when interviewed. And I have seen numerous examples of protestors and supporters giving various versions of "climate issues".

Exactly, this regime change trope and arguing about whether protestors are dupes or naive are all just an attempt to trivialise the issues.

As to alternative protest methods that don’t result in arrest, they are difficult to devise. The criminalisation of dissent and protest has been an ongoing project in the U.K. for thirty years. If the protesters change their tactics then new offences will be mined from the CJA etc.

Report
off-duty 09 Oct 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> Where do you get this idea that ‘regime change’ Is a core aim, surely not from an opinion piece by one guy on Medium? System change maybe, political change definitely, some sort of change or no change at all. I mean they aren’t protesting and getting arrested for a laugh.

1) It's the XR third demand - citizens assemblies.(And they are not either/ or demands)

2) It's in the manifesto published on Roger Hallam's website previously linked.

3)it's the rationale for people needing to be arrested as explained at great length by Hallam.

4)"Opinion piece" it may be, but it's an opinion piece by a founder of XR, explaining what it's all about.

Post edited at 23:38
Report
Bob Kemp 09 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

“Given the complete moral failure of the government to respond, the demand should be:
‘The current government hands power to an administration which will call a national climate and ecological emergency and immediately enact measures to deal with the climate and ecological crisis.’”

- from Hallam’s book. 

Report
off-duty 09 Oct 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> As to alternative protest methods that don’t result in arrest, they are difficult to devise. The criminalisation of dissent and protest has been an ongoing project in the U.K. for thirty years. If the protesters change their tactics then new offences will be mined from the CJA etc.

There are lots of protest methods that don't involve arrest. They can include obstruction of streets etc. It's always a balance between a right to protest and the right of others to go about their lawful business.

Report
off-duty 09 Oct 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> “Given the complete moral failure of the government to respond, the demand should be:

> ‘The current government hands power to an administration which will call a national climate and ecological emergency and immediately enact measures to deal with the climate and ecological crisis.’”

> - from Hallam’s book. 

With the key word that requires definition being "measures", especially given that almost every activity carried out by humans will have some impact positive or negative on climate change to some degree or another.

Report
Pefa 09 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

I agree XR will be setting their goals deliberately and unreasonably high as its the oldest negotiating trick in the book. You make a good point about policing resources being taken away from other places to deal with the XR protesters which has made me think. And I would say yes but ecosystems and wildlife cannot speak or protest for themselves so require us to do it on their behalf and indirectly on our behalf as it is a crime how we have wrecked the planet. 

Report
elsewhere 09 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> Well you can't have it both ways.

> Either we have a protest trying to overthrow the government as a core goal, or we have protestors who don't fully understand the basis of XR.

You can most certainly have it not just both ways but many ways. From what you say it appears equally the XR web site does not understand the XR of protesters. Everything you've said suggests the XR of a website is not the XR of protesters.

The same label obviously means different things to different people, an example is the many different unicorn/glorious future/Norway/Canada+/hard/soft/BRINO/May deal meanings of Brexit.

> I'd prefer "naïve" to "dupe" - but I certainly haven't seen any examples of ordinary protestors raising regime change and citizens assemblies when interviewed. And I have seen numerous examples of protestors and supporters giving various versions of "climate issues".

Again it seems this regime change web site is irrelevant to the motivation of protesters as it doesn't even get mentioned. 

giving various versions of "climate issues" - entirely normal so why would anybody expect anything else? It's like any other concept including XR - individuals have individual opinions and/or individual understanding (& misunderstandings). Even political parties (far more formalised than XR) have multiple factions claiming to be the true path.

Post edited at 00:06
Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

It's not the "XR of a website" it's XR.

This protest is run by regional XR groups coordinated centrally and working to the XR goals.

And the key tactic of "getting arrested" is to pursue, knowingly or otherwise, the goal of XR.

It's not sinister to point that out, it's sinister to use people in that way.  As this thread in itself demonstrates - people were unaware of this aim of XR and the purpose of this tactic.

Report
pasbury 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

Citizens assemblies are not regime change.

Demonising one man, maybe justifiably, does not invalidate the whole movement.

This smells like a herring, a red one.

Well rehearsed tactics to marginalise legitimate protest, I don’t buy it at all.

Post edited at 00:22
Report
pasbury 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> There are lots of protest methods that don't involve arrest. They can include obstruction of streets etc. It's always a balance between a right to protest and the right of others to go about their lawful business.

Really? Obstruction of a public highway is a non-arrestable offence?

Report
elsewhere 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> And the key tactic of "getting arrested" is to pursue, knowingly or otherwise, the goal of XR.

And for the protesters who don't share your view of what XR means it is traditional civil disobedience in this case targeted against climate change.

Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> And for the protesters who don't share your view of what XR means it is traditional civil disobedience in this case targeted against climate change.

That would be direct action, peaceful protest etc. None of these requires people to be arrested. This is very much not "traditional" civil disobedience. The intent is arrest.

Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to pasbury:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-49549649

4 days, glue-ons, roads blocked etc.

Arrests zero.

Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> Citizens assemblies are not regime change.

> Demonising one man, maybe justifiably, does not invalidate the whole movement.

> This smells like a herring, a red one.

> Well rehearsed tactics to marginalise legitimate protest, I don’t buy it at all.

Citizens assemblies where the task is "everything that impacts climate change" are pretty much citizens assemblies that have a say in every bit of policy.

Hallam isn't just one man, he's the co-founder, his views are echoed by the other founders and his book is reference on the website, though everyone appears to focus on the much vaguer but well meaning sounding "announce a climate emergency" and "make big (but totally unspecified) changes".

I couldn't find anywhere on the website about "Why people have to get arrested", but maybe I didn't look hard enough.

The pivot in this iteration of direct action is that the goal is arrest, and the reason is overwhelming government - it's a clear rationale

Report
MeMeMe 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> 4 days, glue-ons, roads blocked etc.

> Arrests zero.

Yet that was an XR protest done in the same way the current protests in London are being done. The difference is purely the attitude of the police at the different protest sites. 
The reason people are getting arrested is to keep the roads closed and so make the protest affective. If you’re not willing to be arrested then it’s pretty easy to clear the streets, just threaten people with arrest if they don’t move.

Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

> Yet that was an XR protest done in the same way the current protests in London are being done. The difference is purely the attitude of the police at the different protest sites. 

It was a massive difference in scale (one site) and impact of protest on the ability of people to go about their daily business. The site of the camp was central, but in an area that it's not unusual to be heavily congested or closed so diversions around it are not uncommon. 

It achieved a lot of publicity whilst minimising the anti-social aspect of the protest. 

From what I've heard the glue-ons that had the potential to generate arrest were pretty ineffectual.

> The reason people are getting arrested is to keep the roads closed and so make the protest affective. If you’re not willing to be arrested then it’s pretty easy to clear the streets, just threaten people with arrest if they don’t move.

The reason people are being arrested is because that is the tactic of XR. They are less interested in closing the roads, they want to overwhelm the capacity of the police and government. Please read Hallam's paper that explains why it's about the arrest, not the direct action.

By getting up and moving to another protest location at the end of the 5 step appeal you could maintain disruption, whilst minimising arrests.  

Report
elsewhere 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> That would be direct action, peaceful protest etc. None of these requires people to be arrested. This is very much not "traditional" civil disobedience. The intent is arrest.

Funny that for you the tradition of civil disobedience does not include the arrest of suffragettes, Ghandi, Rosa Parks, Desmond Tutu or Lech Walesa.

 Their civil disobedience obviously required them to risk arrest.

Funny how criticism of the police for not making arrests last time has morphed XR into something sinister this time.

Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Funny that for you the tradition of civil disobedience does not include the arrest of suffragettes, Ghandi, Rosa Parks, Desmond Tutu or Lech Walesa.

>  Their civil disobedience obviously required them to risk arrest.

Fair point, despite the non UK examples. I guess I was trying to say that this is a pivot in tactics from traditional eco-activist tactic where the direct action has been to delay a road build/eviction etc rather than simply to be arrested.

> Funny how criticism of the police for not making arrests last time has morphed XR into something sinister this time.

No idea where you get the idea that a)my opinion of XR has changed (hundreds of arrests were made at the last London protest by the way) or  b)that XR has morphed - it's goals have always been the same.

What might have changed is your knowledge of the actual goals of the group, thanks to the various links posted in this thread.

Report
MeMeMe 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> It was a massive difference in scale (one site) and impact of protest on the ability of people to go about their daily business. The site of the camp was central, but in an area that it's not unusual to be heavily congested or closed so diversions around it are not uncommon. 

> It achieved a lot of publicity whilst minimising the anti-social aspect of the protest. 

> From what I've heard the glue-ons that had the potential to generate arrest were pretty ineffectual.

I don't have a lot of experience of it but from where I was they seemed pretty affective, you can't move people who are glued on until you get the specialist team to come in and unglue the person and because there were so many glue ons the teams were very stretched. Lock-ons were even more affective because you need another specialist team to deal with them and they took a lot longer to remove.

> The reason people are being arrested is because that is the tactic of XR. They are less interested in closing the roads, they want to overwhelm the capacity of the police and government. Please read Hallam's paper that explains why it's about the arrest, not the direct action.

Whilst Roger Hallam is a co-founder he's still just one person and I'm not sure you are representing his views entirely correctly anyway. The impression I get from talking to people who are actually organising this on the ground is that the arrests are very affective at slowing down the whole thing. It takes time to go through the process of arrest, it takes time to get teams to unglue or remove someone from a lock on, it takes time to carry them to a van (at least 4 officers per person if they refuse to walk), it takes time to take them to a station and process them.

In a way you are right, it's a tactic to overwhelm the capacity of the police but I don't understand why you don't think that makes the direct action more effective. The more stretched the police resources the harder it is for them to clear the streets, there's a direct effect there.

> By getting up and moving to another protest location at the end of the 5 step appeal you could maintain disruption, whilst minimising arrests.  

Sounds interesting, please explain!

Post edited at 08:45
Report
elsewhere 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

Yes,  good xenophobic insinuation,  we don't want  foreign stuff here do we?

I don't recall you mentioning XR as so sinister last time they were active but maybe I missed it.

My knowledge of what you think XR is has certainly increased.

My knowledge of that climate change motivates protesters hasn't really changed.

My knowledge that you know that protesters are motivated by climate change rather than by what you think XR is has certainly increased.

But then thinking what you (or Hallam) thinks is XR represents all XR is like thinking the Pope represents all Christians. 

Post edited at 08:48
Report
Pan Ron 10 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:

Oh dear. Presumably this awkward deconstruction of XR's points can he explained away as capitalist bias in the BBC, and that fringe scientific views are more important than the IPCC's own...but it's still painful to watch.

https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1182052201629470720?s=09

Report
MeMeMe 10 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

That's quite a car crash of an interview!

I think taking some specific statement Roger Hallam made about billions dying in the next 10 to 20 years and using that to invalidate the whole movement is not really fair. Despite being a founder member Roger Hallam is one person in a large organisation. 

Report
Eric9Points 10 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

Don't you think it likely to be rather typical of the views of many of those taking part in the protests this week?

What strikes me about all this is the ignorance of basic facts for many, most, of the population.

Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Yes,  good xenophobic insinuation,  we don't want  foreign stuff here do we?

Pretty uncalled for really. It's a UK movement so it seems reasonable to compare it to other civil rights/direct actions used in the UK 

> I don't recall you mentioning XR as so sinister last time they were active but maybe I missed it.

I don't think I've commented on then before.  Openminded of you to jump to that conclusion though.

> My knowledge of what you think XR is has certainly increased.

Given that I'm literally quoting from their documents, I'm not sure what you're understanding of them was previously.

> My knowledge of that climate change motivates protesters hasn't really changed.

Absolutely. Personally I think that it's worth those motivated by climate change should understand whose wagon they are hitching themselves to, or risk being used for a purpose that they might not agree with.

> My knowledge that you know that protesters are motivated by climate change rather than by what you think XR is has certainly increased.

> But then thinking what you (or Hallam) thinks is XR represents all XR is like thinking the Pope represents all Christians. 

To suggest that XR represents all climate change would be the best analogy. If you wanted to worship and participate in a Roman Catholic service, I would expect you to understand what the role of the Pope is.

Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

> Whilst Roger Hallam is a co-founder he's still just one person and I'm not sure you are representing his views entirely correctly anyway. The impression I get from talking to people who are actually organising this on the ground is that the arrests are very affective at slowing down the whole thing. It takes time to go through the process of arrest, it takes time to get teams to unglue or remove someone from a lock on, it takes time to carry them to a van (at least 4 officers per person if they refuse to walk), it takes time to take them to a station and process them.

I'm not sure there is much point in repeating myself but, here goes....

Please read his pamphlet. His work is referred to in the XR website. They acknowledge that they are continuing his tactics (and those of the other co-founders) when they were running Rising Up.

Read the medium article of another co-founder. I quoted from it earlier.

The goal of this direct action is to get arrested.

The reason for the necessity to arrest is to force the government to the table.

The reason they want the government at the table is to bring in citizens assemblies 

It really is that simple. Examine their 3 "demands" and look at the actual concrete detail that underpins each one. The Citizens Assembly idea is clearly the most well spelled out ( however much of a fantasy it may be).

There are an awful lot of well- meaning people, including those I would count as friends, who see this organisation as a means to effect real impact on climate change.

I'm hopeful that there will be further moves by the government, and hopefully people (like me!!) will be encouraged to do more to live in a more environmentally friendly manner.

However, when you examine what this group really wants - revolution, rather than small "reformist" steps to improve things - then actually the positive impacts that are hopefully likely to result from this are incidental to the goal of the organisation running it, rather than the intent.

I have no issue with being accused of misrepresenting XR, but if you could accompany that with examples of how exactly my explanation of their philosophy, taken from their publications, is contradicted by their "true" goals then it would help.

Report
elsewhere 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

What you think is XR doesn't even represent XR protesters.

In support of that I'll quote you:

"My evidence for this is that I haven't yet seen these ordinary members of the public, when questioned about what they are doing or why, mention anything about the creation of Citizens assemblies. Instead it's goals like saving the planet for their kids, grand kids etc." (off-duty 20:23 Wed)

You quote XR documents, but if the demonstrators aren't quoting them the documents are barely relevant.

Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> What you think is XR doesn't even represent XR protesters.

> In support of that I'll quote you:

> "My evidence for this is that I haven't yet seen these ordinary members of the public, when questioned about what they are doing or why, mention anything about the creation of Citizens assemblies. Instead it's goals like saving the planet for their kids, grand kids etc." (off-duty 20:23 Wed)

> You quote XR documents, but if the demonstrators aren't quoting them the documents are barely relevant.

I think that there are an awful lot of well meaning people turning up to the XR protest believing that their actions and their arrest are a necessary part of direct action to tackle climate change, without realising that actually they are being used by the XR organisation to try and push an agenda of revolution and regime change.

As a result they are going to get arrested and criminalised for a cause they didn't realise they are supporting, when they really didn't need to be.

I think that's sinister. I think that's misleading. I think that's harmful, to them and to the wider communities from which the resources are being diverted to police them.

I'm not entirely clear what your opinion is, other than a desperate desire to disagree with me, regardless.

Report
Harry Jarvis 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> I think that there are an awful lot of well meaning people turning up to the XR protest believing that their actions and their arrest are a necessary part of direct action to tackle climate change, without realising that actually they are being used by the XR organisation to try and push an agenda of revolution and regime change.

You've clearly spent a lot more time investigating the aims of XR. I wonder though, if you've considered the possibility that although the initial stated aims are as you say they are (and I have no reason to think otherwise given the evidence you have shown), the movement may be overtaken by events and by the mass of its supporters Informed or otherwise), who do believe it is an activist movement campaigning on climate change, regardless of what else the founders have said? In other words, it may be morphing into something not imagined or intended by its founders?

Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Yes. I think that may well be the case. I tried, probably inarticulately, to suggest that earlier.

The issues then, as I see them, includenoff the top of my head

a) a bunch of people criminalised for results that may well have been achievable through other protest.

b)Enhanced legitimacy for XR, as those involved don't realise its goals and are further recruited/groomed into extremist action.

Report
elsewhere 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

I think it is misleading and sinister to tar people protesting climate change with "regime change".

Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> I think it is misleading and sinister to tar people protesting climate change with "regime change".

I'm not tarring people protesting climate change. I'm explaining the goal and the tactics of the XR protest. 

However well meaning one might be, and however pro climate change one's motives, I think it is important to realise why XR are running these protests and what is driving their tactics.

After all - people are literally signing up and volunteering to get arrested, with all the consequences that will bring, without apparently realising that it is their arrest that is the goal of XR, and that goal is not necessarily in alignment with the  goals or principles of those who are about to be criminalised.

Report
MeMeMe 10 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Don't you think it likely to be rather typical of the views of many of those taking part in the protests this week?

> What strikes me about all this is the ignorance of basic facts for many, most, of the population.

There are a huge range of people in XR and no I don’t think that specific view is typical. Are people concerned and afraid that if we don’t do something fairly immediately that there is a good chance the tipping points mean that we’re going to be pretty f*cked over our Life times and our children’s? Yes.

Do ‘many’ people think over the next decade or two that billions will die?  I don’t think so. Past the next decade or two I don’t think anyone knows the exact implications but they could be rather dire and i don’t think we should be complacent.

I’m basing that on the people I’ve talked to at the XR protest rather than pamphlets.

Report
Pan Ron 10 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

Isn't it more sinister that XR have publicised a certain narrative around climate change (reiterated in the BBC clip) that is at odds with the IPCC's own science? 

They appear to acknowledge these viewpoints are factually inaccurate but are content with that as their "by any means necessary" approach, drawing on fringe science, suits their end goals.

They simply don't care.  And many people, probably with the best of intentions, are taking XR's claims at face value.

Report
MeMeMe 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

Here is the bill that XR want enacted in relation to the current protest - https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dXZif0DtyUkwUwQvj6XRQbFY_QwwoIUK

Here's the summary -

"Require the Prime Minister to declare a climate and ecological emergency and specify the
objective of ensuring that the UK achieves net zero emissions of greenhouse gasses and
halts the extinction of species in the UK by 2025; to place duties on the Secretary of State to
achieve the objective by the target date; establish a Citizens’ Assembly to advise on steps to be taken
to achieve the objective by the target date; to place duties on the Committee on Climate Change in
connection with that Assembly; and for connected purposes."

You might disagree with the aims but I don't think they are sinister.

You might also disagree on the reason people are getting arrested but try talking to the people getting arrested rather than quoting pamphlets and you might have a rather more direct line on their motives. 

I think it's not unreasonable to have concern for people taking a rather significant decision to get arrested which may have large implications for them but the stuff you write comes across as a spoiling action on the organisation rather than a genuine concern for the people involved in it.

Report
elsewhere 10 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Isn't it more sinister that XR have publicised a certain narrative around climate change (reiterated in the BBC clip) that is at odds with the IPCC's own science? 

And in other news something on the internet is not accurate. Yawn.

> They appear to acknowledge these viewpoints are factually inaccurate but are content with that as their "by any means necessary" approach, drawing on fringe science, suits their end goals.

> They simply don't care.  And many people, probably with the best of intentions, are taking XR's claims at face value.

The protesters according to off-duty ignore rather than take at face value the content of the XR website as they don't mention it.  

And in other news somebody ignores or doesn't care about something on the internet. Yawn.

Google indexes 130 trillion web pages. There is a LOT of stuff to ignore and not care about.

Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

Have you considered what the actual remit of these citizens assemblies are? 

I've said before that many of those being arrested appear to be doing it for "climate" reasons. (Based on the comments made by those ordinary folk arrested reported in the press and on numerous videos. I've yet to hear one day anything about political change, or citizens assemblies)

What they don't appear to realise is that they have volunteered to get arrested to serve the goals of an organisation that wants them to be arrested for its key political aim.  It's pretty vague about what else it feels should actually be "done" to tackle climate change.

I'm sorry if the way I come across is "a spoiling action", but given the apparent ignorance of the specific reason this tactic is being deployed by this organisation, and further the apparent ignorance of this key aim of XR, it seems reasonable to be concerned that people are screwing up their futures when they are being mislead as to the necessity and the intent that they get arrested.

Post edited at 19:49
Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> The protesters according to off-duty ignore rather than take at face value the content of the XR website as they don't mention it.  

I'd be interested to know why you think the protestors, protesting in the XR protest, organised by XR groups, are actually protesting?

For me they are drawn in by the "climate change" branding, but aren't aware of the fundamental political motivation.  It's an honest desire to "do something", being manipulated by an organisation that needs bodies.

Report
elsewhere 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> I'd be interested to know why you think the protestors, protesting in the XR protest, organised by XR groups, are actually protesting?

Climate change, an opinion supported by the quote below. 

"My evidence for this is that I haven't yet seen these ordinary members of the public, when questioned about what they are doing or why, mention anything about the creation of Citizens assemblies. Instead it's goals like saving the planet for their kids, grand kids etc."

> For me they are drawn in by the "climate change" branding, but aren't aware of the fundamental political motivation.  It's an honest desire to "do something", being manipulated by an organisation that needs bodies.

You are entitled to you opinion, and entitled to be wrong ;-) but I never am ;-) ;-)

They may well not be aware of a fundamental political motivation they do not share but are happy to co-opt XR organisation for their own purposes (protest) and for their own motivation (climate change as you've confirmed a few times ). It is a symbiotic relationship.

Post edited at 20:25
Report
MeMeMe 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> Have you considered what the actual remit of these citizens assemblies are? 

Yes. The demands for this specific action are embodied in the bill with the link I posted above, including the citizen's assembly whose purpose is given by this quote below -

"The purposes of this Act are
(a) To require the Prime Minister to declare a climate and ecological emergency and to specify certain
matters that must be in that declaration;
(b) To give the Secretary of State a duty to ensure that the UK achieves net zero emissions of greenhouse
gases and halts the extinction of species in the UK or as a result of activities of persons in the UK by 2025;
(c) To establish a citizens’ assembly and related bodies to work in cooperation with the Secretary of State in
achieving the objectives specified in (b) above."

I think this broadly aligns with the aims of the people doing the protesting, perhaps you might explain why it doesn't?

> I've said before that many of those being arrested appear to be doing it for "climate" reasons. (Based on the comments made by those ordinary folk arrested reported in the press and on numerous videos. I've yet to hear one day anything about political change, or citizens assemblies)

> What they don't appear to realise is that they have volunteered to get arrested to serve the goals of an organisation that wants them to be arrested for its key political aim.  It's pretty vague about what else it feels should actually be "done" to tackle climate change.

I think we're just going round in circles here, I disagree with you.

> I'm sorry if the way I come across is "a spoiling action", but given the apparent ignorance of the specific reason this tactic is being deployed by this organisation, and further the apparent ignorance of this key aim of XR, it seems reasonable to be concerned that people are screwing up their futures when they are being mislead as to the necessity and the intent that they get arrested.

Don't be sorry, I think it comes across very clearly. I think the members of XR are better informed that you about their own organisation and I think they'd think you are misrepresenting it.

Have you gone down and talked to any of these people? I'm not being facetious, if you're really that interested then get yourself down there and talk to people before they're all cleared off the streets...

Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

I think we pretty much agree ;-)

Though I'd say that whilst they might be co-opting the XR organisation(and whether they actually realise that they are in fact not in alignment with XR), they are also being used by that organisation for its own ends - being arrested being presented as the only viable option.

Report
Pan Ron 10 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

> You might disagree with the aims but I don't think they are sinister.

What would be the likely downsides of the actions required to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to zero within 6 years?  XR don't seem to care.

What would be the punishments for those who don't achieve this, given a state of emergency had been declared?  I hate to think.

What if those targets are wholly unnecessary and what if global warming keeps on happening despite a zero or -ve emissions target is met?  I suspect "internal enemies" would be blamed, with predictable results.

I think this is desperately sinister stuff.  Revolutionaries seem to find that the ends always justify the means, and frequently misidentify the causes of the evil they are fighting against.  Lots of history lessons we can look back on for this.  Even the Khmer Rouge were viewed as the good guys, with justifiable objectives for a good long time.

Report
elsewhere 10 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

>  Even the Khmer Rouge were viewed as the good guys, with justifiable objectives for a good long time.

It is a shameful part of UK history that Mrs Thatcher's government supported Khmer Rouge terrorism.

https://www.economist.com/node/13145275/

Then on June 25, 1991, after two years of denials, the UK government admitted that the Special Air Service (SAS) had secretly trained the "resistance" since 1983. A report written by Rae McGrath, who later went on to share the Nobel Peace Prize for a campaign against landmines, filled in the details: the SAS had taught "the use of improvised explosive devices, booby traps and the manufacture and use of time-delay devices".

Post edited at 21:23
Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

> Yes. The demands for this specific action are embodied in the bill with the link I posted above, including the citizen's assembly whose purpose is given by this quote below -

> "The purposes of this Act are

> (a) To require the Prime Minister to declare a climate and ecological emergency and to specify certain

> matters that must be in that declaration;

> (b) To give the Secretary of State a duty to ensure that the UK achieves net zero emissions of greenhouse

> gases and halts the extinction of species in the UK or as a result of activities of persons in the UK by 2025;

> (c) To establish a citizens’ assembly and related bodies to work in cooperation with the Secretary of State in

> achieving the objectives specified in (b) above."

> I think this broadly aligns with the aims of the people doing the protesting, perhaps you might explain why it doesn't?

I agree it broadly aligns. That's one reason everyone is jumping on the XR bandwagon as believing it to be supportive of their own individual climate change. 

The remit of the citizens assembly is essentially everything. I've not seen any of the other citizens assemblies that tackle issues that have such large scope in combination with such power.

> I think we're just going round in circles here, I disagree with you.

> Don't be sorry, I think it comes across very clearly. I think the members of XR are better informed that you about their own organisation and I think they'd think you are misrepresenting it.

It's entirely reasonable to disagree. Given that I've based my opinion on their published work, I'd be interested to see what you believe the goals of the organisation XR are.

> Have you gone down and talked to any of these people? I'm not being facetious, if you're really that interested then get yourself down there and talk to people before they're all cleared off the streets...

If I was in London,I would. Are you suggesting that many of the ordinary members you speak with are on board with and quoting establishing a citizens assembly as a key demand?

It's not something that is coming across in the reported comments and videos of the protestors that I've seen.

Report
MeMeMe 10 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Given what you just posted I can’t help but think of the irony of you calling them alarmist...

Report
Pan Ron 10 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

Easily said with hindsight.  She was far from alone and the stance was fashionable on the left and right in 1975. 

The motives of the KR, like XR, were high-minded; fight the good fight, overthrow the evils of capitalism, the vestiges of privilege and power, re-orientate the economy away from what was "wrong" towards what was "right" (agrarianism), bring people back to the earth, and avert crisis.

And when the economy naturally tanked, it was the capitalists and elites who were blamed.  Because the cause could never be wrong.  And once they were dead, Angkar started eating its own, finding ever more enemies within to blame for its failure.  All because idealism meant more than truth.  It all looked so good to start with.  But like in 1950s China and Russia it all predictably went horribly wrong. 

That's what happens when factual accuracy and the ability to question becomes subservient to idealism.

I'm amazed people who so readily express fears about the rise of the right, racism and nazism, seem so comfortable with buying into the mindsets that spawned the worst horrors of the last century.

Report
MeMeMe 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> If I was in London,I would. Are you suggesting that many of the ordinary members you speak with are on board with and quoting establishing a citizens assembly as a key demand?

> It's not something that is coming across in the reported comments and videos of the protestors that I've seen.

I think you’re right that it’s not foremost in people’s minds, it’s seen as a technical issue , it’s not an emotive one. I just feel your being rather alarmist about the aims of it. 
What’s the chances of the government of the uk being taken over to be run as a neofascist eco dictatorship? None. 
 

Report
Pan Ron 10 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

What alarms me is that XR presents no downsides to their plans.  None are mentioned.  None exist. It is the epitome naivety.

Fortunately for all of us, they will likely fade away like most fads as people see through them.  Disturbing though is the number of people who should be of sound mind who buy into their BS.  

If you think Boris and Brexit are scary, spare a thought for where the world would be if XR, or similar movements, grow in power and get their way.  You won't get the utopia you imagine, and there's a damng good chance you won't fix climate change while you're at it.

Report
elsewhere 10 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

No it was in the eighties when our taxes helped support the Khmer Rouge. By that time the genocide was known and the genocide was not fashionable.

Report
MeMeMe 10 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> What alarms me is that XR presents no downsides to their plans.  None are mentioned.  None exist. It is the epitome naivety.

What surprises me is that some detractors express surprise and disgust that XR don't have any plans to combat the ecological crisis, yet here's you being alarmed at the very same non-existent plans.

The citizens assembly is supposed to make recommendations. If you're scared and alarmed by your fellow citizens than I can understand why you might not like that.

Report
jethro kiernan 10 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Greta Thunburg is the modern day Pol Pot

okay you win the Jeremy Clarkson award for angry middle aged man against climate change activism

Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to jethro kiernan:

> Greta Thunburg is the modern day Pol Pot

> okay you win the Jeremy Clarkson award for angry middle aged man against climate change activism

Joking aside, it's the fact that XR are able to hijack any environmental cause (eg Greta Thunberg) under their banner, whilst actually being a political movement wrapped in a green coat, that makes them so successful.

Report
Pan Ron 10 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

They have plans.  Net zero by 2030. To do so would require:

- Removing all gas boilers and stoves from every home.
- Confiscation of non-electric cars.
- State rationing of meat.
- Rationing just one flight per family every five years.

That's the claim and something XR state they are good with.

What does smashing 3.8 million jobs and 10% of GDP from the tourism industry alone mean when people can't even handle the fact the govt wouldn't bail out Thomas Cook?

People lobbying govt should at least have half a clue what they're lobbying for.  For XR it seems to simply be "I don't like this, so give me something different"...which will invariably result in "holy shit, this new thing I asked for  is horrible, give me back what I had you bastards".

Report
Pan Ron 10 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

By 1981 the KR were no longer in power. The Vietnamese were and most former KR soldiers melted back in to the population, where they were and are accepted.

They're not even bad people by and large. But masses of them followed along with what they felt was an ideologically sound struggle. A war against capitalism and a harmful modern society.

The black and white portrayal we have of these events has obvious holes and you don't have to examine it deeply to notice. But it allows each of us to kid ourselves that, because we're not evil, we can make the same ideological mistakes and its risk free. Well that what rank and file Khmer Rouge soldiers felt too. You play a dangerous game and it doesn't have to go anywhere near genocide to be incredibly harmful.

Report
off-duty 10 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

It's 2025, not 2030!

Report
Pan Ron 10 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

Shit, sorry. With 5 less years I'm running out of modern evils to dispose of after the cars, boilers, heaters, meat and flights are gone. I guess the power stations will need to all be shut then too.

Yay! Crisis averted! Showed them evil capitalists didn't we?

Report
summo 11 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> No it was in the eighties when our taxes helped support the Khmer Rouge. By that time the genocide was known and the genocide was not fashionable.

Even now the west, the UN watches without saying anything etc as events unfold in many countries. Zimbabwe, Myanmar, starvation in north korea, or China's treatment of Muslims. In the age of the internet there are no secrets, only no action. Whilst we aren't funding them directly, the West is knowingly complacent. 

Imagine if a country in Europe set up detention camps to house Muslims to reeducate them, would we still trade with them? 

Report
MeMeMe 11 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> They have plans.  Net zero by 2030. To do so would require:

> - Removing all gas boilers and stoves from every home.

> - Confiscation of non-electric cars.

> - State rationing of meat.

> - Rationing just one flight per family every five years.

> That's the claim and something XR state they are good with.

> What does smashing 3.8 million jobs and 10% of GDP from the tourism industry alone mean when people can't even handle the fact the govt wouldn't bail out Thomas Cook?

Erm, I think those are your plans that you've just invented.

The XR plan is a citizens assembly, a randomly chosen representative set of citizens, who are informed by experts who then make recommendations. 

I imagine the experts will say that net zero by 2025 is just not happening but here's the schedule and the plan for the changes we need to do to minimise the effects of climate change for the future.

I can't emphasise it enough that the citizens assembly is not a bunch of people from XR, it's people from the general population, it's your fellow citizens that will be deciding the plan after input from experts in the field. Slightly less alarming than your ranting.

Post edited at 08:16
Report
off-duty 11 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

> Erm, I think those are your plans that you've just invented.

> The XR plan is a citizens assembly, a randomly chosen representative set of citizens, who are informed by experts who then make recommendations. 

> I imagine the experts will say that net zero by 2025 is just not happening but here's the schedule and the plan for the changes we need to do to minimise the effects of climate change for the future.

> I can't emphasise it enough that the citizens assembly is not a bunch of people from XR, it's people from the general population, it's your fellow citizens that will be deciding the plan after input from experts in the field. Slightly less alarming than your ranting.

Check out demand 2.

https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/demands/

Does nobody actually realise what they are protesting for?

Post edited at 08:39
Report
elsewhere 11 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

My taxes are not financing military assistance in China. My taxes did finance military assistance to the Khmer Rouge.

Report
MeMeMe 11 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> Check out demand 2.

> Does nobody actually realise what they are protesting for?

I agree that demand 2 is just not technically feasible but again the actual recommendations on what to do come through a citizens assembly, an informed group of your fellow citizens. They recommend what they think is the best course of action and I for one am willing to put my trust in my fellow man/woman/rather-not-say.

The current likely scenario is to plod on as we are now with un-acted upon political promises, rising emissions and increasing species extinction until the shit hits the fan and we realise that we've missed our opportunity to do anything about it and we're all f*cked. I for one would like to avoid this.

Report
elsewhere 11 Oct 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> By 1981 the KR were no longer in power. 

No shit Sherlock.

> They're not even bad people by and large. But masses of them followed along with what they felt was an ideologically sound struggle. A war against capitalism and a harmful modern society.

Mrs Thatcher wasn't in that situation.

Report
off-duty 11 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

> I agree that demand 2 is just not technically feasible but again the actual recommendations on what to do come through a citizens assembly, an informed group of your fellow citizens. They recommend what they think is the best course of action and I for one am willing to put my trust in my fellow man/woman/rather-not-say.

> The current likely scenario is to plod on as we are now with un-acted upon political promises, rising emissions and increasing species extinction until the shit hits the fan and we realise that we've missed our opportunity to do anything about it and we're all f*cked. I for one would like to avoid this.

Well you've got a demand that's not technically feasible, backed up with the proposed bill you've posted yourself that mandates achieving it, and that mandates the CA submitting binding recommendations (the Sec of State must introduce, or the house must vote on) in order to achieve it.

You've got the entire philosophy of XR which is saying that taking small steps to tackle climate  change isn't acceptable, it's all about revolution.

The inevitable consequence of XR demands are the draconian measures that have been suggested. 

To achieve their goals, these actions are required.

Now i personally don't believe that many of those involved in the XR protest realise quite what they are signing up, and getting arrested for. Which is pretty crappy really and is where their climate change goals do not align with XR, but the consequences of their actions in following XR guidance will sit in their own heads.

Report
MeMeMe 11 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> Well you've got a demand that's not technically feasible, backed up with the proposed bill you've posted yourself that mandates achieving it, and that mandates the CA submitting binding recommendations (the Sec of State must introduce, or the house must vote on) in order to achieve it.

> You've got the entire philosophy of XR which is saying that taking small steps to tackle climate  change isn't acceptable, it's all about revolution.

> The inevitable consequence of XR demands are the draconian measures that have been suggested. 

> To achieve their goals, these actions are required.

So says you and Pan Ron. Again, I'd rather put my faith in a cross section of society rather than you two (no offence intended).

> Now i personally don't believe that many of those involved in the XR protest realise quite what they are signing up, and getting arrested for. Which is pretty crappy really and is where their climate change goals do not align with XR, but the consequences of their actions in following XR guidance will sit in their own heads.

I just can't understand the self-righteous indignation you have on behalf of the people protesting, maybe I don't understand the depth of your empathy but I can't help but feel it's not particularly genuine and you're more concerned with trashing the organisation than protecting the protesters from harm.

Post edited at 10:30
Report
Harry Jarvis 11 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

> I just can't understand the self-righteous indignation you have on behalf of the people protesting, maybe I don't understand the depth of your empathy but I can't help but feel it's not particularly genuine and you're more concerned with trashing the organisation than protecting the protesters from harm.

It seems to me that much of this outrage is aimed at the idea that the XR agenda of Citizen's Assemblies and revolution and the like might be put into action. This is clearly not going to happen - direct action of this sort does not result in changes to entire systems of government in the UK - so the outrage expressed is completely out of proportion to the probability of the results. 

What is clear is that the XR protesters want rapid action on climate change, and they are right to do so. Globally, we have dragged our feet for too long, held back by inertia and the well-funded lobbying efforts of fossil-fuel vested interests. The XR target of 2025 for carbon neutrality is also clearly not going to happen, but the government's ill-defined plan for 2050 is too vague to carry any real meaning. What is needed is a calculated road map to carbon neutrality in as short a time as is practical. If the actions XR help raise awareness of this need and help accelerate this process, their actions are to be applauded. 

Report
summo 11 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> My taxes are not financing military assistance in China. My taxes did finance military assistance to the Khmer Rouge.

Are you 100% sure you've not bought anything from a Chinese state owned company that none of your tax is paying towards any form of loan interest or bond dividend that China has given the UK?

Post edited at 10:58
Report
off-duty 11 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

> So says you and Pan Ron. Again, I'd rather put my faith in a cross section of society rather than you two (no offence intended).

As I've said previously, I think a lot of people are attending this protest for "climate change"reasons rather than XR reasons, however it is an XR protest and their demands and philosophy are quite clear, if you are prepared to even look at their website.

I reiterate - these aren't my beliefs,they are literally the explicit aims of XR.

> I just can't understand the self-righteous indignation you have on behalf of the people protesting, maybe I don't understand the depth of your empathy but I can't help but feel it's not particularly genuine and you're more concerned with trashing the organisation than protecting the protesters from harm.

I definitely have no faith in the organisation.  I think it's using people motivated by to climate change to push it's own agenda - even one of the founders says as much in the medium article.

My job is dealing with people being arrested and seeing the consequence of that arrest. It can be really crappy and have far reaching impact. I don't want people to be unnecessarily criminalised. 

At least a burglar knows what he's getting locked up for.

Report
MeMeMe 11 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

I think we've both expressed our opinions (several times) and we're just going round in circles here so I think I'm going to drop out now.

I don't agree with your general position but I do agree with you that being criminalised can have far reaching effects and it's worth considering that carefully before putting yourself in that position. 

Post edited at 11:35
Report
off-duty 11 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

> I think we've both expressed our opinions (several times) and we're just going round in circles here so I think I'm going to drop out now.

> I don't agree with your general position but I do agree with you that being criminalised can have far reaching effects and it's worth considering that carefully before putting yourself I that position. 

I think I've made my position pretty clear. I'm not in favour of XR, I think they are a political movement using a climate change agenda to get supporters and then a tactic of mass arrests to push their agenda. I think that, because that's what their manifesto and founders have said.

I think that a large number of protestors are on the streets wanting government action on climate change, and thinking this is the way to achieve it. 

I believe that those protestors are being misused by XR and pushed in to criminalising themselves under the  direction of XR when the goals the protestors actually want (as differentiated from XR goals) could be achieved in other ways.

I'm not entirely sure what your position is - that XR is NOT what it quite literally says on the tin?

Edit to add:

I think it's worth considering if this protest did actually result in the government sitting down to discuss the way forward - who would it sit down with?

The arrested protestors who want some clear government action, or the organisers of XR who have 3 clear demands and on the face of it have a mass of protestors who apparently support those demands?

Post edited at 11:54
Report
MeMeMe 11 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

I think I understand your position as per my previous post, although I see you've repeated it once again.

My position is that I trust a panel of experts and an informed cross section of society to make binding recommendations on how to get out of this environmental crisis more than I trust the current process (or rather than lack of any coherent process which is the current default) and that I think it's important that a plan is created and followed sooner rather than later because we've already dug ourselves a deep hole and we're currently continuing to dig.

Post edited at 12:26
Report
off-duty 11 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

> I think I understand your position as per my previous post, although I see you've repeated it once again.

> My position is that I trust a panel of experts and an informed cross section of society to make binding recommendations on how to get out of this environmental crisis more than I trust the current process (or rather than lack of any coherent process which is the current default) and that I think it's important that a plan is created and followed sooner rather than later because we've already dug ourselves a deep hole and we've currently continuing to dig.

I repeated it for clarity, as I wasn't sure what your position was and wanted to make mine explicit to ask about yours.

Thanks for explaining your position - as you've explained it it is effectively XR-lite.

You kindof agree with the principle of 2 of their demands (declaration of emergency, and some sort of CA) but not the 2025 deadline.  

Report
jkarran 11 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> Either we have a protest trying to overthrow the government as a core goal, or we have protestors who don't fully understand the basis of XR. I'd prefer "naïve" to "dupe" - but I certainly haven't seen any examples of ordinary protestors raising regime change and citizens assemblies when interviewed. And I have seen numerous examples of protestors and supporters giving various versions of "climate issues".

Genuine question: When did you last attend a protest of more than 10 people where everyone present agreed, they wanted exactly the same thing done exactly the same way? Whose protest is it anyway, the protesters' or the organisers'?

I don't see how we achieve more assertive action on climate without regime change. I presume you've not missed the fact our government currently consists almost entirely of bellends obsessed with reducing our international cooperation and commitments so they can deregulate. I am extrapolating a little but I don't suppose there's 2% support in that ER crowd for this so called government. Your argument they'd be aghast to learn their presence and sacrifice was being used to push for 'regime change' rings quite hollow.

jk

Report
jkarran 11 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> The remit of the citizens assembly is essentially everything. I've not seen any of the other citizens assemblies that tackle issues that have such large scope in combination with such power.

What power? Citizens' assemblies where they have been used haven't replaced conventional legislatures, they have informed them, empowered them to make delicate decisions that are both effective and tolerable around emotive and divisive issues.

In the context of climate change a citizen's assembly would exist to answer the question 'how can we move on this as fast as reasonably possible'. It is a big question and the answer could of course come back: under David Attenborough's blood soaked iron fist. The legislature would then be free to reject (or accept!) that suggestion. In practice of course they tend to produce informed compromise suggestions.

jk

Post edited at 12:47
Report
off-duty 11 Oct 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Genuine question: When did you last attend a protest of more than 10 people where everyone present agreed, they wanted exactly the same thing done exactly the same way? Whose protest is it anyway, the protesters' or the organisers'?

That's a reasonable point. If the protest does result in the government "sitting down" with anyone - then it's XR they'll be sitting down with though.

> I don't see how we achieve more assertive action on climate without regime change. I presume you've not missed the fact our government currently consists almost entirely of bellends obsessed with reducing our international cooperation and commitments so they can deregulate. I am extrapolating a little but I don't suppose there's 2% support in that ER crowd for this so called government. Your argument they'd be aghast to learn their presence and sacrifice was being used to push for 'regime change' rings quite hollow.

> jk

Again, that's a reasonable opinion to have. And I am well aware of the fact that currently our politicians are spiralling around ineffectually in a self regarding way centred on Brexit and not a lot else.

I have no doubt that few, if any of the crowd have any support for the government. 

What's not clear is how many in the crowd want concrete governmental action - road plans, more radical changes etc, and how many want the creation of a CA with a remit that covers pretty much everything.  Which is different from a change of government or greater government action on climate change.

It does seem to be an almagamation of people from anti-capitalists, hardcore eco-activist and regular people, and all will have different agendas.

Some of those people are clearly a lot more aware of what XR is all about than others.

Report
Harry Jarvis 11 Oct 2019
In reply to off-duty:

> It does seem to be an almagamation of people from anti-capitalists, hardcore eco-activist and regular people, and all will have different agendas.

Well knock me down with a feather! Who would have thought, a protest with lots of different points of view! 

For reference, I recall CND marches in the 80s populated by a very ragtag collection of mainstream anti war protesters, pro-Soviet communists, all shades of left and centre, well-meaning liberals, Spartacists, tankies, anarchists and anyone else who fancied a bit of stroll through London, and those who fancied a bit of a barney with the police. 

The idea that a mass protest represents a homogenous group with 100% alignment of aims is sheer naive idiocy. 

Report
off-duty 11 Oct 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Well knock me down with a feather! Who would have thought, a protest with lots of different points of view! 

> For reference, I recall CND marches in the 80s populated by a very ragtag collection of mainstream anti war protesters, pro-Soviet communists, all shades of left and centre, well-meaning liberals, Spartacists, tankies, anarchists and anyone else who fancied a bit of stroll through London, and those who fancied a bit of a barney with the police. 

> The idea that a mass protest represents a homogenous group with 100% alignment of aims is sheer naive idiocy. 

That's fine. Marching under a banner whose aims you don't understand is great, pointing out that you might not actually realise that the cause you are getting arrested for is not "action on climate change" but is the creation of a citizens assembly with far reaching power to achieve a pretty much unattainable goal is "sheer naive idiocy".

Report
Eric9Points 11 Oct 2019
In reply to MeMeMe:

What if this assembly decides that it wants to keep personal transport, keep eating meat, and not build any more of those horrible wind turbine things? What happens then?

Or is this cross section of society going to be confined to the cross section that agrees with XR's ideology?

Report
elsewhere 11 Oct 2019
In reply to summo:

> Are you 100% sure you've not bought anything from a Chinese state owned company that none of your tax is paying towards any form of loan interest or bond dividend that China has given the UK?

I'm fully aware I'm not isolated from the world economy but I hope my taxes do not finance UK military training to help China plant landmines & IEDs as the Khmer Rouge were trained.

Report
jkarran 11 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> What if this assembly decides that it wants to keep personal transport, keep eating meat, and not build any more of those horrible wind turbine things? What happens then?

Then so be it, that provides the government with the constraints it must work within in order to deliver on the commitments it has already made. In those circumstances an informed and responsible regime would likely focus more attention and resources on shifting public opinion and easing the necessary transitions to increase public support before asking again. Repeat.

> Or is this cross section of society going to be confined to the cross section that agrees with XR's ideology?

What would be the point in that? The point is for the government to work out what is the maximum that is politically possible and how. Delusion or confusion about that when it comes to deciding and implementing policy gets neither lobbyist or government anywhere.

jk

Post edited at 13:34
Report
Eric9Points 11 Oct 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Then so be it, that provides the government with the constraints it must work within in order to deliver on the commitments it has already made. In those circumstances an informed and responsible regime would likely focus more attention and resources on shifting public opinion and easing the necessary transitions to increase public support before asking again. Repeat.

> jk

It has committed to the Paris agreement of carbon neutrality by 2050. If a citizens assembly couldn't come up with a coherent position on climate change why would Parliament then try to change their minds?

I think you need to think this through a bit more.

Personally I like the idea of an assembly comprising of a cross section of people elected by roughly equal segments of the UK population legislating to fight climate change after being advised by a panel of experts. We already have that structure in place.

Report
MeMeMe 11 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> What if this assembly decides that it wants to keep personal transport, keep eating meat, and not build any more of those horrible wind turbine things? What happens then?

Then we're probably screwed but in a democracy changes need the buy-in of the majority of the population (which these people represent) so unless you want some kind of dictatorship then it's got to be done via some kind of democratic process.

When it comes down to it people seek to look after their own interests and ignoring the climate crisis and carrying on as usual is not in the interest of the general population and I think the recommendations would reflect that.

> Or is this cross section of society going to be confined to the cross section that agrees with XR's ideology?

It's a random selection from the population with quotas to make sure it accurately reflects the demographic of the population. If you're interested you could read this - https://rebellion.earth/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/The-Extinction-Rebellion-Guide-to-Citizens-Assemblies-Version-1.1-25-June-2019.pdf

Report
jkarran 11 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> It has committed to the Paris agreement of carbon neutrality by 2050. If a citizens assembly couldn't come up with a coherent position on climate change why would Parliament then try to change their minds?

If that's where we are then that tells the government what it needs to work on to deliver positive change. Or of course as is more likely because we're likely incapable as a species of surviving our technology, where it can head in search of populist votes.

> I think you need to think this through a bit more.

Think about what? A citizens assembly achieves in months what a poorly informed but opinion rich electorate, a reasonably informed and opinion rich legislature and a well informed civil service would take decades to settle on. It allows governments to shift faster on policy between elections without delegitimising themselves, it reduces the risk inherent in governments falling behind or leading too far ahead of their electorate by keeping their policies directly informed by them.

Committing isn't delivering and the 2050 goal isn't the end of the process. If we hit it there is a ton more work to do. If we miss it, there's more. Deciding how we do that work, what we will stand, at what rate, that is necessary. Waiting 5 years between us giving government direction indications that are always mixed up with other issues, that's too slow, we need to enable faster change somehow.

> Personally I like the idea of an assembly comprising of a cross section of people elected by roughly equal segments of the UK population legislating to fight climate change after being advised by a panel of experts. We already have that structure in place.

That's working well isn't it.

jk

Post edited at 13:59
Report
MeMeMe 11 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Personally I like the idea of an assembly comprising of a cross section of people elected by roughly equal segments of the UK population legislating to fight climate change after being advised by a panel of experts. We already have that structure in place.

I think the CA proposal has a few of important differences to the one you are thinking of.

Firstly, you use the word 'elected' but people in a CA are randomly chosen. It's an important difference because the process of being elected means you have to make all sorts of promises and end up with all sorts of obligations to all sorts of groups which might cloud your judgement or put pressure on your decisions.

Randomly selected people don't to get elected and so don't have these pressures.

They also only have to represent themselves and people like themselves, which is much easier than trying to represent the diversity of people and lobbies that elected you in our current assembly.

Secondly, in no way does our current assembly represent a cross section of society. I mean just look at it.

Thirdly, the CA is specifically on climate and ecological justice. There is a massive benefit to focusing on a single topic (albeit a wide reaching one) because there is an opportunity to concentrate on being educated on that single topic and therefore make better informed decisions. Just look at our current system where one week a member of the assembly might be making decisions about farming, the next about prisons or education, whilst simultaneously representing their constituents on a whole other set of random issues.

Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.