# Plane Stupid shut down Stansted Airport



## free spirit (Dec 8, 2008)

link



> In October controversial plans for an expansion of Stansted Airport were given the go-ahead by the government. Airport owner BAA wants to increase passenger numbers from 25 million to 35 million a year and flights leaving the airport from 241,000 to 264,000 a year.



I'm sure people will be along shortly to give the protestors shit for causing innocent passengers problems, but IMO they should really be directing their anger at the government for approving a plan to expand the airport that goes 100% against the governments recently restated policy of reducing UK carbon emissions.

Once the new runway is built it's never going to be unbuilt, so it will in effect entrench an additional increase in the UK's carbon emmissions that will then eventually have to be offset by other areas of the economy / huoseholders / car drivers etc. if we're to hope to meet our targets.

If the government was capable of having any kind of joined up policy on transport and climate change (like they claimed to have when we first elected them), then this action would not have been necessary.

as it is, direct action such as this must be seen as being a legitimate tactic in delaying the start of any building programme until the government performs it's (hopefully) inevitable u-turn on the issue.

It's a shame anyone has to have their lives disrupted, but unfortunately that's what happens when the government's in the pocket of the industry lobbyests, and makes completely illogical decisions that blow massive holes through the UK's Carbon reduction aims.

Full respect to all the protestors, hopefully this will be a part of the beginning of the end of such stupid unsutainable policiy decisions.



> protesters had brought concrete blocks and 6ft-high security fencing with them and erected a "stockade" about 50m (164 ft) from the runway. They then chained themselves to the fencing. One of the activists taking part, Lily Kember, 21, said they had forced their way in using bolt-cutters while the runway was closed for overnight maintenance work.
> She said: "There's 54 of us currently occupying a space on the taxi way about 50m from the runway.
> "It's a bit cold, but everyone is in good spirits."
> 
> "We're here because our parents' generation has failed us and it's now down to young people to stop climate change by whatever peaceful means we have left. "We're afraid of what the police might do to us, we're afraid of going to jail but nothing scares us as much as the threat of runaway climate change."


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2008)

Good for them.


----------



## AverageJoe (Dec 8, 2008)

Most pointelss protest ever. They were saying that for every minute the planes were on the ground they were stopping 4.2 million tonnes of Carbon Emissions from happening.

So what did they do - kept the planes in the air for 4 hours. 

*pulls 'hhhnnnnnggg' face*

The protestors should all be charged with attempted manslaughter. Manslaughter cos of the non-deliberate actions that endangered people lives whilst they were in the air with dwindling fuel supplies, and attempted cos no-one actually crashed.

And as for global warming etc etc....cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cowzzzzzzzzzzzz.........


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm sure most of the protesters drove to the area as well, instead of using organic bicycles or something.

I hope that the protesters have to pay the delay compensation the airlines are now liable for, to every passenger that was affected.  Trying to make some kind of point whilst screwing up part of possibly the only holiday some families are going to get this year (or next) is really worth getting arrested for, I'm sure.

The point made?  The group's name is well deserved.  I'm sure it's a requirement of membership.  

I'm all for global warming.  It was bloody cold this morning.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

If the protesters could single out frequent flyers and business class, then fair play. But they can't.  Some of the people disrupted will be folk who have saved up for ages, and who don't get many holidays.  I'd be furious if it had been me on one of the less-than-a-handful of occasions I'd flown.

Yes, I'm more angry at the government, but frankly so should the protesters be.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

So there were 54 protesters.  I'm sure they could have found more than 54 angry passengers who were delayed, given them all a baseball bat each, left an appropriate door open, and the police could have all gone for a tea break for 15 minutes.

Problem solved.  Direct action, I believe it's called...


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

So you think it is OK for business to waste all the resources that the general public are trying so hard to save and make more money on them, companies leaving lights on in their premises all night when they are shut, office blocks in london beaming out light from every unoccupied office, airlines flying planes almost empty to destinations because they don't want to lose that flight franchise.

people with older cars getting taxed more than people with newer cars that are less efficient than my fucking RS4, having to pay a fucking congestion charge when supposedly fuel efficient cars get off for nowt but they have to be new but less fuel efficient than a 10 year old escort.

It's a fucking scam.

We as the public pay in increased bills for this extravagance,


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> If the protesters could single out frequent flyers and business class, then fair play. But they can't.  Some of the people disrupted will be folk who have saved up for ages, and who don't get many holidays.  I'd be furious if it had been me on one of the less-than-a-handful of occasions I'd flown.
> 
> Yes, I'm more angry at the government, but frankly so should the protesters be.



What other form of action would you suggest, then?


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

We don't fucking need any more bastard runways.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> So you think it is OK for business to waste all the resources that the general public are trying so hard to save and make more money on them


No, I don't.

Neither do I think it's right that the majority of the responsibility for energy saving and carbon targets is placed on individuals.  Energy use in the UK is 70% business, 30% household.  For that 30% to be expected to make all the savings is stupid and impossible. Yes, households can play a part, not least since it saves money, but business is not shouldering responsibility.  As usual.

That's the real story.

So, I'm afraid I don't warm to self-righteous puritans who misdirect their energy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> We don't fucking need any more bastard runways.


Correct.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> What other form of action would you suggest, then?


Target the right people.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> We don't fucking need any more bastard runways.



Why not?  If there's not enough airport capacity, all you can do is expand them or build new airports.

Why do people insist on regressing us back to the middle ages technologically?


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why not?  If there's not enough airport capacity, all you can do is expand them or build new airports.
> 
> Why do people insist on regressing us back to the middle ages technologically?



you are a fool.

Individuals are hit with ever increasing energy and fuel costs, the oil is now in decline, do you get it yet.

And these wastrel cunts want to burn more of it up by sending fucking empty planes across the Atlantic, for a government subsidy of course.

I fly a lot for my work and the amount of quarter full planes I have been on is astonishing.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Target the right people.



IIRC, you mentioned that energy use in this country is 70% business and 30%household. You also mentioned that business isn't shouldering its share of the responsibility.

Well, business isn't GOING to shoulder its share of the responsibility unless it is forced to, not while there's a profit to be made from ignoring it or merely paying lip service to it. And, as governments of all stripes in this country are and would be conspicuous in their lack of willingness to force business to do that, that leaves your idea rather up the creek without a paddle, doesn't it?

Seeing as governments aren't going to force business to alter its conduct on climate change, that leaves protest, and effective direct action in particular, as the only option. I'm not saying that Plane Stupid have all the answers or that they're right 100% of the time, but the fact remains that their work is having an effect and that they are one of the more successful and high profile campaigning groups out there.

If you don't like what they're doing or how they're doing it, go out and set up something yourself and try things your way. The more the merrier.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> Well, business isn't GOING to shoulder its share of the responsibility unless it is forced to,


Correct.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> And these wastrel cunts want to burn more of it up by sending fucking empty planes across the Atlantic, for a government subsidy of course.
> 
> I fly a lot for my work and the amount of quarter full planes I have been on is astonishing.



... then reduce ticket prices to encourage people to fill up the empty seats.  Good business sense, happy passengers, all win.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> I'm not saying that Plane Stupid have all the answers or that they're right 100% of the time, but the fact remains that their work is having an effect and that they are one of the more successful and high profile campaigning groups out there.



Disrupt flights for a couple of hours, get themselves arrested for criminal damage and trespass (at least) and piss off hundreds of people who have been looking forward to a well deserved holiday for months.

If that's success, they aren't aiming very high are they?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 8, 2008)

They probably would have been better off targetting the airline companies or government buildings rather than an airport. There is not point in pissing of people who as it has been mentioned might be on a very rare flight in an otherwise low carbon lifestyle.

Building a load of new Nuclear Powerplants would have more effect, but of course irrationaly overeactions about the fear of radiation prevent that green alternative from happening.


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ... then reduce ticket prices to encourage people to fill up the empty seats.  Good business sense, happy passengers, all win.



you really are stupid, they already do that thicko and STILL can't fill half the planes.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

moon23 said:


> They probably would have been better off targetting the airline companies or government buildings rather than an airport. There is not point in pissing of people who as it has been mentioned might be on a very rare flight in an otherwise low carbon lifestyle.


Exactly.


----------



## derf (Dec 8, 2008)

I agree that climate change is a problem and that governments and the people need to do something about it today.
Closing an airport will really hurt the cause. The bad publicity will take ages to repair and just hurt the very thing they are trying get going.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> you really are stupid, they already do that thicko and STILL can't fill half the planes.



They don't reduce them enough then, do they.

Try not to get personal, it doesn't help people take you seriously.


----------



## ymu (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ... then reduce ticket prices to encourage people to fill up the empty seats.  Good business sense, happy passengers, all win.


You are remarkably stupid.


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

The PEOPLE are thicko derf, we are being charged for the waste in business but the GOVERNMENTS are not, they are allowing big business to scandalously waste energy and allow that wastage to be paid for by the PEOPLE with increased energy bills.

Big Business are laughing their heads off and carry on wasting and pay their vastly reduced business rates for energy.


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> They don't reduce them enough then, do they.
> 
> Try not to get personal, it doesn't help people take you seriously.



can't help when I'm talking to thickos' and there are a few out this morning.


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> They don't reduce them enough then, do they.
> 
> Try not to get personal, it doesn't help people take you seriously.



so USA for a tenner isn't cheap enough, thicko!


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> The PEOPLE are thicko derf, we are being charged for the waste in business but the GOVERNMENTS are not, they are allowing big business to scandalously waste energy and allow that wastage to be paid for by the PEOPLE with increased energy bills.
> 
> Big Business are laughing their heads off and carry on wasting and pay their vastly reduced business rates for energy.


But self-righteous puritans disrupting the rare holiday of a low-paid worker doesn't tackle that at all.  It just shows them up as lifestylers without a clear analysis of the situation.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> so USA for a tenner isn't cheap enough, thicko!



Who does flights to the US for a tenner?  I'd have one of those any day.


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Who does flights to the US for a tenner?  I'd have one of those any day.



I have seen them alongside flights to Spain, Germany and all manner of places for under £20, I flew to Prague for £22 return.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> I flew to Prague for £22 return.


Did you chain yourself to yourself and shout slogans?


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

There's a big difference to "cheap flights to anywhere" and "cheap flights to places I actually want to go to".

Often of course you end up adding more than the cost of the flight in taxes and stuff, so if anyone could actually fly to the US for a tenner all in I'd be very surprised.


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Did you chain yourself to yourself and shout slogans?



why would I want to do that?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Often of course you end up adding more than the cost of the flight in taxes and stuff, so if anyone could actually fly to the US for a tenner all in I'd be very surprised.


A couple of years ago, I flew to Italy for £26 each (me, the missus, two kids).  I'm glad we did.  It was a great holiday, and it would have cost us hundreds of pounds by train, which there's no way we could have afforded.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> why would I want to do that?


Well, you seemed to support the protesters earlier in the thread.


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, you seemed to support the protesters earlier in the thread.



As I have said already, we don't need any more  runways, how does that equate to "we don't need to fly at all"?

have less planes flying to a destination per week and fill them up, you do not need a new runway to do that, maybe less as there would be less planes flying.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

So removing choice and convenience is the way to improve things?  

It doesn't really work that way.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> As I have said already, we don't need any more  runways, how does that equate to "we don't need to fly at all"?
> 
> have less planes flying to a destination per week and fill them up, you do not need a new runway to do that, maybe less as there would be less planes flying.


My point is that Plane Stupid's approach is indiscriminate and doesn't target the heart of the issue.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Dec 8, 2008)

Plane takes off - eventually


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> So removing choice and convenience is the way to improve things?
> 
> It doesn't really work that way.



No it doesn't and our energy bills are going through the roof because of it.

Businesses pay a reduced "business rate" to the energy companies.

Airlines don't pay tax on aviation fuel, it is as cheap as chips.


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> My point is that Plane Stupid's approach is indiscriminate and doesn't target the heart of the issue.



To me it does, it is as simple as.

WE DON"T NEED ANYMORE FUCKING RUNWAYS, fill the existing flights up, reduce the amount of empty planes flying to destinations.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> To me it does, it is as simple as.
> 
> WE DON"T NEED ANYMORE FUCKING RUNWAYS, fill the existing flights up, reduce the amount of empty planes flying to destinations.


Shouting doesn't explain it any more clearly.  I agree that we don't need any more runways.  What I don't agree with is indiscriminately disrupting individual's travel, including the rare holidays of low paid workers who aren't the problem.

If you think that's just their hard luck, why then should your trip to Prague be exempt?


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

But why should planes be different than any other transport?

Should a train wait at the station till all the seats are full before moving away?

Should you have to round up 3 people that want to travel with you before you can drive your car?

It's all about supply and demand, which changes seasonally.  You can't "fly off peak" to reduce demand like you can in other forms of transport, not as many people go to ski resorts when there's no snow do they?


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> If you think that's just their hard luck, why then should your trip to Prague be exempt?




How was my trip to Prague exempt?

Maybe because I flew from an Airport that isn't taking the piss by trying to build more fucking runways that are not needed.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

Why is Stansted exempt from needing to expand?  It's much easier than expanding Heathrow or Gatwick, or building a new airport from nothing.

Why are you personally so against Stansted expansion, since you clearly aren't against airports or flying totally?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> But why should planes be different than any other transport?


To whom is that addressed? 

The problem is that travel as a whole needs to become more fuel efficient.  And for some journeys, actually, flight might be the most efficient option.

However, what we don't need is thoughtless expansion off the back of growth-targeted subsidy.


----------



## newbie (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> A couple of years ago, I flew to Italy for £26 each (me, the missus, two kids).  I'm glad we did.  It was a great holiday, and it would have cost us hundreds of pounds by train, which there's no way we could have afforded.



I've found in the past that it's cheaper to fly from Stansted to Italy than to get from Brixton to Stansted by tube/train.  That's a profitable commercial airline compared with a very heavily subsidised rail fare.  Baffling.



It would be interesting to know what proportion of Ryan passengers are doing regular business trips and regular trips to/from homes abroad.  Compared with the low carbon lifestyle, saved up for ages, trip of a lifetime individuals flying first thing on a monday morning in December.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> How was my trip to Prague exempt?


Because you didn't want to protest at yourself.

Are you arguing that only flights from airports planning new runways are an environmental issue?  If so, you're wrong.


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> But why should planes be different than any other transport?



because they run them fucking empty to keep that franchise.

When was the last time you were on a fucking train, the last time I was I had to sit in the corridor because it was over filled.

cost me £200 quid return as well, I was asked to leave one of the six first class carriages which were mostly empty.

they are a bunch of greedy wankers as well.


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Because you didn't want to protest at yourself.
> 
> Are you arguing that only flights from airports planning new runways are an environmental issue?  If so, you're wrong.



what the fuck are you on about, you really are not making any sense.....

I am against new runways at all airports as they are not needed.

That does not mean I am against getting on a plane to fly somewhere.


utilise empty planes, fuck off the rule that makes airlines have to fly to barcelona 3 times a day or whatever to keep that route etc.


Tax aviation fuel.


----------



## Dan U (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> cost me £200 quid return as well, I was asked to leave one of the six first class carriages which were mostly empty.



and herein lies part of the problem doesn't it.

imo there is no real reason for most of the internal UK flights. If i can get to Paris in just over 2 hours on a train why the fuck can i only get to Manchester in the same time at a not dissimilar cost.

and if i want to go before 10am it's often cheaper to fly!

crazy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

newbie said:


> I've found in the past that it's cheaper to fly from Stansted to Italy than to get from Brixton to Stansted by tube/train.  That's a profitable commercial airline compared with a very heavily subsidised rail fare.  Baffling.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what proportion of Ryan passengers are doing regular business trips and regular trips to/from homes abroad.  Compared with the low carbon lifestyle, saved up for ages, trip of a lifetime individuals flying first thing on a monday morning in December.


I flew Ryanair from Prestwick to Pisa.  It was (much) cheaper than a train ticket to my mother-in-law's in Staffordshire. 

I'll be visiting her later this month.  I'll drive, since that's cheaper and more convenient.  If we were really serious about climate change, it wouldn't be.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> what the fuck are you on about


I'm on about the protesters and their tactics.


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm on about the protesters and their tactics.



OK I sort of get you, I pity the people that have had their flights disrupted but that is not an uncommon thing at Airports is it, usually delays are the fault of the Airport itself, weather etc, so it is not uncommon to have to wait in Airports for hours on end, just because this time it is due to a valid protest does not make it any worse than fog for example, you are still holed up in a shithole Airport.

I don't see many people having a go at the weather in such disgust when their flight is delayed for 2 days.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> I don't see many people having a go at the weather in such disgust when their flight is delayed for 2 days.


Well, they'd be pissed off, but they wouldn't be pissed off at misguided lifestylers who apparently had no clear idea of where responsibility lay.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 8, 2008)

From what I have seen on the news and read Plane Stupid were not protesting specifically about plans for another runaway at Stanstead but aganist general climate change and CO2 emissions from the aviation industry.

Had it been solely to do with the plans for expansion at Stanstead I would have had more sympathy with them targeting the runway to shut it down but as it wasn't I agree with Danny that the focus of their protest was flawed and they have done themselves a diservice (sp?) by antagonising people who are occasional flyers going off on holiday who othertwise may sympathise with what they are trying to acheive.

Says the women who is flying from Stanstead next week


----------



## snadge (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, they'd be pissed off, but they wouldn't be pissed off at misguided lifestylers who apparently had no clear idea of where responsibility lay.



I think their responsibilities lie in the right place, we do not need new runways ( paid by the government ).

Ah just seen that it wasn't specifically about the runway expansion, just CO2 emissions and green issues about the operators.

In that case KILL THE UNWASHED SCUM.

TAX aviation fuel, maybe that would change the way operators fly empty planes just to keep their routes.


----------



## newbie (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I flew Ryanair from Prestwick to Pisa.  It was (much) cheaper than a train ticket to my mother-in-law's in Staffordshire.
> 
> I'll be visiting her later this month.  I'll drive, since that's cheaper and more convenient.  If we were really serious about climate change, it wouldn't be.



maybe... sfaics the only way to alter the equations is to change taxation and subsidies.  Rail is heavily subsidised, road fuel is heavily taxed, air is taxed  (though perhaps not enough) yet still rail is by far the most expensive. Changing the financial structure to manipulate us all onto the trains might be a positive environmental move but makes little or no financial sense.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

QueenOfGoths said:


> From what I have seen on the news and read Plane Stupid were not protesting specifically about plans for another runaway at Stanstead but aganist general climate change and CO2 emissions from the aviation industry.
> 
> Had it been solely to do with the plans for expansion at Stanstead I would have had more sympathy with them targeting the runway to shut it down but as it wasn't I agree with Danny that the focus of their protest was flawed and they have done themselves a diservice (sp?) by antagonising people who are occasional flyers going off on holiday who othertwise may sympathise with what they are trying to acheive.
> 
> Says the women who is flying from Stanstead next week


Quite.

Plane Stupid says on its website that the action is intended to draw attention to CO2 emissions from the aviation industry.  That's all well and good, but the way they've gone about it targets the wrong people.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> When was the last time you were on a fucking train, the last time I was I had to sit in the corridor because it was over filled.
> 
> cost me £200 quid return as well, I was asked to leave one of the six first class carriages which were mostly empty.



Saturday actually, I went to Brighton for the day, and there was plenty of room on the 09.22.

If the train is that overcrowded, I always sit in first class, and when the ticket guy comes round just say "there's nowhere else to sit" and there isn't really a lot they can do about it.  They don't need the aggro from everyone, it's easier to just let people stay, as long as they aren't blocking those with first class tickets from sitting down.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> I think their responsibilities lie in the right place, we do not need new runways ( paid by the government ).


I'm afraid that doesn't make sense.  Whose resposibilities are you talking about?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

newbie said:


> Changing the financial structure to manipulate us all onto the trains might be a positive environmental move but makes little or no financial sense.


Making public transport cheaper and more convenient would be of benefit to society.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 8, 2008)

FWIW, it's people like yourself snadge, who fly frequently, that keep more places up in the air. Commuter and business flights make up the bulk of planned scheduling, not holiday flights, so if there were less people like you there'd be less flights full stop, because not only do airlines loose slots, if they don't keep a regular timetable of flights, they loose the frequent flyers and corporate travel bookings that are their bread and butter.

So - you and your FF kin stop flying so much, all the airlines have to drop flights, they don't have to worry about loosing slots because there will be less all round, there won't be any perceived need for additional runways.

What I find interesting is how everyone would be about flying if there were a nationalised/publicly subsidised service like the trains - which essentially there is when you consider the fuel subsidy, and given that many flights are actually cheaper than trains. What makes flying so different that it isn't classified as 'public' transport?


----------



## Dan U (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Making public transport cheaper and more convenient would be of benefit to society.



hell yeah.

it's a no brainer to me really. 

i've got meetings coming up in Cheshire and North Wales and at the moment from a purely cost perspective it's looking like it will be cheaper to hire a car for the day and fill it with fuel.

which is just nuts.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> I don't see many people having a go at the weather in such disgust when their flight is delayed for 2 days.



Thst because the weather isnt delibarately targetting you.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> But self-righteous puritans disrupting the rare holiday of a low-paid worker doesn't tackle that at all.  It just shows them up as lifestylers without a clear analysis of the situation.



Spot on.


----------



## Badgers (Dec 8, 2008)

Train train train


----------



## Crispy (Dec 8, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> consider the fuel subsidy, and given that many flights are actually cheaper than trains. What makes flying so different that it isn't classified as 'public' transport?



Very good question.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

Perhaps the 'security' aspect is what makes it different?


----------



## Crispy (Dec 8, 2008)

'turn up and go' is pretty tricky with a plane
(although it seems the train companies would like to have less of this these days too )


----------



## newbie (Dec 8, 2008)

what makes it different is that it's never been provided by the state, unlike trains and buses.


what valso makes it different is the environmental consequences


----------



## Frampton (Dec 8, 2008)

Intriguing isn't it? How every age demonises its protesters (witness some of our own posts). It takes a few generations to transform protesters into heroes/heroines.

In their time the sufferagettes were slagged off as prostitutes and idiots. WW1 Conscientious Objectors were spat upon and handed white feathers in the streets. The small group of activists who kicked off the civil rights movement certainly did not have the support of the majority of US citizens.

Interesting to compare the Greek government's response to the police shooting of an activist with a not too dis-similar incident on the London tube. Solely because of Direct Action the Greek government really had to sit up and take notice. In Britain, following months of enquiry, a coroner rules that a jury verdict of "unlawful killing" will not be acceptable.

I don't want to romanticise Direct Action. Sometime it goes wrong. Lots of times it lacks imagination. But risk and an unknown outcome is part and parcel of the game.

Up the Rebels!


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

Frampton said:


> Intriguing isn't it? How every age demonises its protesters (witness some of our own posts). It takes a few generations to transform protesters into heroes/heroines.


These ones aren't, though.  They're missing the point, and targeting the wrong people.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 8, 2008)

newbie said:


> what makes it different is that it's never been provided by the state, unlike trains and buses.
> 
> 
> what valso makes it different is the environmental consequences



So that's the only difference? And are you saying that generating electricity or burning diesel doesn't have environmental consequences?

Also, rail and bus services both started out as private concerns


----------



## treelover (Dec 8, 2008)

I would love to be able to use trains more, travelling across the EU by train, can be incredibly expensive.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 8, 2008)

Trans EU train journeys, at least via the HSTs, should get easier, if not cheaper, from next year

http://www.railteam.co.uk/


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 8, 2008)

This idea that the likes of Plane Stupid are attacking "workers going on holiday" is simplistic at best. Most short haul cheap flights are booked by businesses. And the middle classes take several such flights a year not just a couple.

Still, lets not have facts get in the way of the rants of the phoney class warriors.

Those who will suffer the effects of climate change are a good deal poorer than just about anyone in this country.


----------



## Badgers (Dec 8, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Trans EU train journeys, at least via the HSTs, should get easier, if not cheaper, from next year
> 
> http://www.railteam.co.uk/



Bookmarked double quick


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

For those supporting this action...

_Anita Kelleher had been due to fly to the Irish Republic to attend her father's funeral, but her flight was cancelled. "His funeral is tonight, the Rosary is tonight. I've missed being at my dad's Rosary tonight and I'm heartbroken," she told the BBC. 


Nicola Hilda and a friend had been supposed to travel to Bremen in Germany for a day trip, but their flight was also cancelled.   "We've saved up for it for months and months and we're just thoroughly disappointed," she said. _

Just two stories on the BBC news page about it, out of the hundreds of people who have been disrupted.

I really hope you're pleased with yourselves, you sick bastards.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 8, 2008)

> And the middle classes take several such flights a year not just a couple.



Most of the people who use Stanstead for non-business purposes are C1C2Ds - the vast bulk of the w/c in fact - many of whom now take more than 1 main holiday per year, especially before having kids. So they are in fact attacking workers going on holiday.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

What does someones working status have to do with whether it's acceptable to disrupt them or not?

Why is a busy executive grabbing a couple of days to go away with his wife any less important than a street cleaner who can only afford one holiday a year, or any different to a pensioner who's saved up all year?


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> If the protesters could single out frequent flyers and business class, then fair play. But they can't.  Some of the people disrupted will be folk who have saved up for ages, and who don't get many holidays.  I'd be furious if it had been me on one of the less-than-a-handful of occasions I'd flown.
> 
> Yes, I'm more angry at the government, but frankly so should the protesters be.



I'd be pretty miffed if, I'd finally sorted out some miraculous childcare and arranged to go away for a few days, to be stopped.

I've only ever flown once ffs!


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This idea that the likes of Plane Stupid are attacking "workers going on holiday" is simplistic at best.


I said they were indiscriminate.  In my first post I said if they can target only frequent flyers and business class then fair enough.

But they can't.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What does someones working status have to do with whether it's acceptable to disrupt them or not?


It's about frequent flying, isn't it.  I've flown fewer times in my lifetime than Coldplay's Chris Martin has probably flown this week.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

Then protest the pilots, they fly every day...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 8, 2008)

There is a danger in fetishising flights.

Meat and dairy are responsible for more climate change emmissions than all global transport combined.

Go veg and we can probably all fly as much as we like, working class or not.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Then protest the pilots, they fly every day...


At whom is that gag directed?


----------



## elbows (Dec 8, 2008)

Trains are not going to get cheaper in future because they are already pretty full, therefore they dont really want a lot more people trying to use them.

Flight is kept cheap and is supported by governments in part because they want money from overseas, whether that be through business or tourism.

Eventually environmental and resource issues will make it necessary to reduce flights, and this will mostly be done by destroying demand - either flights will get more expensive, or we will all get poorer and most wont be able to afford to fly much anymore. In recent years the high oil price started this ball rolling, now we are in a different phase where the price of fuel is cheap again, but general economic woes will destroy demand. Airline consolidation, reduction of number of flights, looks rather likely.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

Fuel is not cheap, it's just less expensive than it was.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> OK I sort of get you, I pity the people that have had their flights disrupted but that is not an uncommon thing at Airports is it, usually delays are the fault of the Airport itself, weather etc, so it is not uncommon to have to wait in Airports for hours on end, just because this time it is due to a valid protest does not make it any worse than fog for example, you are still holed up in a shithole Airport.
> 
> I don't see many people having a go at the weather in such disgust when their flight is delayed for 2 days.



I'm surprised that it took so long - if all these eco-twats were handily chained together, then I can't inderstand why they didn't just hook them up to one of the aircraft tugs and drag them out of the way. Even if one of them was locked onto something solid, 5 minutes with an angle grinder would have sorted that.

I presume that they'll insist on being kept in an unheated cell to minimise their carbon footprint once they've been convicted.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 8, 2008)

A sufficiently well insulated cell should require no heating at all


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

Cobbles said:


> I presume that they'll insist on being kept in an unheated cell to minimise their carbon footprint once they've been convicted.



... without an unnecessary lightbulb either, and I guess they wouldn't want to have hot food, because cooking uses energy.

Give them a big tin of baked beans to share, and a wooden cocktail stick to eat them with, because they're biodegradeable.

54 troublemakers, locked in a small cell, all eating beans... lovely.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2008)

Christ, there are some trolling morons on this thread.

I'm not saying that the Plane Stupid action was perfect, because it wasn't and I'm troubled by folk with a genuine NEED (I empahsise the word 'need' here) to travel who were unable to. 

BUT.

This action has done something to raise the issue of climate change and has caused a considerable amount of media kerfuffle and thus some decent debate on the subject (aside from the abject trolling and general twattery from the likes of ajdown and cobbles, that is).

It was never going to halt runaway climate change in its tracks, nor was it intended to. What it was intended to do was raise the issue and provide a platform for debate and in that it has signally succeeded.

I'd like to see actions directed more at businesses rather than targetting travellers, but actions like this make headlines and headlines, like it or not, are important in raising an issue and forcing it, yes, forcing it, into the public eye.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2008)

Cobbles said:


> I'm surprised that it took so long - if all these eco-twats were handily chained together, then I can't inderstand why they didn't just hook them up to one of the aircraft tugs and drag them out of the way. Even if one of them was locked onto something solid, 5 minutes with an angle grinder would have sorted that.
> 
> I presume that they'll insist on being kept in an unheated cell to minimise their carbon footprint once they've been convicted.



Hey COTCH how you doing?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> Christ, there are some trolling morons on this thread.


Are there?  They should be ashamed.

Or did you just mean people with whom you don't agree?



> This action has done something to raise the issue of climate change


Because nobody, not Coldplay, not the BBC, not the Guardian, not the Archers, not characters in Corrie, not Bono, ever talks about climate change.



> I'd like to see actions directed more at businesses rather than targetting travellers, but actions like this make headlines


But targeting businesses wouldn't?


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Are there?  They should be ashamed.
> 
> Or did you just mean people with whom you don't agree?
> 
> ...



I didn't say that nobody talked about climate change, this is just another action in an ongoing campaign to raise the issue and keep it in the news, that's all. And its succeded in doing that.

And I don't think that targetting businesses would raise as much media attention as targetting airports, no, hence the need to do it.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

Keeping it in the news doesn't do anything, stopping families from going on a well deserved break doesn't do anything, except piss people off and turn them against the "cause" that is being protested.

That's where most protest groups fall over eventually - the disruption they cause doesn't win people to their side.  I haven't heard one word of support for it yet from anyone at the airport that have had their plans ruined.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> I didn't say that nobody talked about climate change, this is just another action in an ongoing campaign to raise the issue and keep it in the news, that's all. And its succeded in doing that.
> 
> And I don't think that targetting businesses would raise as much media attention as targetting airports, no, hence the need to do it.



No, targetting business with an actual set of business ideas that could help them save money and de-stress their staff simply wouldn't be as sexy or activist as creating disruption in people's lives would it?

Want to get businesses to fly less, show them how to do it and point out how much money it will save them - on the assumption that you can come up with such things. Boring, but infinitely more effective then getting yourself in the news and pissing people off your cause and being written off by viewers/readers the instant they hear 'climate' 'protest' and 'shut airport'.

Because that's a super-effective way to raise awareness about an issue.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> I didn't say that nobody talked about climate change, this is just another action in an ongoing campaign to raise the issue and keep it in the news, that's all. And its succeded in doing that.


What did people learn? 

- We've got confusion in this thread as to whether this was about a new runway or just CO2 in general.  

- There's no real clarity about where responsibility lies.

- Are all flights bad?  Even when more efficient than alternatives?

- Is flying the only issue as regards climate change?

- Is it the biggest?  (And, says who?)

- At whom is the protesters' ire directed?

- How do they want people to react?

And so on.



> And I don't think that targetting businesses would raise as much media attention as targetting airports, no, hence the need to do it.


Really?  You don't think the business community has any clout with the media?


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> No, targetting business with an actual set of business ideas that could help them save money and de-stress their staff simply wouldn't be as sexy or activist as creating disruption in people's lives would it?
> 
> Want to get businesses to fly less, show them how to do it and point out how much money it will save them - on the assumption that you can come up with such things. Boring, but infinitely more effective then getting yourself in the news and pissing people off your cause and being written off by viewers/readers the instant they hear 'climate' 'protest' and 'shut airport'.
> 
> Because that's a super-effective way to raise awareness about an issue.




If you want to go down the long, tiring and usually fruitless route of appealing to their better nature then you do that. Set up your own group and lobby on those grounds. Like I said earlier, the more the merrier and we climate change activists need all the support we can get.

But you'll almost certainly find both big business and government showing a united front and stonewalling you while paying lip service to your ideas with a few crumbs occasionally thrown down from the corporate table, IMHO.

Besides, repeated and frequent disruption of their business by the actions I support will be as effective, if not vastly more effective, as any results 'respectable' lobbying will get you. Big business exists for one reason and one reason only, to make money. Unless it is forced, yes, forced, to put people and planet before the almighty dollar then it will simply carry on going as it has before. So, you set up your lobby group and work out your business plan and see how far you get with it, and we'll go on hitting them in the only place big business cares about and where it really hurts them, in their pockets. Government could do this. They could pass new laws and write up new business regulations to do this. But they won't. And they won't because they're two peas in the same pod.

So, you do the 'respectable' side of things and we'll do our work as well and see if we can't use both approaches in tandem to get the job done.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> I didn't say that nobody talked about climate change, this is just another action in an ongoing campaign to raise the issue and keep it in the news, that's all. And its succeded in doing that.



No, all it's managed to do is reinforce the travelling public's perception that at least Plane Stupid is an appropriate name.

If they'd wanted to raise the profile of "global warming" then they'd have been better off organising a media-fest somewhere nice and jaunt-friendly like the Maldives or Bali.

Oh no - that's been done already, underlining the fact that climate change groupies are mainly interested in travelling to nice destinations so long as someone is footing the bill.

Still, at least Labour has armed the CPS with nice shiny anti-terrorism Legislation that can be used to ensure that the morons get locked away for a few years.


----------



## Who Nose (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Because nobody, not Coldplay, not the BBC, not the Guardian, not the Archers, not characters in Corrie, not Bono, ever talks about climate change.



Quite. Can someone tell me a bit about this 'climate change' as no-one mentioned it before. While being unltimately useless in practical terms at least this protest has informed me that this thing exists.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> What did people learn?
> 
> - We've got confusion in this thread as to whether this was about a new runway or just CO2 in general.
> 
> ...



Plane Stupid deal with the aviation side of things, there are various other groups that work around other issues within climate change.

And, FYI, other business arealmost certainly going to be targetted, if not by Plane Stupid then by other groups instead.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> And, FYI, other business arealmost certainly going to be targetted


Good.  FYI, I'm glad.


----------



## newbie (Dec 8, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> So that's the only difference? And are you saying that generating electricity or burning diesel doesn't have environmental consequences?


of course not but (unless I've misunderstood) air travel is a lot more damaging per passenger mile 


> Also, rail and bus services both started out as private concerns



and?   both have, in the past, been taken over by the state as essential services, and then both have been subsequently semi-privatised.

there's an issue about non-taxation of airfuel, but by and large airline shareholders don't make profits from state subsidies, unlike the owners of rail and bus companies.

if you disagree with my suggestion why not say what you think makes bus/train 'public transport' and air travel something different?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 8, 2008)

nicely done


----------



## mauvais (Dec 8, 2008)

IT'S a lot of paperwork to get permission from each and every member of The Working Class™ before embarking on these protests. The last time I tried to have an all inclusive, multi-faith and apolitical demo on a busy airport runway, I got almost everyone's written approval, with my message-free banners at the ready, when a Ms. Dean from Barnstaple rang to say she was going to Ibiza to get fucked up on E and I had to call it all off.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> No, I don't.
> 
> Neither do I think it's right that the majority of the responsibility for energy saving and carbon targets is placed on individuals.  Energy use in the UK is 70% business, 30% household.  For that 30% to be expected to make all the savings is stupid and impossible. Yes, households can play a part, not least since it saves money, but business is not shouldering responsibility.  As usual.
> 
> ...



so exactly how do you hit a customer facing business without affecting "customers " ?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I said they were indiscriminate.  In my first post I said if they can target only frequent flyers and business class then fair enough.
> 
> But they can't.



 luckily NO ONE  is sitting around waiting for little keyboard whingers like you and the other trolls in this thread to decide what is and  isn';t legitimate action - they're getting on and doing it, cos yime is running out  - you just spout hot air pal , and are very much part of the problem , never part of the solution . 

I rarely come on this site anymore cos of the amount of timewasters like you now on here - so I suppose you're acheiving something


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> Like I said earlier, the more the merrier and we climate change activists need all the support we can get.



So you're admitting that the subject of 'climate change' is not a popular issue?  What right do a group of wannabe 'activists' have to disrupt thousands of people's travel over a cause that most of the people affected actually don't care about, and certainly don't want to hear about it through your epic fail approach.

As I said earlier, 54 protesters v 54 affected passengers given an opportunity to solve the problem for themselves using 'direct action' whilst the police disappear for 15 minutes, the problem would have been solved in less than 10 minutes and everything could have got back up and running whilst buckets were found to scrape up the protesters.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

cantsin said:


> I rarely come on this site anymore cos of the amount of timewasters like you now on here - so I suppose you're acheiving something



I guess something good came out of the protest after all.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

cantsin said:


> luckily NO ONE  is sitting around waiting for little keyboard whingers like you and the other trolls in this thread to decide what is and  isn';t legitimate action - they're getting on and doing it, cos yime is running out  - you just spout hot air pal , and are very much part of the problem , never part of the solution .
> 
> I rarely come on this site anymore cos of the amount of timewasters like you now on here - so I suppose you're acheiving something


In short, I'm the enemy?

Well, if your side is the self-righteous puritans and lifestylers without a clear analysis of the situation, then yes, please do count me as the enemy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

cantsin said:


> so exactly how do you hit a customer facing business without affecting "customers " ?


Don't _target_ the customers.  Wrong _target_.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Don't _target_ the customers.  Wrong _target_.



Ah but remember people need to feel guilty about doing something that might bring them a little bit of pleasure, because the part time eco-warriors don't want to enjoy themselves on a nice foreign holiday nobody else should be allowed to.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Ah but remember people need to feel guilty about doing something that might bring them a little bit of pleasure, because the part time eco-warriors don't want to enjoy themselves on a nice foreign holiday nobody else should be allowed to.


You're the enemy, too, mate.  The hippies _and_ you.

So don't get complacent.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> So you're admitting that the subject of 'climate change' is not a popular issue?  What right do a group of wannabe 'activists' have to disrupt thousands of people's travel over a cause that most of the people affected actually don't care about, and certainly don't want to hear about it through your epic fail approach.
> 
> As I said earlier, 54 protesters v 54 affected passengers given an opportunity to solve the problem for themselves using 'direct action' whilst the police disappear for 15 minutes, the problem would have been solved in less than 10 minutes and everything could have got back up and running whilst buckets were found to scrape up the protesters.



Climate change is a major issue that, whether you personally like it or not, affects us all.

And the activists concerned, who are far from wannabe's and unlike you, actually get out from behind their keyboards and try to make a difference, have every right to pursue their chosen cause and course of action given the wilful and deliberate footdragging from the political and corporate interests who should be making vast efforts to resolve the issue themselves and not have to be forced into it.

It's the job of activists everywhere, in whatever cause they're engaged in, to push things along to the best of their ability. If that means giving corporate and political interests a bloody nose then so be it. Airport disruption isn't the only way to do it, but as a means of raising publicity it's a top notch idea and it's worked very well in this case. Other groups will almost certainly be going after other links in the aviation chain such as suppliers and supporting businesses, so it's not a one off stunt. It's part of a long running and concerted campaign.



danny la rouge said:


> self-righteous puritans and lifestylers without a clear analysis of the situation



In your opinion that's what they are. That doesn't necessarily make it a fact.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

How am I the enemy?  I have no problems with people flying, or flying myself either.  I only don't because I can't afford it, and there's nowhere in particular I feel like flying to.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> So you're admitting that the subject of 'climate change' is not a popular issue?  What right do a group of wannabe 'activists' have to disrupt thousands of people's travel over a cause that most of the people affected actually don't care about, and certainly don't want to hear about it through your epic fail approach.
> 
> As I said earlier, 54 protesters v 54 affected passengers given an opportunity to solve the problem for themselves using 'direct action' whilst the police disappear for 15 minutes, the problem would have been solved in less than 10 minutes and everything could have got back up and running whilst buckets were found to scrape up the protesters.



christ , " as I said earlier "...., yeah , and everyone ignored  it cos it WAS SO STUPID - how  do you want people to respond to that ??

( Tho , personally , I'm with the protesters all the way, and I'd LOVE  15 mins one on one with some of you mouthy keyboard clowns, but it ain't gonna happen , so I won't REPEATEDLY  spout on here about it , cos that would be really stoopid eh ) -


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> And the activists concerned, who are far from wannabe's and unlike you, actually get out from behind their keyboards and try to make a difference, have every right to pursue their chosen cause and course of action given the wilful and deliberate footdragging from the political and corporate interests who should be making vast efforts to resolve the issue themselves and not have to be forced into it.



Yet they can't come up with a way that is a) legal and b) doesn't inconvenience innocent people?

How do you know I'm not involved in any way against any causes?  How do you know I don't protest against anything?  How do you know that I don't go out and unite with others who feel the same about certain cause(s) on a regular basis?  You don't.

They're not activists, they're criminals.  Or at least they will be once they get a record for criminal damage, trespass and whatever else the law provides for dealing with these situations?


----------



## elbows (Dec 8, 2008)

Rather amusingly Ed Miliband has said that we need a modern equivalent of the suffragette movement to help with the fight against climate change:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/08/plane-stupid-stansted

Funny timing.

The process of ensuring that business goes green has begun. The government have given them a few incentives, and the commodity price rises we saw in recent years gave further incentive. Its not much, but it is a start.

Likewise the masses have been bombarded with the message about climate change, seen their energy and food bills rise, have their kids taught about this sort of thing in school. It hasnt achieved that much yet, but its a start.

If the economic crisis is not very deep and long, if oil production rates can be sustained, then there is a very real danger than humanity and its managers will not do enough in time. But as you can tell, I expect the economy & resource woes will play a huge role in forcing much swifter change than either government, business or the people would be likely to go for if left to their own devices. 

Sacrifice cometh, and it is not going to be an optional lifestyle choice. Under this scenario Im not sure how much Direct Action groups will be required. The masses could be more likely to mobilise against government and business due to much anger about their loss of standards of living, rather than climate change, they may back worms who promise to lead them back to the way things were.

If we get past that sort of thing, we could be looking at a scenario where people's lives suck, where the present economy is broken, and a low carbon economy will then start to look like a beacon of hope. People can then work towards the promise of a better future once more, and hope to regain some of what they have lost, but in new and sustainable ways. Whereas at present it seems like there is so much cynicism and relative luxury for many, that only the minority who place value on differnt things, or dont mind the required sacrifices, are engaging with the climate change agenda.

Economic climate change will move this debate on from the current quagmire, from the stale battle of the 'usual suspects' vs the mass of minds who want to carry on living their lives the same.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 8, 2008)

personally I'm all for an action that raises this issue, but I'm dubious as to it's effectiveness. I think we're already fucked and the only satisfaction to be gained from the coming bad wind will be the look of dumb stupidity on the faces of those who'll bleat 'why wasn't this prevented'

And I probably won't even get much satisfaction out of that cause I'll be too busy foraging for beans


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Yet they can't come up with a way that is a) legal and b) doesn't inconvenience innocent people?
> 
> How do you know I'm not involved in any way against any causes?  How do you know I don't protest against anything?  How do you know that I don't go out and unite with others who feel the same about certain cause(s) on a regular basis?  You don't.
> 
> They're not activists, they're criminals.  Or at least they will be once they get a record for criminal damage, trespass and whatever else the law provides for dealing with these situations?



So, you may or may not be an activist (which personally I doubt very much) and yet you don't seem to have the first clue about direct action, how it works, how it's planned and how it's carried out and why. You're also prepared to side with the State against (again, I doubt very much that you are really an activist) fellow activists and label them as 'criminals' simply because their methods don't coincide with your own (if indeed you have any experience as an activist, that is).

Interesting.

Come to think of it, and seeing as you're so happy to sneer and snipe at Plane Stupid and their chosen methods, perhaps you'd care to come up with alternatives that might have some slim or even tiny chance of actually working.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> And the activists concerned, who are far from wannabe's and unlike you, actually get out from behind their keyboards and try to make a difference, have every right to pursue their chosen cause and course of action given the wilful and deliberate footdragging from the political and corporate interests who should be making vast efforts to resolve the issue themselves and not have to be forced into it.



Thankfully, the state has every right to pursue them with the full vigour of the legal process so thankfully this pool of spotty adolescents will soon disappear.

If they wish to protest, then they should write to their MP or, heavens forfend, register to vote and engage in the democratic process - maybe not as that'd mean they'd have to pay Council Tax and actually make a contribution to society.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I'll be too busy foraging for beans



No need, aisle 3 next to the spaghetti hoops.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Yet they can't come up with a way that is a) legal and b) doesn't inconvenience innocent people?
> 
> How do you know I'm not involved in any way against any causes?  How do you know I don't protest against anything?  How do you know that I don't go out and unite with others who feel the same about certain cause(s) on a regular basis?  You don't.
> 
> They're not activists, they're criminals.  Or at least they will be once they get a record for criminal damage, trespass and whatever else the law provides for dealing with these situations?




damn you're right - and no other protest movement , anywhere, has been declared criminals by the state and gone on to serve any useful role in changing the way the course of history unfurls - time for a rethink , deffo


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> So, you may or may not be an activist (which personally I doubt very much)



Feel free to doubt.  You'd be wrong though.  No, I'm not going to share details here.



Bakunin said:


> Come to think of it, and seeing as you're so happy to sneer and snipe at Plane Stupid and their chosen methods, perhaps you'd care to come up with alternatives that might have some slim or even tiny chance of actually working.



Stop selling mushrooms at supermarkets in plastic shrinkwrapped trays, but use paper bags instead.  Less wasteful packaging means less landfill, and the bag is recyclable.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2008)

Cobbles said:


> Thankfully, the state has every right to pursue them with the full vigour of the legal process so thankfully this pool of spotty adolescents will soon disappear.
> 
> If they wish to protest, then they should write to their MP or, heavens forfend, register to vote and engage in the democratic process - maybe not as that'd mean they'd have to pay Council Tax and actually make a contribution to society.



I wouldn't count on us disappearing any time soon. We're in this for the long haul (no pun intended) and we're not going to be just packing up and going away until the job's done and dusted, thanks.

And if you'd actually read the thread properly, and had any inkling of knowledge about the issue, you'd know that the approach you suggest has long since been tried and is a proven failure.


----------



## elbows (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> No need, aisle 3 next to the spaghetti hoops.



I hope Im nowhere near people like you when your reality cheque finally bounces.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 8, 2008)

elbows said:


> I hope Im nowhere near people like you when your reality cheque finally bounces.



you won't be, he'll no doubt perish when the urban centres go vicious and disease ridden, or crushed in a food riot.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Feel free to doubt.  You'd be wrong though.  No, I'm not going to share details here.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop selling mushrooms at supermarkets in plastic shrinkwrapped trays, but use paper bags instead.  Less wasteful packaging means less landfill, and the bag is recyclable.



hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah -


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

Sixteen years in the Scouts taught me a few survival skills, and no doubt I'd last a lot longer than some round here whose only concern will be how to grow cannabis without electricity to power their hydroponics units.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> *Sixteen years in the Scouts* taught me a few survival skills, and no doubt I'd last a lot longer than some round here whose only concern will be how to grow cannabis without electricity to power their hydroponics units.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> I wouldn't count on us disappearing any time soon. We're in this for the long haul (no pun intended) and we're not going to be just packing up and going away until the job's done and dusted, thanks.
> 
> And if you'd actually read the thread properly, and had any inkling of knowledge about the issue, you'd know that the approach you suggest has long since been tried and is a proven failure.



Now let me see - what was it - 4,000 folk decided to have a wee march in London at the week-end - representing the huuuuuuuuuge breadth and depth of interest in the topic of "climate change".

Back in 2002, 400,000 marched in support of the Countryside Alliance so the maintenance of the right to hunt animals on horseack is clearly a lot more important.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 8, 2008)

to be honest, if i needed to fly back for a funeral, or if this was the first holiday i'd had in years, or one of the on,y times i'd been aborad, i would be extremely pissed off. 
i have no sympathy with these kinds of protests tbh, they just come across as utterly selfish twats trying to prove a point.

dont get me wrong, i sympathise with their aims, but i also think this type of action is completely counterproductive.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> In your opinion that's what they are. That doesn't necessarily make it a fact.


You're right. All of who disagree with you are trolls, and the only people doing anything are the liberal hippies.  Sorry, fearless protesters.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Sorry, fearless protesters.



_Activist Lily Kember, 21, a third-year anthropology student at Edinburgh University, said the group used bolt-cutters to get into a secure area around 55 yards (50m) from the runway.

Ms Kember, from London, said: "Being arrested is a *terrifying prospect*, but not nearly as terrifying as the threat of climate change."_

Not quite fearless then.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> You're right. All of who disagree with you are trolls, and the only people doing anything are the liberal hippies.  Sorry, fearless protesters.



I said there were some trolls on this thread, and was referring to the likes of ajdown and cobbles who haven't managed a meaningful contribution between them so far.

I did not say that everybody who disagreed with me was a troll and that the only people doing anything were the liberal hippies.

So don't put words in my mouth and make out that I've said things I haven't.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> to be honest, if i needed to fly back for a funeral, or if this was the first holiday i'd had in years, or one of the on,y times i'd been aborad, i would be extremely pissed off.
> i have no sympathy with these kinds of protests tbh, they just come across as utterly selfish twats trying to prove a point.
> 
> dont get me wrong, i sympathise with their aims, but i also think this type of action is completely counterproductive.


 
unbeleivable 

is this is a spoof post ? "utterly selfish " ???? lolol


----------



## elbows (Dec 8, 2008)

cantsin said:


> unbeleivable
> 
> is this is a spoof post ? "utterly selfish " ???? lolol



I find it interesting to compare those sorts of opinions on this thread, with a lot of people's attitudes towards the fuel price protests. Lots of people were disrupted by those, but many didnt seem to mind, because the prize was slightly cheaper petrol.

Oh its funny, especially as even the governments own carbon reduction targets clearly show we are in for far more radical disruption to our lives than anything Plane Stupid will be able to pull off.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> I said there were some trolls on this thread, and was referring to the likes of ajdown and cobbles who haven't managed a meaningful contribution between them so far.



Only because you disagree with what we're saying, that's all that makes it unmeaningful and trolling in your eyes.

At least this Lily Kember - who I've just found on Facebook, has ruined her future employment prospects by being identified as a 'spokesperson'.

I bet you she didn't travel from Edinburgh (where she lives, according to news reports) to university in London, by bicycle.  I'd love to have a look at her passport and see where she's been overseas for holidays for the last 5 years.  I bet more than one involved flying.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> Come to think of it, and seeing as you're so happy to sneer and snipe at Plane Stupid and their chosen methods, perhaps you'd care to come up with alternatives that might have some slim or even tiny chance of actually working.





ajdown said:


> Stop selling mushrooms at supermarkets in plastic shrinkwrapped trays, but use paper bags instead.  Less wasteful packaging means less landfill, and the bag is recyclable.




That's really gonna save the planet.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Only because you disagree with what we're saying, that's all that makes it unmeaningful and trolling in your eyes.
> 
> At least this Lily Kember - who I've just found on Facebook, has ruined her future employment prospects by being identified as a 'spokesperson'.
> 
> I bet you she didn't travel from Edinburgh (where she lives, according to news reports) to university in London, by bicycle.  I'd love to have a look at her passport and see where she's been overseas for holidays for the last 5 years.  I bet more than one involved flying.



You're a liar, ajdown, a liar. I've made it quite clear that I think you're trolling this thread and your posts would bear that out. Your suggestion that I'm only calling you a troll because you disagree with me is abject bullshit of the lowest order.

And as you're so interested in Lily Kember, why don't you ask her about those things?


----------



## Maggot (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I bet you she didn't travel from Edinburgh (where she lives, according to news reports) to university in London, by bicycle.  I'd love to have a look at her passport and see where she's been overseas for holidays for the last 5 years.  I bet more than one involved flying.


 There's a big difference between not wanting any new runways built, and being totally against flying altogether.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 8, 2008)

Maggot said:


> There's a big difference between not wanting any new runways built, and being totally against flying altogether.



I know - it's totally pointless trying to get to an eco-fest in Bali by hempen sandal power alone.


----------



## TomPaine (Dec 8, 2008)

> In my first post I said if they can target only frequent flyers and business class then fair enough.



Was thinking about the comment made above, and I'm not sure this would be a good idea either. I know plenty of small business owners who take flights (siometimes business class if they can afford it as you can wrote the Tax off). Punishing people like this who are just getting on and doing their thing seems wrong to me.
A small firm that hires a few people but needs to travel is in my opinion far less of a threat to the environment then China's industrial base.
Up until this year my missus and I where frequent fliers (should have got some points). We had little chocie as I was waiting for my visa to be processed and I couldn't move to the US until it came through, so we where forced for over a year to travel to see each other. Considering I only got to see her once every three months, I'd have been fucked off if had been me.
What with us being in a recession as well, we hardly want to me shooting ourselves in the foot.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 8, 2008)

TomPaine said:


> A small firm that hires a few people but needs to travel is in my opinion far less of a threat to the environment then China's industrial base.



Nice point - let's see some of these fearsome eco-warriors chain themselves to the controls of a Lignite fuelled power station in rural China.That'd thin their ranks gratifyingly.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Stop selling mushrooms at supermarkets in plastic shrinkwrapped trays, but use paper bags instead.  Less wasteful packaging means less landfill, and the bag is recyclable.



thank god, the world is saved


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> So don't put words in my mouth and make out that I've said things I haven't.


No, you're right.  I got you mixed up with catsin.  (Quoted below).  Apologies.

However, I wasn't saying you called the protesters liberal hippies; hat was all my work.  I'm calling them that.



cantsin said:


> luckily NO ONE  is sitting around waiting for little keyboard whingers like you and the other trolls in this thread to decide what is and  isn';t legitimate action - they're getting on and doing it, cos yime is running out  - you just spout hot air pal , and are very much part of the problem , never part of the solution .
> 
> I rarely come on this site anymore cos of the amount of timewasters like you now on here - so I suppose you're acheiving something





cantsin said:


> unbeleivable
> 
> is this is a spoof post ? "utterly selfish " ???? lolol


No, it's a serious post, and one I agree with.  What is your issue wth that view?


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> No, you're right.  I got you mixed up with catsin.  (Quoted below).  Apologies.
> 
> However, I wasn't saying you called the protesters liberal hippies; hat was all my work.  I'm calling them that.



Fair do's, no problem.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2008)

TomPaine said:


> Was thinking about the comment made above, and I'm not sure this would be a good idea either. I know plenty of small business owners who take flights (siometimes business class if they can afford it as you can wrote the Tax off). Punishing people like this who are just getting on and doing their thing seems wrong to me.
> A small firm that hires a few people but needs to travel is in my opinion far less of a threat to the environment then China's industrial base.
> Up until this year my missus and I where frequent fliers (should have got some points). We had little chocie as I was waiting for my visa to be processed and I couldn't move to the US until it came through, so we where forced for over a year to travel to see each other. Considering I only got to see her once every three months, I'd have been fucked off if had been me.
> What with us being in a recession as well, we hardly want to me shooting ourselves in the foot.



oh here we go , it's the  full house now , the muppet brigade in full throttle - IT AINT ABOUT YOU AND YOUR MISSUS AND SMALL BUSINESSes  AND 'WHAT IF SOMEONE WAS GETTING MARRIED'/ WHAT IF .....YOU WIFFLING POLTROONS, - it's juuuuuust a little bit bigger than that now. 

there MUST  be somewhere else for this lot surely ???


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 8, 2008)

cantsin said:


> oh here we go , it's the full house now , the muppet brigade in full throttle - IT AINT ABOUT YOU AND YOUR MISSUS AND SMALL BUSINESSes AND 'WHAT IF SOMEONE WAS GETTING MARRIED'/ WHAT IF .....YOU WIFFLING POLTROONS, - it's juuuuuust a little bit bigger than that now.
> 
> there MUST be somewhere else for this lot surely ???


 
Yes. He doesn't trigger his caps lock key through frothing stupidity. He can spell. He can punctuate, and he makes sense. Urban is the wrong place for him.


----------



## TomPaine (Dec 8, 2008)

cantsin> Did you actually read my post? It was in response to the following comment:



> In my first post I said if they can target only frequent flyers and business class then fair enough.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2008)

Maggot said:


> That's really gonna save the planet.



it's mind boggling ...where do this lot come from ?


----------



## TomPaine (Dec 8, 2008)

> it's mind boggling ...where do this lot come from ?



Bit rich coming from you considering you took my post out of context...


----------



## 1927 (Dec 8, 2008)

snadge said:


> As I have said already, we don't need any more  runways, how does that equate to "we don't need to fly at all"?
> 
> have less planes flying to a destination per week and fill them up, you do not need a new runway to do that, *maybe less as there would be less planes **flying*.




That logic doesnt quite work.

An airport that has 100 incoming flights a day needs a runway. Guess how many runways it needs if only one flight a day arrives!


----------



## 1927 (Dec 8, 2008)

Maggot said:


> There's a big difference between not wanting any new runways built, and being totally against flying altogether.



Maybe, but rather a hypocritical position dontya think.

"Its OK for me to fly away ojn my holidays, but dont all go getting the idea thats its Ok cos I'm gonna stop anymore runways being built"


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2008)

TomPaine said:


> Bit rich coming from you considering you took my post out of context...



Dear Tom 

After 10 pages of pure liberal twaddle from you re: those  poor, poor folks  on the BNP list last time, you gaily asked 'whats Redwatch' , and I realised I'd just  wasted another two hours of my pitiful life - so you talk mushroom packaging and letter writing campaigns with your pals, I'm off to see if there's a Corry repeat on or something


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 8, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> to be honest, if i needed to fly back for a funeral, or if this was the first holiday i'd had in years, or one of the on,y times i'd been aborad, i would be extremely pissed off.
> i have no sympathy with these kinds of protests tbh, they just come across as utterly selfish twats trying to prove a point.
> 
> dont get me wrong, i sympathise with their aims, but i also think this type of action is completely counterproductive.



Frog; I agree it's hard on the sort of people you're talking about but what do you suggest as an alternative? When the chips are down the govt. only listens to the business lobby on decisions like these. You're just whistling in the wind if you think anything else.


----------



## TomPaine (Dec 8, 2008)

> Dear Tom
> 
> After 10 pages of pure liberal twaddle from you re: those poor, poor folks on the BNP list last time,



No I actually pointed out that there was CHILDREN on the list and I thought that was out of order incase somebody did something stupid. I wasn't aware that kdis could choice their parents political ideologies anymroe then they could choose to be indoctrinated in some loads of religious crap their parents adhere to.
I suppose it was OK publishing the kids names though eh? I suppose they fucking deserve it if they get a brick through the window and get hurt....



> you gaily asked 'whats Redwatch' ,



Yes I wasn't familiar with the site as I don't generally go around looking at far right website dedicated to kicking the shit out of people.
These people are blatantly cunts, my point on the BNP threads was, is why haven't these groups been banned in the same way as a terrorist organisation would be?



> and I realised I'd just wasted another two hours of my pitiful life - so you talk mushroom packaging and letter writing campaigns with your pals, I'm off to see if there's a Corry repeat on or something



What the fuck are you on about, I was responding to one comment on here, which had nothing to do with letter writing campaigns, or mushrooms.
I see you couldn't respond to the post so you have decided to ignore it and quote something else from the thread, just like you took my original post out of context....


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> Frog; I agree it's hard on the sort of people you're talking about but what do you suggest as an alternative?


Target government & business.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2008)

(dble post)


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 8, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> Frog; I agree it's hard on the sort of people you're talking about but what do you suggest as an alternative? When the chips are down the govt. only listens to the business lobby on decisions like these. You're just whistling in the wind if you think anything else.



Target government and business, you are *guaranteed* to lose popular support through actions like this. targetting customers going to an airport is a lot different to shutting down a petrol station or a starbucks or occupying an office.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Target government & business.



( takes deep breath ) that was business they were targetting , all customer facing business have customers, who will often get inconvenienced , you know this , surely - 

just  like during the Anti apartheid struggle, some customers of barclays bank in this country may have been incovenienced when there were pickets outside , or during the poll tax protests , shoppers in the west end were inconveninced when it got torn to bits ( and indeed the punters in South Africa Airways on regents Street looked a bit inconvenienced when the bins were launched thru the windows ) . or during Wapping..... etc etc ad infinitum , throughout history ( does this really need pointing out ?? )


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> Target government and business, you are *guaranteed* to lose popular support through actions like this. targetting customers going to an airport is a lot different to shutting down a petrol station or a starbucks or occupying an office.



Ryan Air ,the airline with the most arrogant , greedy , stupid 'Climate Change Sceptic ' CEO imaginable  , was directly targetted and hit by this action- do you accept and understand this ? It's very , very simple stuff


----------



## HAL9000 (Dec 8, 2008)

What about addressing demand?

29 million passengers in 2007

Without addressing demand its just wasting everyone's time without achieving anything.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 8, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> Target government and business, you are *guaranteed* to lose popular support through actions like this. targetting customers going to an airport is a lot different to shutting down a petrol station or a starbucks or occupying an office.



They are targetting business Froggy, as cantsin's just pointed out. As for targetting government - chance would be a fine thing. You can't get near Westminster now and Blair ignored over 1 million marchers against the Iraq war in February 2003.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 8, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> When the chips are down the govt. only listens to the business lobby on decisions like these.



Wrong - it only actually listens to those who can be bothered to register to vote.

Wastrels who don't register don't count.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Target government & business.



Ryanair = business ? maybe ? just ?


----------



## scifisam (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I said they were indiscriminate.  In my first post I said if they can target only frequent flyers and business class then fair enough.
> 
> But they can't.



They weren't completely indiscriminate. They chose a Monday morning in term time to stage their protest - that's probably the closest you can get to targetting only the business trips and frequent flyers. 

Still, they will have made some other people miss out too, and they'll probably have been completely alienated from the protesters' cause now.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

cantsin said:


> ( takes deep breath ) that was business they were targetting


I tell you what, you could post in capitals, take deep breaths to patronise people, and call people trolls, but that doesn't disguise the fact that you are missing the point.

I've posted several times in this thread about this.  If the liberal hippies can hit just frequent flyers or business class passengers, then fine, I'd support them in disrupting flights.  But since they can't, they are only pissing off possible supporters.

If they want to hit BAA or Ryanair, they can do that without directly disrupting ordinary people.  Occupying offices, for example.

70% of energy use in the UK is the responsibility of industry/business.  The type of action taken today looks like it is blaming individuals for that.  It comes across as puritan zealots who want to impose a zero carbon lifestyle on everyone, in the way they see fit.  

The government acts as if it wants their targets to be met purely from the 30% of non business use.  That's impossible and stupid. But the kind of action taken today looks like it is also blaming individuals.  Bad people who fly in planes. 

It is frankly a class-blind analysis that sees this issue as one purely for individual responsibility.  Yes, as I've said, individuals do need to take responsibility for their own behaviour.  But we can Reduce Reuse Recycle until we're green in the face, but if the 70% carry on the way they are, the arithmetic won't stack up.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

cantsin said:


> Ryanair = business ? maybe ? just ?


Say you were targeting Lidl, would you do that by chucking food out of shoppers' trolleys?


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 8, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> Target government and business, you are *guaranteed* to lose popular support through actions like this. targetting customers going to an airport is a lot different to shutting down a petrol station or a starbucks or occupying an office.



They are targetting business Froggy, as cantsin's just pointed out. As for targetting government - chance would be a fine thing. You can't get near Westminster now and Blair ignored over 1 million marchers against the Iraq war
in February 2003.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> They are targetting business Froggy, as cantsin's just pointed out.


They are _directly_ targeting the business' customers, not all of whom will be frequent flyers.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 8, 2008)

Cobbles said:


> Wrong - it only actually listens to those who can be bothered to register to vote.
> 
> Wastrels who don't register don't count.



They only listen to voters in swing seats. If you're not Worcester Woman or Basildon Man, forget it.

Also, the government's got no way of knowing who out of 1 million marchers against the Iraq war was registered to vote.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I tell you what, you could post in capitals, take deep breaths to patronise people, and call people trolls, but that doesn't disguise the fact that you are missing the point.
> 
> I've posted several times in this thread about this.  If the liberal hippies can hit just frequent flyers or business class passengers, then fine, I'd support them in disrupting flights.  But since they can't, they are only pissing off possible supporters.
> 
> ...




"class blind " ????- this was an attack on Big Business , Ryan Airs business in particular - that's  fact  , but of course some consumers  get inconvenienced , but as argued above,  some consumers / big business customers will always get incovenienced in campaigns against big business - 

if the airline strikers came out , would that also be inconveniencing working class customers ? what about wapping , did that inconvenience w/c sun readers ?the miners strike ? etc etc


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> They are _directly_ targeting the business' customers, not all of whom will be frequent flyers.



True, but what do you suggest as an alternative?


----------



## where to (Dec 8, 2008)

i had a look at the Plain Stupid website to see if they had set out the objectives of their protest but the only one objective i found said that they were hoping to stop carbon dumping during the period of their protest.

are they completely oblivious to the bigger picture?


----------



## where to (Dec 8, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> True, but what do you suggest as an alternative?



they are doing more harm than good.

it doesn't matter if there is no better alternative because they are still doing more harm than good.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

cantsin said:


> "class blind " ????- this was an attack on Big Business , Ryan Airs business in particular


It was directed specifically at customers.  



> if the airline strikers came out , would that also be inconveniencing working class customers ? what about wapping , did that inconvenience w/c sun readers ?the miners strike ? etc etc


A strike is a different thing altogether.  First, working class solidarity is paramount, so no decent worker would scab.  Second, the inconvenience wasn't a by-product of this action, it was the _purpose_ of the action.  And third, it was targeted at flyers, thereby blaming the individuals and not the business.  And fourth, the stated aim was publicity, not the withdrawal of labour to further the interests of the workforce.




			
				Meltingpot said:
			
		

> True, but what do you suggest as an alternative?


I've given suggestions in the thread.  How about occupying or blockading offices?

Quick Google gives me these:

Ryanair
Corporate Head Office
Dublin Airport
Co Dublin
Ireland
+353 18121212 Head Office, Dublin, Eire; Fax: +353 18121213

RYANAIR UK LIMITED
SATELITE 3
LONDON STANSTED AIRPORT
STANSTED
ESSEX CM24 1RW
Company No. 01917579

Maps to BAA offices:
Link: http://tinyurl.com/5k376e


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I've given suggestions in the thread.  How about occupying or blockading offices?



Undemocratic. They should write a strongly worded letter to their MP's.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

where to said:


> i had a look at the Plain Stupid website to see if they had set out the objectives of their protest but the only one objective i found said that they were hoping to stop carbon dumping during the period of their protest.


The site says this:




			
				www.planestupid.com said:
			
		

> The group intends to maintain its blockade for as long as possible, preventing the release of thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

Foil_Counter said:


> Undemocratic. They should write a strongly worded letter to their MP's.




Or pass round a petition?


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Or pass round a petition?



Aye. You can do it online now too.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 8, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> They are targetting business Froggy, as cantsin's just pointed out. As for targetting government - chance would be a fine thing. You can't get near Westminster now and Blair ignored over 1 million marchers against the Iraq war
> in February 2003.



wrong. direct action does force change, look at the poll tax, 

my point is that if you are going to an airport to catch a plane, the chances are you will be going for a reason, most people who go to airports aren't ridiculously well off people who can afford to go on holiday whenever they like, whereas most other businesses are different from this. you may have got up ridiculously early to catch said plane, you will mostly likely be tired, stressed, nervous anyway and you won't take kindly to a bunch of people barricading the airport. 

i'm all for direct action when it works, but i can only see this annoying and inconveniencing the public, and allowing big business to paint the protesters in a similar light. other tactics need to be used. occupying offices - very effective. if you end up missing your flight because of these people you are hardly likely to be sympathetic to their cause or support future actions that they take, whereas if this happens DIRECTLY TARGETTING THE PEOPLE YOU ARE AIMING TO TARGET (ie not the customers,not the workers, but the bosses of these companies) - ie barricading/occupying offices, and the like, you are more likely to gain popular support than if thousands of people miss their holidays or potentially very important trips because of your publicity seeking actions


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 8, 2008)

cantsin said:


> Ryanair = business ? maybe ? just ?



Are you one of those chaps who protests against Shell by siphoning petrol from vehicles in supermarket car parks?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 8, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> They are targetting business Froggy, as cantsin's just pointed out. As for targetting government - chance would be a fine thing. You can't get near Westminster now and Blair ignored over 1 million marchers against the Iraq war
> in February 2003.



Whereas if their business is being direclty affected by protests, gaining popular support, these companies will be forced to change their policies. their responsibility is to make profit and satisfy their shareholders and if their business practices are leading them to lose profit they will be forced to reexamine them. at the time of the iraq war the economy was fairly stable, most of the "bread and butter" isses that affect voters (or the people who would vote for labour anyway) were perfectly fine. elections are very rarely won and lost on foreign policy and a good proportion of those who would have attended the marches would have not voted for labour anyway. it sounds harsh, but labour already had a very comfortable mandate, having won two years previously with a very comfortable majority. they could safely afford to ignore such sentiments and they did. 

as a result of popular pressure, huge numbers of companies are now divesting from Israel in Scotland for example, and similar things have happened vis a vis Burma. last year i was involved in a highly successful protest where we managed to stop the majority of people filling up at a total garage due to its links with the burmese junta. direct action can and does work, it just needs to be done in a way that will gain maximum popular support, not alienate people and fuck people off.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> DIRECTLY TARGETTING THE PEOPLE YOU ARE AIMING TO TARGET (ie not the customers,not the workers, but the bosses of these companies)


Exactly.

(Btw, direct action is just acting directly to affect change yourself, rather than petitioning someone else to act for you).


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Good.  FYI, I'm glad.



You'll love this then:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7771373.stm


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 8, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> They only listen to voters in swing seats. If you're not Worcester Woman or Basildon Man, forget it.
> 
> Also, the government's got no way of knowing who out of 1 million marchers against the Iraq war was registered to vote.



not necessarily true, especially because if the government fucks off enough people, ANY seat can be turned into a "swing seat".


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 8, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> You'll love this then:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7771373.stm



lol good one ...


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 8, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> wrong. direct action does force change, look at the poll tax.



That was before the government wised up and increased its security. I loved the poll tax protests (riots in Tunbridge Wells for heaven's sake) but don't forget that they didn't work on their own; the government was also shaken by the loss of a safe seat, Eastbourne, to the Liberal Democrats.



frogwoman said:


> my point is that if you are going to an airport to catch a plane, the chances are you will be going for a reason, most people who go to airports aren't ridiculously well off people who can afford to go on holiday whenever they like, whereas most other businesses are different from this. you may have got up ridiculously early to catch said plane, you will mostly likely be tired, stressed, nervous anyway and you won't take kindly to a bunch of people barricading the airport.
> 
> i'm all for direct action when it works, but i can only see this annoying and inconveniencing the public, and allowing big business to paint the protesters in a similar light. other tactics need to be used. occupying offices - very effective. if you end up missing your flight because of these people you are hardly likely to be sympathetic to their cause or support future actions that they take, whereas if this happens DIRECTLY TARGETTING THE PEOPLE YOU ARE AIMING TO TARGET (ie not the customers,not the workers, but the bosses of these companies) - ie barricading/occupying offices, and the like, you are more likely to gain popular support than if thousands of people miss their holidays or potentially very important trips because of your publicity seeking actions



Have to admit you've got a point there.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2008)

You're mad. lib dem mad.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> You're mad. lib dem mad.


Not as mad as Plane Stupid, though; they are zealot lifestyle hippies.  Preachy, preachy.  Like all class-blind liberal lifestylers, they are missing where responsibility lies: the interests of the business classes.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 8, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> That was before the government wised up and increased its security. I loved the poll tax protests (riots in Tunbridge Wells for heaven's sake) but don't forget that they didn't work on their own; the government was also shaken by the loss of a safe seat, Eastbourne, to the Liberal Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> Have to admit you've got a point there.



Both symptoms of popular discontent though, no?


----------



## elbows (Dec 8, 2008)

Can we explore the idea that the solutions to climate change will cause far more disruption than any protests?

I know that some like to imagine that all the answers are there, that government & business has options to change its ways yet still give us the jobs and stuff we desire. Please indulge me for a moment if you hold such views, and imagine that we are only going to deal with climate change & resource woes by having a vastly lower rate of consumption than we have today.

Are we going to come to terms with the idea that flying is a luxury? 

Are we going to come to terms with the idea that if we dont want business to avoid the true costs of their way, then we are going to pay for that, its as much our sacrifice as theirs?

Or at the very least we are only going to have access to such luxuries in future if we are able to surrender our present ways enough to enable a clever transition to take place. That attempts to cling to the way things have been, or to pick at the edges of the problem, is storing up one hell of an ugly reality check later on? 

Never mind, we wont get too much choice, the economic hell arrives and will chop our carbon footprint down substantially. The hydro-electric potential of all the frothing at the mouth this will cause is sadly not easy to harness. The transition will be misery, I hope the anger is matched by a new hope.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2008)

elbows said:


> Are we going to come to terms with the idea that flying is a luxury?


Who is "we"?

I've flown less than a handful of times in my lifetime.  (Which is why I'd be mightily pissed off if my flight had been disrupted).  I note that in some scenarios I'm to be priced out of flying, while Chris feckin Martin will wring his hands and pay the surcharges.  He's probably flown more times this week than I have I my life.  But he'll weep on TV about climate change.

"We" are not all frequent flyers.  "We" don't need to be weaned off it.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 9, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> Both symptoms of popular discontent though, no?



Sure, but my point is that of the two the decisive one was the Tories losing Eastbourne in 1990. That was the beginning of the end for Thatcher.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Most of the people who use Stanstead for non-business purposes are C1C2Ds - the vast bulk of the w/c in fact - many of whom now take more than 1 main holiday per year, especially before having kids. So they are in fact attacking workers going on holiday.


Indeed, and according to Ryanair's own figures (and they need to know these things), the purpose of flights with them breaks down:

Business (19%)
Leisure (41%)
Visiting friends or relatives (38%)


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 9, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> Sure, but my point is that of the two the decisive one was the Tories losing Eastbourne in 1990. That was the beginning of the end for Thatcher.



i doubt it somehow. parties can recover from election/by election losses. they cannot very easily recover from an embarrassment like the poll tax riots happening on their watch ... and we see it now, the tories are in complete disarray still, after all these years 

in any case, all of these things were all part and parcel of the same expression of popular discontent that eventually forced thatcher out of the party, and of these the poll tax riots involved more people and were more "spectacular"


----------



## elbows (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Who is "we"?
> 
> I've flown less than a handful of times in my lifetime.  (Which is why I'd be mightily pissed off if my flight had been disrupted).  I note that in some scenarios I'm to be priced out of flying, while Chris feckin Martin will wring his hands and pay the surcharges.  He's probably flown more times this week than I have I my life.  But he'll weep on TV about climate change.



I know, dont get me started on Chris Martin.

I never claim that what will happen is going to be fair, or that its how Id choose to do things, its merely what I think will happen.

I never mentioned frequent flyers, Im suggesting all flying is a luxury. 

The problem is, even if you eradicated economic injustice in the world, it wouldnt stop the masses from bearing the brunt of the sacrifice, quite simply because there are a lot of them. The pay of nurses is kept low because there are a lot of them, whereas the relatively small number of CEO's means they've been able to get silly pay. A million people flying once is less sustainable than one git flying a thousand times.

All classes will lose, once the masses suffer, some of the pain will trickle up. Every day I am depressed that those who can least afford it will bear the biggest burden, I just struggle to see any scenario in which that isnt the case. The best I hope for is that some things of real value are gained in exchange for the sacrifice.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 9, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> lol good one ...



Indeed - those scum who heat their homes beyond 12C are the real culprits of "climate change" -  get a pullover you polar bear mudering swine!!!!!!!!!


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 9, 2008)




----------



## lostexpectation (Dec 9, 2008)

54 people thats alot did they just huddle inside a ring of locked fences?

are plane stupid a direct off shoot of greenpeace?

they've started a group up in ireland plane mad i think, they just interupted mr ryanair etc,

for some reasons im suspicious of them


----------



## where to (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> while Chris feckin Martin will wring his hands and pay the surcharges.  He's probably flown more times this week than I have I my life.  But he'll weep on TV about climate change.



never mind Chris Martin, a member of Plain Stupid itself flew over to NY recently. "i wanted to see it while i can"

beyond parody.


----------



## chainsaw cat (Dec 9, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> What other form of action would you suggest, then?



Well, revolution, dumbo.


----------



## lostexpectation (Dec 9, 2008)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/plane-stupid-environmental-activists Plane Stupid's funders are wealthy west London opponents of the expansion of Heathrow.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

lostexpectation said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/plane-stupid-environmental-activists Plane Stupid's funders are wealthy west London opponents of the expansion of Heathrow.


Doesn't surprise me in the least.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

chainsaw cat said:


> Well, revolution, dumbo.


Indeed.

I've long been an admirer of Bookchin, and recommend his book, _Post Scarcity Anrchism_.  In it he outlines how society could be structured, and technology harnessed, so that resources can be available to all, rather than squandered in the pursuit of profit for the few.

Plane Stupid are self-righteous rich kids pursuing an anti working class agenda, deliberately targeting working class travellers (most non business Standsted users are C1C2Ds; less than 20% of Ryanair flights are for business purposes).

Elbows says "_A million people flying once is less sustainable than one git flying a thousand times_", but it is a matter of priorities, and how resources are spread.  Blaming aviation for CO2 emissions has even more of a multiplier effect than trying to hit government targets via the 30% non business energy use, instead of the 70% business energy use:  Globally, carbon dioxide emissions from aviation are responsible for around 1.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions.(Source.).  Whereas, the internet is already producing more CO2 emissions than worldwide air traffic (Source.).

Why, then, has Plane Stupid got a website?  How often do they organise via email?

Their agenda is: stop the masses from flying, but let us keep doing the things we want to do.

They are class-blind, and their actions perpetuate class inequalities.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 9, 2008)

lostexpectation said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/plane-stupid-environmental-activists Plane Stupid's funders are wealthy west London opponents of the expansion of Heathrow.



So this is basically a huge m/c NIMBY group? What a shock.

The thing is, I don't disagree with their aims - there's no need for 2nd/3rd runways at Stanstead or Heathrow, and the money should go into developing the rail network so that short-haul flights throughout Europe become less and less attractive - but this isn't motivation about climate change, this is house price motivation.

FWIW - anyone setting up a 'Ship Stupid' pressure group to blockade ports? Marine trade is responsible for not just more atmospheric pollution than the aviation industry, but also huge amounts of fuel and waste dumping in the oceans. Where are the climate change protestors at Felixstowe and the other major docks where the ships from China come filled with unsustainably produced goods, and then return mostly unladen? 

Flying _should_ be more expensive than it is, and as a society we need to ween ourselves off cheap flights, whether you're a frequent flyer or not, but the same can be said of driving cars and using gas central heating.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed, and according to Ryanair's own figures (and they need to know these things), the purpose of flights with them breaks down:
> 
> Business (19%)
> Leisure (41%)
> Visiting friends or relatives (38%)



ffs -  so lets judge a profit hungy corporation with a notorious climate change 'sceptic' for a a CEO , by the alleged class composition of it 's consumers !! 

genius , roll on the apocalypse


----------



## Frampton (Dec 9, 2008)

Watching BBC news last night. Surprised at the emphasis on inconvienence of passengers making extensive headlines. Anyone who spends time in airports home and abroad will note that Ryanair is notorious for bumping passengers and leaving them stranded on a daily basis. And shucks! That never makes the news.

All Direct Action inconviences someone, somewhere. But far more productive than investing one's energies in electing lesser-evil candidates.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 9, 2008)

> Plane Stupid are self-righteous rich kids pursuing an anti working class agenda, deliberately targeting working class travellers (most non business Standsted users are C1C2Ds; less than 20% of Ryanair flights are for business purposes).



Spot on.


----------



## steve0223 (Dec 9, 2008)

First of all -  all corporations are profit hungry. Some of them make this profit performing shit that could be seen as useful. The NHS makes a profit, but it also performs a socially useful function. But it also releases carbon dioxide as part of its operations. Does this mean it should be blockaded? Sorry thats a stupid example - but do you see where i am heading with this.

 I would include enabling ordinary people to nip somewhere abroad to recover from a relentless year of ever more intense work to be a socially useful function (at this moment in time). This is because cheap flights, when viewed as part of the overall system ARE NOT THE MAIN FUCKING PROBLEM.

People going on holiday ARE NOT THE MAIN FUCKING PROBLEM.

I am not disputing that we shouldn't be really really serious about climate change. I just can't get my head around the fact that the very best outcome for Plane Stupid would be flights increased in price so only the rich and business get access to them. And this for me is not a way to create an ecological revolution. 

I am quite willing to not fly - but only if *all* business is conducted by video conferencing, *and* if we get longer holidays and better pay to actually afford both the time and money to use the alternatives that are available to us. Free, beautiful designed and reliable public transport - then the car stays at home (well if i had one - but this is what people who do drive say to me). Free insulation for homes. Lets get in there demanding stuff that could actually get people excited, not 'stay in your homes' type ideas. 

An example - for the past few years there has been 6 million tonnes of CO2 released (each year) from burning 'waste' gas as a result of north sea oil drilling operations. This gas could have been used , but it is just flared and burnt because it's 'not profitable' to make use of it. And this system is full to the brim of this sort of waste. The end consumer choice is possibly the last place to go if we want big savings in CO2.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 9, 2008)

The best outcome for Plane Stupid would be Heathrow R3 not being built and more planes flying over their houses in West London.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Whereas, the internet is already producing more CO2 emissions than worldwide air traffic (Source.).



Have you got a better referenced source for this, Pilch? I'd love it to be true!


----------



## Crispy (Dec 9, 2008)

"An Inefficient Truth"
Executive summary
http://www.globalactionplan.org.uk/upload/resource/Exec-Summary.pdf
Full Report
http://www.globalactionplan.org.uk/upload/resource/Full-report.pdf


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 9, 2008)

that puts a facepalm on my moralising then


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I'm sure most of the protesters drove to the area as well, instead of using organic bicycles or something.



I think you're wrong. 

Heard them on TV and I'm now almost certain that Olivia, Lily et al, rode to Stanstead on their ponies! 

"Fifty-four of us, one hundred rozzers. Must be Pimms o'clock! What, what?"


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 9, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> that puts a facepalm on my moralising then



Doesn't it just?

That pisses on lots of bonfires!


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 9, 2008)

Crispy said:


> "An Inefficient Truth"
> Executive summary
> http://www.globalactionplan.org.uk/upload/resource/Exec-Summary.pdf
> Full Report
> http://www.globalactionplan.org.uk/upload/resource/Full-report.pdf



Cheers for these. I shall be wheeling them out on a regular basis.



Now, where's that catshit fella?


----------



## elbows (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Elbows says "_A million people flying once is less sustainable than one git flying a thousand times_", but it is a matter of priorities, and how resources are spread.  Blaming aviation for CO2 emissions has even more of a multiplier effect than trying to hit government targets via the 30% non business energy use, instead of the 70% business energy use:  Globally, carbon dioxide emissions from aviation are responsible for around 1.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions.(Source.).  Whereas, the internet is already producing more CO2 emissions than worldwide air traffic (Source.).



Well regarding priorities, I think a lot of the current agenda is about the limits to available liquid fuels, rather than climate change. The internet may be using a lot of energy, but at least it is feasible to run it off renewables or nuclear, whereas this is much harder with physical transport. And its probably a lot easier to make the internet & computers more efficient. If any semblance of advanced society is to remain after the oil runs low, it will be in large part due to computers & the net. It has a substantial role to play in reducing travel & physical entertainment goods. Right now it is quite wasteful, there is much to be done, but at least it will be possible to do so, in a largely non-controvertial way. Throw the book at spammers for a start, our broken email system wastes a lot of energy Im sure.

I believe that both business and individuals will be forced to do their bit, I do not think that business is just going to carry on as normal. Over the next few years a large chunk of this will be via a lot of businesses downsizing or disappearing completely. Of course this will affect the masses too via job losses and less availability of goods & services.

The rhetoric of class struggle may enable you to demand that others make the big sacrifices first, but it wont do anything to save you from the pain.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 9, 2008)

The problem with flying is it's faster and thus more convenient.

London to Aberdeen.  An hour and a half in the air and you're there.  Train? 8 hours.  Driving?  Even longer.

Even adding an hour check in and half an hour each end to sort our luggage, that's still significantly quicker.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> FWIW - anyone setting up a 'Ship Stupid' pressure group to blockade ports? Marine trade is responsible for not just more atmospheric pollution than the aviation industry, but also huge amounts of fuel and waste dumping in the oceans. Where are the climate change protestors at Felixstowe and the other major docks where the ships from China come filled with unsustainably produced goods, and then return mostly unladen?



This is slightly misleading. Although the shipping industry could be doing more, its CO2 emissions , in proportion to the amount of goods carried, are much much less than that from airlines. Ships are responsible for about twice as much total emissions as aviation but they carry 90% of the world's goods.

Transport by sea is the most efficient method of transport we have.

As for unsustainably produced Chinese goods, I think it's a little unfair to blame the shipping companies for this. Blame the people who buy them or the Chinese factories that make them.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 9, 2008)

Doesn't alter the fact that it emits more, it's emissions are/were (mahoosive decline in marine miles over the last few months) growing faster, and something like 40% of all marine miles are done with completely empty ships. 

And of course, your argument buys into the idea that shipping goods from one side of the planet to the other is actually a good thing too.

The unsustainable bit was just a hyperbolic sop really, a rhetorical flourish if you will.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Even adding an hour check in and half an hour each end to sort our luggage, that's still significantly quicker.



There is no check-in or luggage to collect if you travel with hand luggage only and the majority of internal flights are taken by business people who carry no hold baggage.

Flying is often half the price of train travel too. Until the speed and cost advantages are addressed anti-aviation protestors have absolutely no chance.

What *will* make a difference is a reliable London-Edinburgh high speed rail link.

If there are genuine alternatives people will use them. Nobody *wants* to contribute more emissions than they have to but right now the argument in favour of _some_ internal flying is too compelling.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> And of course, your argument buys into the idea that shipping goods from one side of the planet to the other is actually a good thing too.



It does nothing of the sort. I was simply pointing out that if you want to discourage this from happening, blockading ports to make shipping look unattractive (and therefore much more energy-intensive modes more attractive) isn't the most effective way of doing so.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 9, 2008)

Well no, the best way would be to encourage retailers to stop stocking product that has to be transported 10,000 miles to get here, but you won't do that until you persuade consumers that £20 DVD players are a bad idea. For example.

My point, such as it was, is that the Plane Stupid lot, and many on this thread, focus solely on airtravel and do themselves or their cause no favours by stopping blockading average punters, who as I said earlier just see/hear 'protest/climate change/airport shut' and think 'Fucking hippys/students/unwashed' and ignore the actual issue being protested about.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

oh joy... I feel a JC2 moment coming on


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Well no, the best way would be to encourage retailers to stop stocking product that has to be transported 10,000 miles to get here, but you won't do that until you persuade consumers that £20 DVD players are a bad idea. For example.
> 
> My point, such as it was, is that the Plane Stupid lot, and many on this thread, focus solely on airtravel and do themselves or their cause no favours by stopping blockading average punters, who as I said earlier just see/hear 'protest/climate change/airport shut' and think 'Fucking hippys/students/unwashed' and ignore the actual issue being protested about.


You are of course correct that moving back to a more localised system of production, supply and distribution of goods is a vital measure if we're really going to tackle CO2 emissions.

How you then manage to use this as a stick with which to beat the plane stupid lot is beyond me though.

by your logic climate change protestors would never be able to target any individual aspect of climate change without also simultaneously targetting every other aspect of it all at the same time. In case you'd missed it, the environmental movement has done a lot of campaigning on stuff like food miles, the localisation of goods, anti-globalisation etc. which is probably largely where you're getting your information from, so please don't use it as a stick to beat environmentalists with just because yesterday morning at 4am the environmental movement took action against airport expansion.


----------



## steve0223 (Dec 9, 2008)

> As for unsustainably produced Chinese goods, I think it's a little unfair to blame the shipping companies for this. Blame the people who buy them or the Chinese factories that make them.
> Reply With Quote



this is the problem is we have ended up targeting objects or chemicals to the extent that we can't see the overall system that drives all of this. You don't have to 'blame' shipping companies, or 'blame' people buying cheap plastic shite, or 'blame' the chinese factories (probably a mixture of UK/US finance and chinese capital ). Shipping companies exist to make a profit or they go bust. Stuff is only manufactured in china because it makes more profits than workers demanding more wages in the west lets you make.

CO2 is now the most demonised molecule in the history of chemistry - but CO2 doesn't cause climate change - it is 'work'. Why do we do the work that we do? how has the work we do changed over time? to make profits? for who? 

This might sound abstract, but its really worth asking these questions otherwise we are going to end up in a situation where you have a vanguard of ecological activists who become fixated on the release of a molecule to the detriment of any other process. In fact it might be atagonistic to other organising. And that would be a shame cos the same processes that cause climate change are the same process attacking the wage, attacking housing, and generally making life unpleasant for the majority, so we should have a lot in common really. 
this site thinks about some of these sorts of questions


----------



## Groucho (Dec 9, 2008)

Good on them for taking action that has drawn attention to the issue. For the most part the debate moves from whether they were right to take the action they took to what needs to be done to halt climate change. Pretty much a validation of their action that so many people are debating this serious topic.

I had the pleasure of meeting these campaigners recently and they know their stuff. The same organisation had 'stormed' Parliament dressed as suffragettes. As for taking the argument to the Government - they have done just that and have met with three Secretary of State's to press for common sense with regards to airport expansion. They were given a cup of tea and a smile but no movement on policy. Gordon Brown has commited the UK Government to the necessary reduction (by 80%) of carbon ommissions. Trouble is he intends to do his by voluntary action by industry and individuals - leaving it to the market. In the meantime his Government expands airports bowing to the market driven desire to place short term profit before the future of the planet - now that is plane stupid.




			
				Plane Stupid said:
			
		

> We did so with heavy hearts, knowing it would disrupt passengers, because we knew the consequences of this action couldn't be worse than the consequences of inaction. If irreversible climate change kicks in, millions of lives will be destroyed.



http://www.planestupid.com/


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

cantsin said:


> ffs -  so lets judge a profit hungy corporation with a notorious climate change 'sceptic' for a a CEO , by the alleged class composition of it 's consumers !!
> 
> genius , roll on the apocalypse


Are you saying that Ryanair doesn't know its customer base?  Whatever else you think about Michael O'Leary, he'll know who is buying his product. If you think you know better, let us have your figures.  

Yes, Ryanair is a profit-hungry corporation, and Michael O'Leary is a disreputable spiv.  So target the boardroom.  Plane Stupid - and you - are confused about where responsibility lies.

_All_ corporations are out for themselves.  Ryanair is not unusual in this respect.  (Famously, the film _The Corporation_ compared the typical activity of corporations with DSM-IV's symptoms of psychopathy).  So what is your point?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> just because yesterday morning at 4am the environmental movement took action against airport expansion.


A group of campaigners.  Not "_the environmental movement_".  I've been interested in environmental issues since the 70s, and these guys do not represent me.


----------



## Groucho (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> A group of campaigners.  Not "_the environmental movement_".  I've been interested in environmental issues since the 70s, and these guys do not represent me.



Move aside the young people have seen your failure and do not wish to emulate it 

(knows this can be equally said of me)


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

Groucho said:


> Move aside the young people have seen your failure and do not wish to emulate it


No, they want to punish the working class.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> A group of campaigners.  Not "_the environmental movement_".  I've been interested in environmental issues since the 70s, and these guys do not represent me.



nor me, i think they are reformist, capitalist scumbags of the worst kind and are very close to the top of the list of people who will need to be quietly offed in the chaos of revolution


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

smokedout said:


> nor me, i think they are reformist, capitalist scumbags of the worst kind and are very close to the top of the list of people who will need to be quietly offed in the chaos of revolution


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> You are of course correct that moving back to a more localised system of production, supply and distribution of goods is a vital measure if we're really going to tackle CO2 emissions.
> 
> How you then manage to use this as a stick with which to beat the plane stupid lot is beyond me though.
> 
> by your logic climate change protestors would never be able to target any individual aspect of climate change without also simultaneously targetting every other aspect of it all at the same time. In case you'd missed it, the environmental movement has done a lot of campaigning on stuff like food miles, the localisation of goods, anti-globalisation etc. which is probably largely where you're getting your information from, so please don't use it as a stick to beat environmentalists with just because yesterday morning at 4am the environmental movement took action against airport expansion.



Ok, well aside from your taking two separate conversations I've been having on the thread (the first paragraph was a reply to teuchters comments about marine freighting, not a stick to beat the whole environmental movement with).

I will restate my point, again since clearly there are many people on here who can't see the consequences of disruptive action like this, is that the long term effects of this type of protest - one that causes significant inconvenience to lots of people - don't do causes of any description any good in the minds of the public, build new, or on pre-existing stereotypes of whom will take part in such protests, and how despite mealy mouthed press statements about 'With heavy hearts we did this...' they aren't concerned with _people_, only their cause.

All the crap that's been written on this thread about awareness raising, that it's suceeded because we're talking about it on this website...it's a fucking joke, it really is. Go see the torygraph comment pages about this 'action', or The Sun's - you want w/c reaction to this, go and read the comments made on The Sun's website. This is where this great awareness raising campaign gets you:

Posh Protestors Cause Airport Chaos

So all of those who think this is good and worthwhile, is doing a job of reaching out to those not convinced about AGW, is raising awareness of the issue, you should congratulate yourselves on this coverage in the Bun.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> A group of campaigners.  Not "_the environmental movement_".  I've been interested in environmental issues since the 70s, and these guys do not represent me.


ok, sorry you're right, I should have said 'members of the environmental movement'

a few question - as an environmentalist, do you support the governments plans to expand airport capacity? if so, how do you square this with your interest in environmental issues? 

It's very easy to sit on the side lines passing judgement, effectively saying 'ooh you don't want to do it like that, you should have protested by targeting this or that target...'. In reality no protest movement has ever done things perfectly, maybe they should have targeted BAA's head office or something, but then they've never have got any more than a footnote on page 15 of the independant, rather than full live bbc news coverage... and Plane Stupid have already targeted Parliament, Heathrow etc. etc.


----------



## JimW (Dec 9, 2008)

smokedout said:


> quietly offed in the chaos of revolution


We'll mulch them in, that way everyone's happy.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Ok, well aside from your taking two separate conversations I've been having on the thread (the first paragraph was a reply to teuchters comments about marine freighting, not a stick to beat the whole environmental movement with).
> 
> I will restate my point, again since clearly there are many people on here who can't see the consequences of disruptive action like this, is that the long term effects of this type of protest - one that causes significant inconvenience to lots of people - don't do causes of any description any good in the minds of the public, build new, or on pre-existing stereotypes of whom will take part in such protests, and how despite mealy mouthed press statements about 'With heavy hearts we did this...' they aren't concerned with _people_, only their cause.
> 
> ...


so... causing a bad reaction in the Sun or Telegraph is the knew arbiter of whether an action was worthwhile or not is it?

why not go the whole hog and include the daily mail as well ffs


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 9, 2008)

It's an almost universal reaction across the board. 

How exactly is it a positive awareness raising activity if all it achieves is press and people slagging it off? Indeed, the fact that it's got people like dlr and I pissed off about it should tell you bundles - that at best it's playing to the crowd, at worst it displays a horrifying low level of awareness...


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> a few question - as an environmentalist, do you support the governments plans to expand airport capacity?


No.  As I've already said in the thread.



> It's very easy to sit on the side lines passing judgement


I've had that one, too.  I target my activism in ways I judge best.  Obviously.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

btw Kyser- what was the suns reaction to say the fuel protests? I could have sworn that people were inconvenienced by lorry drivers blockading fuel depots and motorways across the country?

and if we're talking about inconveneincing passengers, what about stuff like the baggage handlers strikes, or the french blocking ports, or the people who're inconveneinced when roads are closed to facilitate a protest march etc. Is it just environmentalists who should make sure they never inconvenience anyone ever, or is your position consistent to never supporting any strike, or protest that may inconvenience anyone?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> and if we're talking about inconveneincing passengers, what about stuff like the baggage handlers strikes [...]?


I've done that one, passim, too.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> No.  As I've already said in the thread.
> 
> I've had that one, too.  I target my activism in ways I judge best.  Obviously.


I did say I felt a JC2 moment coming on...

*goes off to read rest of thread*


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> I did say I felt a JC2 moment coming on...
> 
> *goes off to read rest of thread*


 Remember the multiquote function!


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I've done that one, passim, too.





> A strike is a different thing altogether. First, working class solidarity is paramount, so no decent worker would scab. Second, the inconvenience wasn't a by-product of this action, it was the _purpose_ of the action. And third, it was targeted at flyers, thereby blaming the individuals and not the business. And fourth, the stated aim was publicity, not the withdrawal of labour to further the interests of the workforce.



righto - so strikes in support of workers pay and conditions (or similar) is ok to inconvenience anyone, but protests over climate change should never inconvenience anyone (well not working class people anyway).

ok, I disagree.

But that doesn't cover the fuel protests, which IMO are directly comparible... not that I particularly expect you to be supportive of the fuel protests, I was more trying to point out (to kyser) that using the reactions of the likes of the Sun as a yardstick for whether an action is acceptable is bollocks, as it's reaction isn't based on logic, it's based on it's agenda.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2008)

AverageJoe said:


> Most pointelss protest ever. They were saying that for every minute the planes were on the ground they were stopping 4.2 million tonnes of Carbon Emissions from happening.
> 
> So what did they do - kept the planes in the air for 4 hours.
> 
> ...



Does the phrase "cost/benefit analysis" mean anything to you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I'm sure most of the protesters drove to the area as well, instead of using organic bicycles or something.



You're "sure" of a lot of things, but you're not often actually correct, are you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> If the protesters could single out frequent flyers and business class, then fair play. But they can't.  Some of the people disrupted will be folk who have saved up for ages, and who don't get many holidays.  I'd be furious if it had been me on one of the less-than-a-handful of occasions I'd flown.
> 
> Yes, I'm more angry at the government, but frankly so should the protesters be.



While I agree that the disruption to some of the public is regrettable, and that those people have a right to be angry, I suspect Stansted was targeted *because* it would affect fewer non-business flyers than an action at Heathrow or Gatwick would.
If this is a one-off action, then I'm personally inclined to approve of it, but if it were to be a regular occurrence *to the exclusion* of trying to address the issues by other means (pushing for regulation, exposing government hypocrisy, doing DA on BAA etc) then I'd think it was pointless except as a mechanism for turning people away from the issues.


----------



## DownwardDog (Dec 9, 2008)

Why didn't they shut down an airport that handles mainly cargo? Maybe East Midlands at night. Then they would have only inconvenienced ebil crapitalists not that gang of schoolkids who thought they were going on a trip this week, etc.

I did LOL at the Plane Stupid spokes-termagant on TV when she said the passengers were "probably" flying to second homes and shouldn't do it.


----------



## Groucho (Dec 9, 2008)

Stansted was targeted because it is controversially being expanded to take more flights as approved by the Government against advice.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> righto - so strikes in support of workers pay and conditions (or similar) is ok to inconvenience anyone, but protests over climate change should never inconvenience anyone (well not working class people anyway).


Not quite.  The _target_ in a strike isn't the customer.  Whereas the _target_ in yesterday's protest was.  

I'm not saying don't ever inconvenience people, I'm saying make sure you target the right people.  Make sure you understand where responsibility lies.  Make sure you have a structural understanding.  And, fundamentally, make sure you have a class analysis, otherwise you are firing blind.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Not quite.  The _target_ in a strike isn't the customer.  Whereas the _target_ in yesterday's protest was.
> 
> I'm not saying don't ever inconvenience people, I'm saying make sure you target the right people.  Make sure you understand where responsibility lies.  Make sure you have a structural understanding.  And, fundamentally, make sure you have a class analysis, otherwise you are firing blind.


erm no, the target in yesterdays action was the government*.

pretty much the same as a baggage handlers stike's target being the company they work for, but to get to their target they have to inconvenience the passengers.

*or more specifically the government's decision to overrule the local council and grant permission for a 2nd runway at stansed, and an extra 10 million passengers per yer.

by class analysis do you mean an analysis of which class will be worst affected by climate change? that being the working class / poorest sections of society.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

DownwardDog said:


> Why didn't they shut down an airport that handles mainly cargo? Maybe East Midlands at night. Then they would have only inconvenienced ebil crapitalists not that gang of schoolkids who thought they were going on a trip this week, etc.
> 
> I did LOL at the Plane Stupid spokes-termagant on TV when she said the passengers were "probably" flying to second homes and shouldn't do it.


would have been prety hard to link a protest at east midlands airport to the decision to build a second runway at stansted though...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why not?  If there's not enough airport capacity, all you can do is expand them or build new airports.
> 
> Why do people insist on regressing us back to the middle ages technologically?



There's enough airport capacity.

You *do* realise that extra runways are built to accommodate *PROJECTED* capacity, don't you?

You might want to apprise yourself of the fall-off in air travel during the recessions of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s to see how such projections might be affected.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

mauvais said:


> IT'S a lot of paperwork to get permission from each and every member of The Working Class™ before embarking on these protests. The last time I tried to have an all inclusive, multi-faith and apolitical demo on a busy airport runway, I got almost everyone's written approval, with my message-free banners at the ready, when a Ms. Dean from Barnstaple rang to say she was going to Ibiza to get fucked up on E and I had to call it all off.


best post on this thead btw


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I flew Ryanair from Prestwick to Pisa.  It was (much) cheaper than a train ticket to my mother-in-law's in Staffordshire.
> 
> I'll be visiting her later this month.  I'll drive, since that's cheaper and more convenient.  If we were really serious about climate change, it wouldn't be.



And there's the rub.

*If* our government (this one or any other) were serious about reducing emissions they'd legislate for (as snadge has mentioned) tax on aviation fuel, on an electricity rate for business users that factored in social/environmental costs of production and use, for a nationalised, subsidised, expanded and centrally (as in by a "British Rail" equivalent, rather than by central government) administered public transport system, and tangible "personal user" alternative energy production funding, rather than the green fig-leaf of the allowances for wind turbines etc.


----------



## DownwardDog (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> would have been prety hard to link a protest at east midlands airport to the decision to build a second runway at stansted though...



It's pretty hard to link building a runway at Stansted and the weather in 2108 but people have bought into that.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

ViolentPanda said:


> I suspect Stansted was targeted *because* it would affect fewer non-business flyers than an action at Heathrow or Gatwick would.


Well, Heathrow is far more reliant on business travel than Stansted.  PDF.  49% ABs using the airport, and 42% business flights.  As opposed to Ryanair's 19% business flights, and Stansted's greater reliance on C1C2D passengers.

According to the CAA, the last available figures show that 30.8 per cent of the UK’s passengers travelled via Heathrow, followed by 14.4 per cent at Gatwick, 9.6 per cent at Stansted and 3.4 per cent at Luton.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> erm no, the target in yesterdays action was the government*.


No it wasn't.  I don't remember seeing government ministers having their travel disrupted.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

DownwardDog said:


> It's pretty hard to link building a runway at Stansted and the weather in 2108 but people have bought into that.


hard it may have been in say 1980, luckily after several decades scientific research it's a fairly simple link to make.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> No it wasn't.  I don't remember seeing government ministers having their travel disrupted.


well, it depends what you mean by the 'target' doesn't it.

the target of an airport workers strike is the company, but they use disruption of the airports function - ie distruption of passengers to put pressure on the company.

the target of yesterdays protest was the government, and they used disruption of the airports function / disruption of passengers to put pressure on the government.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


>



Yup.

Must have left the scouts at the age of 27, which is interesting, as he has claimed to be in his mid-20s.


----------



## N_igma (Dec 9, 2008)

Plane takes off....airport shuts down!


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2008)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yup.
> 
> Must have left the scouts at the age of 27, which is interesting, as he has claimed to be in his mid-20s.



In the interests of accuracy: he has stated that he is 37.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> well, it depends what you mean by the 'target' doesn't it.
> 
> the target of an airport workers strike is the company, but they use disruption of the airports function - ie distruption of passengers to put pressure on the company.
> 
> the target of yesterdays protest was the government, and they used disruption of the airports function / disruption of passengers to put pressure on the government.



Yes.


And...

All this "class" nonsense is a bit of a red herring if you ask me.

I don't really see why the "working class" should be exempted from having to give up a few luxuries as part of an attempt to reduce carbon emissions. The point about climate change is that its effects will be felt soonest and hardest by the poorest people on the planet, who are unlikely to shed many tears over the idea that a "working class" Brit, living in one of the richest countries on earth with (in relative terms) decent healthcare and working conditions and housing and benefits and all the rest might have to suffer the hardship of giving up one of his overseas holidays.

It's inevitable that, if we have to make sacrifices in order to achieve carbon emissions reductions, then these will affect those with less disposable income more. But that doesn't seem like a good reason not to make those sacrifices. If the concern is that poorer Brits are going to suffer from environmental measures then it's long-standing questions of wealth redistribution that need to be addressed rather than using this as an excuse to duck out of making decisions like whether or not we should be expanding airports.

And I suspect there's a fair bit of reverse snobbery going on here as a result of these Plane Stupid people being apparently "middle class".


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

N_igma said:


> Plane takes off....airport shuts down!


at least this lot knew planes take off from runways... if it's been the 'Anonymous' internet protest lot they'd have probably been targeting the conveyor belts


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2008)

teuchter said:


> In the interests of accuracy: he has stated that he is 37.



He's stated lots of things.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Not quite.  The _target_ in a strike isn't the customer.  Whereas the _target_ in yesterday's protest was.
> 
> I'm not saying don't ever inconvenience people, I'm saying make sure you target the right people.  Make sure you understand where responsibility lies.  Make sure you have a structural understanding.  And, fundamentally, make sure you have a class analysis, otherwise you are firing blind.





when you've  finished sounding like a pompous Trot,  can you plse explain , really simply , how Ryanair was not affected or targetted by yesterdays action ?


----------



## elbows (Dec 9, 2008)

teuchter said:


> All this "class" nonsense is a bit of a red herring if you ask me.



Well said - I think your post is great.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 9, 2008)

teuchter said:


> In the interests of accuracy: he has stated that he is 37.



Not that it makes a great deal of difference, I joined Scouts at 10, at 16 I became a 'young leader' (or whatever they called it, I can't remember) until I could start the leadership training, and then became an ASL, then a few years later moved to a different part of the country and joined up with another group as ASL, before becoming SL.

I managed to get my 10 year service certificate as a leader just before I ended up moving again (into London).  I didn't join up with another group as there was too much going on in life at the time, and I haven't gotten back round to linking up with another group now.  In all honesty, it seems the programme has changed a great deal, and there isn't much emphasis on the 'traditional skills' that I enjoyed so much, so whether I'd get as much out of it now as I did - or be able to contribute as much as I could - is debateable.

Once life settles down, if circumstances allow, I may consider giving it another shot, but at the moment it's not gonna happen.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> And...
> ...


actually that's not necesarily true.

Obviously it's true if you only use price as a mechanism to restrict carbon use, but there are other ways of achieving the same thing that could even benefit the poor... eg. personal carbon allowances, changing billing methods for fuel so that fuel increases in price the more you use, rather than the first bit of fuel used being charged at the highest rate etc.

one thing's for sure though, with or without arguements about climate change, if current policies are maintained then the poor will suffer badly from the inevitable fuel price rises as the affects of peak oil / peak gas kick in.

burying our collective heads in the sand is not an option, this problem isn't going away.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> actually that's not necesarily true.
> 
> Obviously it's true if you only use price as a mechanism to restrict carbon use, but there are other ways of achieving the same thing that could even benefit the poor... eg. personal carbon allowances, changing billing methods for fuel so that fuel increases in price the more you use, rather than the first bit of fuel used being charged at the highest rate etc.
> 
> ...



Yes, you're right; I should have said "may" instead of "will".

Tightening up building regulations, for example, so that housing will be more energy efficient might make construction of new houses more expensive which will affect poorer people more. But then in the long run, energy efficiency will reduce heating costs which could benefit poorer people proportionally more.

Personal carbon trading is a very attractive idea but there are lots of reasons why it might not really work in practice.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Yes, you're right; I should have said "may" instead of "will".
> 
> Tightening up building regulations, for example, so that housing will be more energy efficient might make construction of new houses more expensive which will affect poorer people more. But then in the long run, energy efficiency will reduce heating costs which could benefit poorer people proportionally more.
> 
> Personal carbon trading is a very attractive idea but there are lots of reasons why it might not really work in practice.


the main reason personal carbon trading might not work being (IMO) that it'd be run by the government, and they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery without utterly fucking it up.

if done right though, it could actually benefit the poor as they could decide whether to take a flight themselves, or sell the right to take a flight to the highest bidder, for example, meaning that the poor could benefit financially, or still go on the odd cheap flight... their choice.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

*Here's a list of Plane Stupids recent protests, which should make it pretty difficult for anyone trying to argue that they are targetting the working class. This protest was just one part of a major nationwide campaign aimed at changing government policy, a campaign that has not particularly targeted working class passengers.
*

*
*

*Plane Stupid shuts Stansted Airport*


*Scottish climate activists target Scottish First Minister*


*Plane Stupid leaves Camp for Climate Action for protest at Gatwick*

*22nd July 2008 - A campaigner from the climate action group, Plane Stupid, today super-glued himself to Prime Minister Gordon Brown in the State Dining Room of 10 Downing Street.
**Transport conference delegates shocked by elephant in the room*


*Plane Stupid Scotland occupy roof of Scottish Parliament*


*Climate campaigners hang 'NO 3rd RUNWAY' banner from parliament*


*Plane Stupid Scotland: activists blockade Edinburgh airport private jets*



*Plane Stupid activists shut down travel agents on route of climate march*


*Plane Stupid disrupt Parliamentary Committee into 'Future of BAA'*


*Climate Campers shut down private jet airport*


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 9, 2008)

> Personal carbon trading is a very attractive idea but there are lots of reasons why it might not really work in practice.





> if done right though, it could actually benefit the poor as they could decide whether to take a flight themselves, or sell the right to take a flight to the highest bidder, for example, meaning that the poor could benefit financially, or still go on the odd cheap flight... their choice.



Both arguments I've been making on this site for the last 4 years.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2008)

There's a fairly good summary of the issues associated with carbon trading here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826521.600-carbon-trading-dirty-sexy-money.html?full=true



> Carbon trading is catching on in a big way. In 2007, the value of the deals being done doubled to an estimated $60 billion - though because many credits are traded more than once, the value of credits in circulation is considerably less than this. Nonetheless between now and 2012 European companies are expected to buy about $25 billion worth of carbon credits. With this sort of money up for grabs, it is no surprise that what began as a niche market is now attracting major financial institutions such as Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse and Barclays Capital. Climate Care has just been bought by JP Morgan.
> 
> Yet the critical question remains: does this frenetic activity actually keep greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere? There are widespread fears that it does not. One flaw in the CDM in particular is that credits are being claimed for investments that would have happened anyway, without the added stimulus of earning carbon credits. These projects should not qualify for the CDM because they do not create additional emissions reductions. In fact, they actually make matters worse by allowing companies in the rich world to exceed their limits without genuinely offsetting it elsewhere.





> The danger now is that governments are seduced into believing the initial success of the carbon market allows them to avoid hard political choices on climate change. But markets are unpredictable, says Burke, and can only be part of the solution if regulated by laws such as a ban on new coal-fired power stations and guaranteed prices for renewable electricity. In other words, the politicians need to go to the casino and cut a deal with the money men.
> 
> Another danger of making a market in carbon emissions is the least discussed, but perhaps the most important: only a minority of emissions are covered by legal caps. Most industrial and transport emissions in developing countries remain outside the market. So too do most of the huge emissions caused by deforestation, draining wetlands and ploughing fields.
> 
> ...


----------



## cantsin (Dec 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Not that it makes a great deal of difference, I joined Scouts at 10, at 16 I became a 'young leader' (or whatever they called it, I can't remember) until I could start the leadership training, and then became an ASL, then a few years later moved to a different part of the country and joined up with another group as ASL, before becoming SL.
> 
> I managed to get my 10 year service certificate as a leader just before I ended up moving again (into London).  I didn't join up with another group as there was too much going on in life at the time, and I haven't gotten back round to linking up with another group now.  In all honesty, it seems the programme has changed a great deal, and there isn't much emphasis on the 'traditional skills' that I enjoyed so much, so whether I'd get as much out of it now as I did - or be able to contribute as much as I could - is debateable.
> 
> Once life settles down, if circumstances allow, I may consider giving it another shot, but at the moment it's not gonna happen.



as a matter on interest, all bullshit aside, what attracted you to this forum ?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> well, it depends what you mean by the 'target' doesn't it.


The government may have become aware of yesterday's action but they weren't its target.  And the difference between action like that and a strike is that a strike is a withdrawal of labour.  The effect of that withdrawal of labour may well be to inconvenience customers, but it is the right of a worker to withdraw his or her labour.  In an action like this, the inconvenience is not as a result of withdrawal of labour - there is no such relationship between the protesters and the company.  And the intention of the action is to directly cause inconvenience to customers.



cantsin said:


> when you've  finished sounding like a pompous Trot,  can you plse explain , really simply , how Ryanair was not affected or targetted by yesterdays action ?


Do you find that name calling helps win people over to your viewpoint?  The very first thing you said to me on this thread was that I was a troll.  You've implied that I'm an armchair activist.  And you've called me pompous and a Trot.  

I have at no point suggested that Ryanair was unaffected by yesterday's actions.  Nor, for the avoidance of doubt, do I suggest that Ryanair should not be targeted, nor even that disruption can always be avoided. I simply suggest that the misanthropic self-righteous middle class protesters are  pursuing an anti working class agenda, deliberately targeting working class travellers.  The masses cannot be allowed to fly, is their implied message. 



teuchter said:


> All this "class" nonsense is a bit of a red herring if you ask me.


Class is never a red herring.  

Free Spirit, you made the point that the poor of the world will shoulder the brunt of climate change.  I know.  I'm well aware of that.  I've been on message with that for decades.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> The government may have become aware of yesterday's action but they weren't its target.  And the difference between action like that and a strike is that a strike is a withdrawal of labour.  The effect of that withdrawal of labour may well be to inconvenience customers, but it is the right of a worker to withdraw his or her labour.  In an action like this, the inconvenience is not as a result of withdrawal of labour - there is no such relationship between the protesters and the company.  And the intention of the action is to directly cause inconvenience to customers.
> 
> Do you find that name calling helps win people over to your viewpoint?  The very first thing you said to me on this thread was that I was a troll.  You've implied that I'm an armchair activist.  And you've called me pompous and a Trot.
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I simply suggest that the misanthropic self-righteous middle class protesters are  pursuing an anti working class agenda, deliberately targeting working class travellers.  The masses cannot be allowed to fly, is their implied message.



What is your evidence for this?

And why do you call them "misanthropic"?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

cantsin said:


> you" simply suggest " that, but there's at least ten examples quoted above to contradict this simple suggestion !! Ie; targetted action by Plane Stupid that could in no way be construed to  be "deliberately targetting w/c travellers " - your "suggestion" ( it's definitely not an argument in any meaningful way ) , is just daft


Free Spirit gave 9 examples of protests which did not deliberately disrupt working class travelers.  That doesn't change the facts about yesterday's action.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> best post on this thead btw


My top tip for a universally agreeable protest is just wait around until we try and define who the working class actually are. Eventually after days of tedium someone will narrow it down to Bernard Manning, and he's dead, so you just can do what you like.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

teuchter said:


> What is your evidence for this?
> 
> And why do you call them "misanthropic"?


My evidence is their web site,  their action, and its message.

I called them that because I don't like hippies.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

mauvais said:


> IT'S a lot of paperwork to get permission from each and every member of The Working Class™ before embarking on these protests.


My first post on the thread deals with this point.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> My evidence is their web site,  their action, and its message.
> 
> I called them that because I don't like hippies.



Sounds like your dislike of them is based at least as much on your personal prejudices as on what they're actually doing, which I don't think does much to help the debate, IMHO.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> Sounds like your dislike of them is based at least as much on your personal prejudices as on what they're actually doing, which I don't think does much to help the debate, IMHO.


It was a flippant remark.

My disagreement with them is their class-blindness.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> My first post on the thread deals with this point.


No it doesn't - it just says it disrupts some of the wrong people and you'd be annoyed if it happened to you. So would I, but I'd accept the legitimacy of their protest.

I'd be happier to be delayed by someone making a political point than bits falling off my plane, 101ml of water in my bag, or al-Voldemort and the rubbish terror sequel.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

mauvais said:


> No it doesn't - it just says it disrupts some of the wrong people and you'd be annoyed if it happened to you.


Here:


danny la rouge said:


> If the protesters could single out frequent flyers and business class, then fair play. But they can't.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> My evidence is their web site,  their action, and its message.
> 
> I called them that because I don't like hippies.



Where on their website, or anywhere else, do they state that they deliberately target working class people, or that specifically working class people shouldn't be allowed to fly?



> We took the decision to disrupt the airport to directly reduce the CO2 impact of Stansted, as a response to the government's consent to its expansion. We did so with heavy hearts, knowing it would disrupt passengers, because we knew the consequences of this action couldn't be worse than the consequences of inaction. If irreversible climate change kicks in, millions of lives will be destroyed.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Where on their website, or anywhere else, do they state that they deliberately target working class people, or that specifically working class people shouldn't be allowed to fly?


They decided on behalf of the passengers that it was in their best interests to have their travel disrupted.  They chose a budget airline with less than 20% business flights.  They could have occupied BAA offices, or Ryanair offices, or something similar, but on this occasion decided to disrupt travel.

Why?  What is the message?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> They decided on behalf of the passengers that it was in their best interests to have their travel disrupted.  They chose a budget airline with less than 20% business flights.  They could have occupied BAA offices, or Ryanair offices, or something similar, but on this occasion decided to disrupt travel.
> 
> Why?  *What is the message?*


that a policy of airport expansion is unsustainable and should be reversed - starting by revoking the decision to approve extra runways at stansted and heathrow.

well, that and a wider message about climate change and burying our heads in the sand.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> They decided on behalf of the passengers that it was in their best interests to have their travel disrupted.  They chose a budget airline with less than 20% business flights.  They could have occupied BAA offices, or Ryanair offices, or something similar, but on this occasion decided to disrupt travel.
> 
> Why?  What is the message?



I presume they decided that it was in the interests of the world population at large for those few passengers to have their flights disrupted.

What do you mean they chose an airline? They chose an airport. An airport which the government has recently given permission to extend despite much opposition, and despite having been elected into power on the basis that their transport policies would seek to reduce environmental impact. Their action was to draw attention to this fact, and it seems they succeeded.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> if done right though, it could actually benefit the poor as they could decide whether to take a flight themselves, or sell the right to take a flight to the highest bidder, for example, meaning that the poor could benefit financially, or still go on the odd cheap flight... their choice.



The rich will never create a currency of which they don't automatically have the biggest share. Think about it, you'd be creating something that's as good as money, and that rich people need for their lifestlyes, and then sharing it out equally amongst everybod in the country. It'd be a total catastrophe for they rich if they allowed such a thing, so they won't. Simple as that I'm afraid.


----------



## elbows (Dec 9, 2008)

I think things like personal carbon trading schemes could quickly seem irrelevant, with the consequences of severe economic decline overtaking the voluntary action against climate change stuff.

We are quickly going to end up with lots of people struggling badly, which will lead to an attitude shift. The luxuries that many of the working class in Britain have some access to will be largely eradicated without much in the way of compensation.

It wont just be the banks that government has to prop up, they are going to end up supporting business in a new and direct way, which will slightly change the balance of power and who is calling the shots.

Government will end up having to help people out in times of woe, than they do today. No doubt there will be plenty of moaning that the middle class are being helped too much, that the working class are being screwed again, etc. I hope the reality ends up being a bit different to that, that we end up with something much fairer in the end. The middle class have more to lose, they may therefore end up sacrificing more (although they can afford to more than the working class), and eventually we end up more equal as a result. But the working class will still have to sacrifice much, and so we can still expect resentment and class war rhetoric from some quarters. Personally I have no faith that class-obsessed people are going to lead us to a better future, but like everyone else they will still have to sacrifice, its a tad boring to see the same old battle being fought but maybe if strange times lead to radical change, they will get a chance to apply their sense of injustice towards designing a fairer future. Not quite sure how that will be achieved by hating hippies but you never know.

I suspect I will have reasons to get extremely upset with both working class and middle class attitudes once the real sacrifice begins, and that I may even end up feeling sorry for the government from time to time. After all, I presume they are quite aware of the future environmental and resource realities, hence the really rather large and life-changing carbon cut targets for the decades ahead. If they were relying on businesses being nice or people being sold on the idea that climate change & peak oil means lower standards of living that they would willingly accept, then the government would be doomed - its hard to sell that agenda, people in every class will think its a vendetta against them. Instead that agenda will be forced upon people of all classes, because reality will bite, and things will be ugly. 

If we manage to get through transition without war or utter collapse, I wonder if we will see a much fairer and less divided humanity, or whether we'll end up with a hideous totalitarianism or feudal type setup. I cant imagine the current compromise continuing, the resources arent there to placate through consumption on such a scale in future. So the struggle for survival and for a fair & sustainable outcome is what Im interested in being a part of, and its far from clear to me whether class war and rhetoric fits into that. If it matters I suppose I am middle class, as my parents were teachers, although for all intents and purposes that I can think of, in terms of economic prospects and place in society, I am going to be sacrificing and suffering exactly the same as the working class, if that terms means anything.


----------



## elbows (Dec 9, 2008)

Oops double post


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> that a policy of airport expansion is unsustainable and should be reversed


That wasn't what they said yesterday.  They said only that for the time the airport was closed down CO2 wasn't being used.

Their problem is that they're liberals: they have no wider analysis of the relationship between climate change and global capitalism.


----------



## elbows (Dec 9, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> The rich will never create a currency of which they don't automatically have the biggest share. Think about it, you'd be creating something that's as good as money, and that rich people need for their lifestlyes, and then sharing it out equally amongst everybod in the country. It'd be a total catastrophe for they rich if they allowed such a thing, so they won't. Simple as that I'm afraid.



Oh I dont know, these modern forms of rationing seem a bit iffy to me. Bringing in a form of rationing where the rich are openly allowed to buy more rations sounds like something the rich may support, at least if the alternative was per-head rationing not based on ability to pay.


----------



## Batboy (Dec 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Disrupt flights for a couple of hours, get themselves arrested for criminal damage and trespass (at least) and piss off hundreds of people who have been looking forward to a well deserved holiday for months.
> 
> If that's success, they aren't aiming very high are they?



The bigger the humbug , the greater the publicity.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 9, 2008)

cantsin said:


> as a matter on interest, all bullshit aside, what attracted you to this forum ?



I live in Brixton.  This is a Brixton based (originally) forum, and it's good to keep in touch with local interests.  The other parts of this site (outside the Brixton forum) have varied interests too.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 9, 2008)

Batboy said:


> The bigger the humbug , the greater the publicity.



... and hopefully some prosecutions out of it to stop them being so silly in the future.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> The rich will never create a currency of which they don't automatically have the biggest share. Think about it, you'd be creating something that's as good as money, and that rich people need for their lifestlyes, and then sharing it out equally amongst everybod in the country. It'd be a total catastrophe for they rich if they allowed such a thing, so they won't. Simple as that I'm afraid.


don't get me wrong, I don't really expect it to happen, just pointing out that this idea that reducing carbon emissions must always affect the poor worst is a complete red herring.

just because this government's environmental policies essentially boil down to an excuse to put extra tax on stuff, doesn't mean this is the only way of achieving environmental change - actually it's arguable that this approach doesn't achieve any noticable change at all unless the extra money raised is spent on providing low carbon alternatives / solutions.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ... and hopefully some prosecutions out of it to stop them being so silly in the future.



Funny how that tactic seldom actually works, isn't it?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ... and hopefully some prosecutions out of it to stop them being so silly in the future.


damn straight, I'd love to see Geoff Hoon / Gordon Brown up in court.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 9, 2008)

I wasn't aware that Gordon Brown had caused criminal damage to a security fence and trespassed on to private property at Stansted recently.


----------



## elbows (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> just pointing out that this idea that reducing carbon emissions must always affect the poor worst is a complete red herring.



Well I know what you mean but do you really think you can go as far as to call it a complete red herring? Under most scenarios I can think of, the poor suffer real bad.

Under the most equalizing outcome I can think of, where those who are not poor suffer until they are, so we are all poor, the poor still suffer quite a lot.

I can imagine the poor being asked to shoulder more than their share of the pain, getting rather angry as a result, there being a backlash, and other groups being forced to do a bit more as a result.

I suppose if I was an optimist about technology and science saving us, then there is much that could be done to push that agenda in a fair way that would actually benefit the poor.

Alternatively as the value that is placed on things changes, the poor might not be deemed poor any more, on the benchmarks of the day, which may measure happiness and leisure time rather than GDP.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I wasn't aware that Gordon Brown had caused criminal damage to a security fence and trespassed on to private property at Stansted recently.


oh sorry, was that what you were talking about?

I was thinking more along the lines of corporate manslaughter for taking decisions on airport expansion that will contribute to anthropogenic climate change and the deaths that will be caused by this, plus the deaths that will result from the breach of air quality levels if the heathrow expansion goes ahead.

but I'm sure a bit of damage to a fence and temporary desruption of a few passengers is the greater crime.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I live in Brixton.  This is a Brixton based (originally) forum, and it's good to keep in touch with local interests.  The other parts of this site (outside the Brixton forum) have varied interests too.



have you tried any ex scouts forums and stuff ?


----------



## ajdown (Dec 9, 2008)

cantsin said:


> have you tried any ex scouts forums and stuff ?



It's not something you need to recover from, it's not addictive you know.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Free Spirit gave 9 examples of protests which did not deliberately disrupt working class travelers.  That doesn't change the facts about yesterday's action.



"I simply suggest that the misanthropic self-righteous middle class protesters *are *pursuing an anti working class agenda, *deliberately targeting working class *travellers. The masses cannot be allowed to fly, is their implied message."

you're openly contradicting yourself now, this is just an intellectual game for you, one you don;t even play well - another timewaster, just from a different side of the fence . 

Laters


----------



## cantsin (Dec 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> It's not something you need to recover from, it's not addictive you know.




but being an idiot on forums where you disagree with 99 % of the people is ? I just can't imagine spending my time doing that - but then I was never in the scouts either . 

Anyway, I'm  off before D le Rouge comes back


----------



## ajdown (Dec 9, 2008)

cantsin said:


> but being an idiot on forums where you disagree with 99 % of the people is ?



I think you're confusing "being an idiot" with "not being a member of the dominant demographic but that doesn't mean I can't come here.

I've learnt a lot from some discussions where I've not had anything to contribute but have read, contributed to threads others have learnt from, and if people can manage to respond to the post instead of the poster, and leave the arguments about other forums out of irrelevant threads, things tend to run along quite well quite frequently.


----------



## elbows (Dec 9, 2008)

Cosmetics boss funds protesters:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7774309.stm


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2008)

elbows said:


> Cosmetics boss funds protesters:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7774309.stm


good, it can be pretty difficult funding a successful national campaigning organisation with the proceeds of the back of a few hippies sofas.


----------



## lostexpectation (Dec 9, 2008)

i don't have a problem with them being hippies, toffs or even nimbys or business men but if they funded by other airport competitors....


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 9, 2008)

free spirit said:


> don't get me wrong, I don't really expect it to happen, just pointing out that this idea that reducing carbon emissions must always affect the poor worst is a complete red herring.
> 
> just because this government's environmental policies essentially boil down to an excuse to put extra tax on stuff, doesn't mean this is the only way of achieving environmental change - actually it's arguable that this approach doesn't achieve any noticable change at all unless the extra money raised is spent on providing low carbon alternatives / solutions.



I quite agree with you, sadly in a capitalist world all attempts to reduce environmental damage will be required to conform to capitalism before anybody worries about them conforming to common sense, fairness, scientific principles or any other factor.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Dec 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> No it wasn't.  I don't remember seeing government ministers having their travel disrupted.



His point stands though - i don't see the tube bosses having their travel disrupted by RMT strikes. 

I'm not sure whether i think PS antics are a good thing, probably not for a number of more subtle reasons - BUT - your single assessment, that it inconveniences the wrong people, is inadequate cos it applies to strikes and most political action full stop.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 9, 2008)

sorry for the c&p but just wrote this which sums up what i think about them

"With this action you have shown your true colours.  A bourgeois minority and enemy of the working class.

Your fake, mockney accents never fooled me.  I always knew you were not part of our class or our struggle.  I had foolishly hoped that you wouldn’t resort to attacks on my class in your efforts to establish political careers for yourselves.

Ryan Air customers are predominantly working class people going on a well deserved holiday or to see relatives. Most of them have probably flown less than most of you did before you were 18.  Yet it is them you choose to attack.

You may claim that you are trying to raise awareness of ‘climate alarm’.  I don’t believe you for a minute.  You are trying to raise awareness of yourselves, good little capitalist, celebrity junkies. You don’t fool me kids, you’re in this for you and your own, vain, broken and guilt ridden egos.

You might want to consider the carbon footprints of your private educations or the plush lifestyles most of you have lived.  You might want to consider that for some people saving up for a Ryan Air ticket to see family or give the kids a break almost breaks the bank and to destroy that for them is unforgivable.

You might want to consider the real life consequences of your actions.

This is no defence of Ryan Air. Ryan Air are cunts.

But there are many ways to attack an organisation.  This shambolic effort was a little like the animal rights movements choosing to attack people who’ve used drugs developed with animal testing.  An ineffective, inane and just plain stupid tactic that only furthers to alienate people from your objectives and the wider struggle.  And something the animal rights movement is smart enough to avoid.

You might want to look to the tactics of animal rights if you are serious about taking on the flight companies.  I doubt you are brave enough to raise your campaign to that level.

Instead you work as unpaid agents of the state, blaming the working class for climate change as opposed to of addressing the fundamental flaws of a mass production capitalist economy.

You are no suffragettes, you are no matyrs.  You are snivelling little rich kids with a flimsy grasp on politics firing wildly in all directions in the vague hope you may get your faces on TV.

You have dealt the environmental movement a serious blow.  You have further enshrined it in the minds of most as yet another bunch of over-privileged do gooders trying to tell the rest of us how to live.

You use fear and coercion to try and dictate our lives when it is not our class which needs to change but yours.

You don’t understand our lives and you don’t understand politics.

In fact you might like to just, fuck off."


----------



## cantsin (Dec 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I think you're confusing "being an idiot" with "not being a member of the dominant demographic but that doesn't mean I can't come here.
> 
> I've learnt a lot from some discussions where I've not had anything to contribute but have read, contributed to threads others have learnt from, and if people can manage to respond to the post instead of the poster, and leave the arguments about other forums out of irrelevant threads, things tend to run along quite well quite frequently.



having read your reactionary drivel on this and other threads , I just don't see it  - I'd guess you're lonely ( scouts in your mid twenties / all day on forums you really aint "contrubuting"  to ) , but no excuse for all this  . I think its pitiful tbh .


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 9, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> The rich will never create a currency of which they don't automatically have the biggest share. Think about it, you'd be creating something that's as good as money, and that rich people need for their lifestlyes, and then sharing it out equally amongst everybod in the country. It'd be a total catastrophe for they rich if they allowed such a thing, so they won't. Simple as that I'm afraid.



But we will control it - if some dimwit actually decides to bring in some form of carbon rationing, it'll kill off the low cost carriers and costadelslime charter flights so that the proles won't be able to afford to fly and will have to flog off their carbon credits for buttons to those who can still afford to fly "full fare".

There'll also be less dimwits on the roads trolling atround in crapmobiles leaving them free for people who really appreciate fine vehicles.

Bring it on!!!!


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2008)

smokedout said:


> sorry for the c&p but just wrote this which sums up what i think about them
> 
> "With this action you have shown your true colours.  A bourgeois minority and enemy of the working class.
> 
> ...



I suspect they aren't terribly concerned about your bigotted opinions. And all this is written from the point of view that the only thing worth pursuing is your "class struggle" and therefore any of your thoughts are essentially irrelevant to anyone who is concerned with pursuing the climate change agenda in any practical kind of way.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 10, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I suspect they aren't terribly concerned about your bigotted opinions. And all this is written from the point of view that the only thing worth pursuing is your "class struggle" and therefore any of your thoughts are essentially irrelevant to anyone who is concerned with pursuing the climate change agenda in any practical kind of way.



So what is the "practical" way of pursuing the (teeny weeny minority) "climate change agenda - via the democratic process?

Nah, that'd only reveal the paucity of support for this fringe view.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 10, 2008)

tbh I've batted this back and forth and I can't really disagree with this protest, even if it does really fuck off some people who wanted to take flights at the time, and even if it's not what you'd call the best targetted thing ever

For what that's worth.


----------



## chainsaw cat (Dec 10, 2008)

Foil_Counter said:


> Cheers for these. I shall be wheeling them out on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, where's that catshit fella?




Who, me? What?


----------



## rover07 (Dec 10, 2008)

Im for the protest...im not that bothered about climate change. But any direct action protest is a good thing. Its too easy to sit back and do nothing about the state of the world. 

Is it a working class protest? Who cares... its a blow against big business/goverment/rules...

And a few people got pissed off about their holidays...bad news if youre one of them but im not ...so tough.


----------



## chainsaw cat (Dec 10, 2008)

smokedout said:


> nor me, i think they are reformist, capitalist scumbags of the worst kind and are very close to the top of the list of people who will need to be quietly offed in the chaos of revolution



No, no, a well lit wall in the gaze of the People's Commissar TV Company.


----------



## chainsaw cat (Dec 10, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> ...
> FWIW - anyone setting up a 'Ship Stupid' pressure group to blockade ports? Marine trade is responsible for not just more atmospheric pollution than the aviation industry, but also huge amounts of fuel and waste dumping in the oceans. Where are the climate change protestors at Felixstowe and the other major docks where the ships from China come filled with unsustainably produced goods, and then return mostly unladen? ...
> 
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

cantsin said:


> "I simply suggest that the misanthropic self-righteous middle class protesters *are *pursuing an anti working class agenda, *deliberately targeting working class *travellers. The masses cannot be allowed to fly, is their implied message."
> 
> you're openly contradicting yourself now, this is just an intellectual game for you, one you don;t even play well - another timewaster, just from a different side of the fence


No I'm not.  Where?  Please try to read what I've said.  The fact that they have also carried out protests that did not deliberately target working class travelers does not change the fact that the protest the day before yesterday did.



Taxamo Welf said:


> His point stands though - i don't see the tube bosses having their travel disrupted by RMT strikes.


I've dealt with that.  It's about withdrawal of labour, and the relationship between the worker and the boss.  If tube drivers withdraw their labour, the train won't move unless somebody else drives it.  But the intention is not to inconvenience passangers, that is just the effect of withdrawing their labour.  If the Plane Stupid protesters withdraw their labour, this does not affect planes.

Everyone understands that workers may have to withdraw their labour in a dispute.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I presume they decided that it was in the interests of the world population at large for those few passengers to have their flights disrupted.


You don't think that's the very definition of self-righteous?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> If the Plane Stupid protesters withdraw their labour, this does not affect planes.


no, it probably wouldnt affect anyone except themselves


----------



## smokedout (Dec 10, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I suspect they aren't terribly concerned about your bigotted opinions. And all this is written from the point of view that the only thing worth pursuing is your "class struggle" and therefore any of your thoughts are essentially irrelevant to anyone who is concerned with pursuing the climate change agenda in any practical kind of way.



so you really believe we can continue with a global mass production capitalist economy and just tinker about the edges a bit and suddenly the environmental issues will be all cleared up?

yer having a bubble mate


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 10, 2008)

OK, leaving aside the class arguements (and it must be something special when I'm agreeing with a long C&P from smokedout), I'm going to construct a media narrative for those who still don't get why this protest is ultimately counter-productive.

With the exception of the Guardian and Independent, this action was reported in class terms. In the tabloids it was reported as 'toffs wreck ordinary worker holidays', in the mids as 'rich protestors wreck hardworking family holidays' and in the Torygraph as 'Rebellious children stop holidays'. In each report, the central narratives are:

1. This was a protest by people richer than you trying to stop something you work hard to get
2. These rich people are also trying hard to stop you getting cheap holidays too
3. Only rich kids are interested in this issue
4. Climate change is not an issue that you can support and be a hardworking, ordinary person

The coverage helps to cement the idea that CC is a m/c, or rich dilletante issue, and one which will fuck up the lives of OHWP if you give them the chance. Indeed, it's an echo of arguments on this thread by poster34002, TL and several others about the puritanical, this is just another chance for the ruling and middle classes to make the lives of the w/c harder, and another stick to beat them with about their lifestyles.

That's why this was a stupid protest. It raises awareness in the wrong way, it's too easy to turn into a battle of stereotypes (which the CCC at Kingsnorth wasn't), and ultimately it makes convincing people about AGW harder, because the aside from convincing people on the science, you have to convince them it's not just about a bunch of out of touch rich people getting upset about something that doesn't matter.

That, free spirit, is the long term agenda of newspapers like the Sun, Mail, Telegraph etc - to continually rubbish climate change, to make it as hard as possible to acheive any kind of social solidarity about the issue. By rubbishing the protest as 'Toffs messing with real people's lives' they manage to belittle the protest AND the wider issue in one simple piece of reporting.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> That, free spirit, is the long term agenda of newspapers like the Sun, Mail, Telegraph etc - to continually rubbish climate change, to make it as hard as possible to acheive any kind of social solidarity about the issue. By rubbishing the protest as 'Toffs messing with real people's lives' they manage to belittle the protest AND the wider issue in one simple piece of reporting.



This may be true but quite a few people on this thread seem to be agreeing with the tabloid opinion. They aren't just saying that the protest was misjudged in terms of media strategy; they are actually agreeing with the Sun's "Toffs messing with real people's lives" simplistic and reactionary analysis.


----------



## rover07 (Dec 10, 2008)

The media rarely approve of direct action, its DANGEROUS and destabilising, they will always twist things to suit their own perspective. But thats no reason to not protest.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

teuchter said:


> they are actually agreeing with the Sun's "Toffs messing with real people's lives" simplistic and reactionary analysis.


The Sun wants workers to side with capitalists.  As always.  Who on this thread wants that?

I'm saying the protesters have no class analysis, no analysis of how climate change fits into the picture of global capitalism, and are basically self righteous liberals


----------



## rover07 (Dec 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm saying the protesters have no class analysis, no analysis of how climate change fits into the picture of global capitalism, and are basically self righteous liberals



Maybe so but at least they are breaking the law and challenging big business which is good.


----------



## rover07 (Dec 10, 2008)

I dont buy this 'ooh they're upsetting working class people going on holiday' so fucking what? Every strike or protest is going to upset people ...thats the whole point.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

rover07 said:


> Maybe so but at least they are breaking the law and challenging big business which is good.


Unless they have some kind of analysis to what they're doing, they'll be firing blind, and risk alienating people and exacerbating what problems there are.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

rover07 said:


> I dont buy this 'ooh they're upsetting working class people going on holiday' so fucking what? Every strike or protest is going to upset people ...thats the whole point.


I've covered this: the action at Stansted was not a styrike. It wasn't withdrawal of labour.

If you think the relationship between boss and worker is the same as any other relationship in society, then you have a fundamentally different view of the world to me.


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2008)

There ought to be a clear distinction between a *protest* and *direct action*.

Protests are about sending a certain message to a certain target audience.

Direct action is about physical and immediately either doing a concrete thing (e.g. Food Not Bombs) or preventing a concrete thing (e.g. chaining yourself to a tree so it can't be cut down).

(Incidentally strikes can fit into either depending on their context and form)

Was the Plane Stupid thing a Direct Action or protest?

It seems to be not quite manageing to succeed at either imo.

It was DA of a sort. It stopped planes from operating. But only a very very limited scale.

It was protest of a sort. It got publicity and spread a message. But as we've seen here, this has had mixed results.

So, I think it was a mistake.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

chilango said:


> There ought to be a clear distinction between a *protest* and *direct action*.
> 
> Protests are about sending a certain message to a certain target audience.
> 
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> The Sun wants workers to side with capitalists.  As always.  Who on this thread wants that?
> 
> I'm saying the protesters have no class analysis, no analysis of how climate change fits into the picture of global capitalism, and are basically self righteous liberals



They probably have a different analysis to yours. That doesn't mean they are deliberately trying to do in the working classes as you say they are.

Anyone making a protest or demonstration could be said to be "self-righteous".


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

teuchter said:


> They probably have a different analysis to yours.


Yes; they're liberals.


> That doesn't mean they are deliberately trying to do in the working classes as you say they are.


Well, chilango puts it well above.  Was it direct action, or not?


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 10, 2008)

teuchter said:


> This may be true but quite a few people on this thread seem to be agreeing with the tabloid opinion. They aren't just saying that the protest was misjudged in terms of media strategy; they are actually agreeing with the Sun's "Toffs messing with real people's lives" simplistic and reactionary analysis.



You know it's possible to have the same opinion, but arrive at it in a different way, and for different reasons?

dlr, smokedout, myself have all approached this using a different kind of class analysis to that used by The Sun. The effect is still the same, but The Sun aren't wrong - this was a bunch of posh kids stopping planes flying, driven by the conviction that they're right and nothing else. This is akin to (but not the equivalent of) AR protestors exhuming corpses or releasing mink into the wild - it's this attitude writ large:



> Maybe so but at least they are breaking the law and challenging big business which is good.



...at least they're doing something.

There's an old maxim that's cropped up in several major civilisations, and goes something like:

'The right thing, done for the wrong reasons, will always bring bad results.'

That's what you've got here.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 10, 2008)

smokedout said:


> so you really believe we can continue with a global mass production capitalist economy and just tinker about the edges a bit and suddenly the environmental issues will be all cleared up?
> 
> yer having a bubble mate



no one with half a brain thinks that, but doing nothing = doing nothing


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

cantsin said:


> no one with half a brain thinks that, but doing nothing = doing nothing


I'd prefer liberals did nothing.  They just bugger things up for the rest of us.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I'd prefer liberals did nothing.  They just bugger things up for the rest of us.




Sit around ( literally ) worrying about the "class composition of big businesses 'customers' vs enviromental protest £  for too long, and it's all gonna be buggered up anyway , but I spose at least you'll know your class analysis was uncompromised to the end .


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

Who's sitting?  I'm standing.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 10, 2008)

From The Daily Mash:



> HIPPIES ANNOYING
> HIPPIES were today banging on about petrol again even though we already get it and would just like to go skiing.
> 
> A gang of them have occupied the runway at Stansted to raise awareness about how airports are increasingly being used for air travel.
> ...


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Dec 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I've dealt with that.  It's about withdrawal of labour, and the relationship between the worker and the boss.  If tube drivers withdraw their labour, the train won't move unless somebody else drives it.  But the intention is not to inconvenience passengers, that is just the effect of withdrawing their labour.  If the Plane Stupid protesters withdraw their labour, this does not affect planes.
> 
> Everyone understands that workers may have to withdraw their labour in a dispute.



I dispute 'everyone' understands that at all. To most people this would just be semantics - you're using a politicised left-wing way of looking at the situation. Someone else with an ecological perspective could say 'everyone understands that consumers may have to be inconvenienced in a environmental dispute'.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> Someone else with an ecological perspective could say 'everyone understands that consumers may have to be inconvenienced in a environmental dispute'.


That may be so, but it isn't an parallel of what I said.  I didn't say "consumers may have to be inconvenienced in an industrial dispute".  I said withdrawing ones labour may have the effect of inconveniencing customers, but that it isn't the purpose of the strike.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 10, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> From The Daily Mash:



not even funny , let alone saying anything at all - great c + P !

would rather listen to that  weirdo AJp and his tales of "scouting in your twenties " tbh


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 10, 2008)

What would a humourless little twat like you know about funny anyway?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 10, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> What would a humourless little twat like you know about funny anyway?



lol -you got any more any more keraazy-cynical c + p 's for us ?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

ok here's my take on it.

I don't think the Plane Stupid action was perfectly thought out, and I don't think that Plane Stupid as a campaigning group are at the stage where they've either fully thought through their strategy or actions in every nuanced detail, and yes they probably are largely from educated middle / upper class backgrounds so may not have a fully worked through class analysis of their actions.

But then so fucking what. There's a fair arguement that it takes groups of young and fairly politically naive people to have the balls, energy and determination to actually attempt to take on such an entrenched government backed industry in this manner. Most older activists I know who may be more politically aware are pretty much burnt out, so yes I'm going to support the fact that there is a new generation of protesters coming through who're prepared to take the government on head on, regardless of the supposed imperfections of their politics or strategy (much of which seems to be based on nothing more than class envy)

They are taking high profile actions targeting the most obviously hypocritical aspect of the UK government's climate change policy - ie. the decision continue with a predict and supply policy to enable continued rapid expansion in air travel regardless of the environmental consequences.

At present there are 2 main high profile examples of this expansion programme - the plans that the government has forced through against fierce local resident and council objections to build additional runways at Heathrow and Stansted airports.

Heathrow was targeted by the climate camp in an extremely high profile action less than 18 months ago, so it makes perfect sense that Stansted should also now be targeted less than a month after the government decision to over-rule the local council and force through a new runway against fierce local opposition.

Just because this airport is used as a base for low cost airlines doesn't give it immunity from legitimate protest actions IMO, and if I was someone who considered myself to be left wing, I'd be seriously considering my position if I found myself defending scum like ryan air, and using the view of the Sun and Telegraph as vindication of my position.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 10, 2008)

cantsin said:


> would rather listen to that  weirdo AJp and his tales of "scouting in your twenties " tbh



In my 20's, as a leader, just to clarify.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

free spirit said:


> if I was someone who considered myself to be left wing, I'd be seriously considering my position if I found myself defending scum like ryan air, and using the view of the Sun and Telegraph as vindication of my position.


Who is defending Ryanair?  Who has the same position as the Sun?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, chilango puts it well above.  Was it direct action, or not?


not exactly direct action in the classic sense, but it was using direct action methods as part of a protest action to draw widespread media coverage to an issue in order to pressure the government about it's recent decision.

In doing this they will also have emboldened and encouraged the local residents based groups fighting the airports expansion, as it demonstrates that they are not fighting this alone, and can count on a determined and resourceful national campaigning group to back their fight and keep up the media profile of the campaign.

bear in mind this is turning into a national election issue, with labour out on a limb on airport expansion, and many constituencies in the affected areas likely to vote largely on this issue. Pressure is being brought to bear on a weak Prime Minster by labour MP's and cabinet members on this issue at the moment, who're worried about the impact of the issue at the election, so now really is the time for high profile actions such as this one IMO.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

free spirit said:


> not exactly direct action in the classic sense,


It either is or isn't.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 10, 2008)

> Just because this airport is used as a base for low cost airlines doesn't give it immunity from legitimate protest actions IMO, and if I was someone who considered myself to be left wing, I'd be seriously considering my position if I found myself defending scum like ryan air, and using the view of the Sun and Telegraph as vindication of my position.



Well aside from the fact that I've not defended Ryanair, nor using the Sun and Telegraph as 'vindication' for my position merely used them illustrate a wider point about a media narrative, all I can assume is that you really don't get why this was a bad, ill thought out protest that will achieve none of it's presumed wider aims, and is in fact more likely to damage wider support for anti-air expansion protest as well as the overall debate about climate change.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Who is defending Ryanair?  Who has the same position as the Sun?


you and several others on this thread.

well actually you are defending the position of Ryan Air on this issue, and taking up much of the same position on it as the Sun, which'd be enough to make me stop and think about my position.

You may claim and think that you're taking up a position based on nuanced class based analysis of the issue, but the effect is the same.



> *Upper crusties*
> THOUSANDS of ordinary families faced airport hell yesterday — as well-heeled youngsters blockaded Stansted’s runway in a demo over climate change.
> The protesters — whose Plane Stupid campaign counts sons and daughters of peers among activists — chained themselves together to halt flights.


[the sun]


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

Just wondered, is Mark Constantine a CEO of a profit-hungy corporation?  Or is that not as bad a thing on page 15 as it was on page 9?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

free spirit said:


> you and several others on this thread.
> 
> well actually you are defending the position of Ryan Air on this issue


Don't be silly.  You clearly haven't read what I said.



> and taking up much of the same position on it as the Sun,


Don't be silly part 2.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> It either is or isn't.


well it's obviously not direct action in the classic sense as I don't think they've actually started work on the new runway yet.

Direct action campaigns though have rarely waited until work actually starts to take take action to raise public awareness, get media coverage, try to reverse the decision before work actually does start, and effectively serve notice that this decision will be fought all the way.

but then you know that anyway.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Don't be silly.  You clearly haven't read what I said.
> 
> Don't be silly part 2.



Do you think you would have reacted differently if exactly the same action had been carried out by "working class" people?


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 10, 2008)

I'd be interested to see a vox pop done among the good burghers around Stanstead and Heathrow and compare their overall views on CC (lets see how the West Londoners felt about say, the CCharge extension), runway expansion etc if it wasn't happening on their doorsteps. Much like the good burghers of Kent led to the billions of extra cash that had to be spent on the CTRL because they went all NIMBY on it.

I wonder if Plane Stupid would be quite so passionate if BAA were following Boris' idea and building an airport using reclaimed land in the Thames estuary? I don't think they would somehow.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 10, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Do you think you would have reacted differently if exactly the same action had been carried out by "working class" people?



Not me.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Do you think you would have reacted differently if exactly the same action had been carried out by "working class" people?


I didn't know the class composition of the group of activists when I posted my first post. 

My comments about class analysis aren't about whether protester A is a son of a peer or not. And if you think that's what it's about, then you've very much misunderstood what I've been saying.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Just wondered, is Mark Constantine a CEO of a profit-hungy corporation?  Or is that not as bad a thing on page 15 as it was on page 9?


on a 1-10 scale of evil profit hungry corporations I'd rate lush at a 1-2, and Ryan Air / BAA at around 7-8.

Lush is pretty much the Body Shop of the last decade, probably not perfect, but about as good as a privately owned company is likely to get.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

free spirit said:


> on a 1-10 scale of evil profit hungry corporations I'd rate lush at a 1-2, and Ryan Air / BAA at around 7-8.
> 
> Lush is pretty much the Body Shop of the last decade, probably not perfect, but about as good as a privately owned company is likely to get.


And that, if you don't mind me saying, is why you're a liberal and I'm not.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Well aside from the fact that I've not defended Ryanair, nor using the Sun and Telegraph as 'vindication' for my position merely used them illustrate a wider point about a media narrative, all I can assume is that you really don't get why this was a bad, ill thought out protest that will achieve none of it's presumed wider aims, and is in fact more likely to damage wider support for anti-air expansion protest as well as the overall debate about climate change.


I totally get what you're saying about it generating negative press coverage, but then I also remember that the entire anarcho/green earth first strand of activism that Plane Stupid are modelling themselves on / linking into, was never about expecting positive press coverage from the corporate media.

In fact most of the campaigns have at least begun with negative press of the 'upper class crusty hippies inconvenience ordinary working class people / cost tax payers money' type variety. It's pretty much the reason that Indymedia exists (for all it's faults).

For an example, the roads protests of the early 90's were greeted with a similar style of press coverage, yet they were ultimately relatively successful in achieving their aims of changing government policy.

At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words, and this action has generated far more press coverage and awareness about the decision to allow a 2nd runway at stansted than pretty much anything else anyone could have done. As the old maxim goes, any publicity is good publicity.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 10, 2008)

The road protests were successful because they ended up costing the govt additional billions to build the fucking things, and we got a ton of legislation limiting legal protest, so I'd count that as a phyrric victory at best!



> As the old maxim goes, any publicity is good publicity.



See if you can find anything about Audi and 'Sudden Acceleration Incidents' for an example of how this isn't true...or amend it to:

Any publicity is good publicity...for someone else.

I also loath and detest NIMBYism, which, having met a couple of the local Stanstead protestors, is unfortunately in more evidence than any concern about the planet at large


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> And that, if you don't mind me saying, is why you're a liberal and I'm not.


tbf I worked out it was fairly pointless tying to work with the traditional left around the time of the G8 when some of the trad left mob lost it slightly and decided to inform us that we'd be first against the wall come the revolution.

up til that point I'd always thought we were on the same side, they put me straight and no mistake. So yeah forgive me if I'm not overly sensitive to your demands for class analysis before targeting multinational corporations hell bent on destroying the environment.

there is a somewhat bigger picture here than the impact on a few passengers, some of whom happened to be working class.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 10, 2008)

Free spirit, I have no problem with multinational corporations being targeted.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> I'd be interested to see a vox pop done among the good burghers around Stanstead and Heathrow and compare their overall views on CC (lets see how the West Londoners felt about say, the CCharge extension), runway expansion etc if it wasn't happening on their doorsteps. Much like the good burghers of Kent led to the billions of extra cash that had to be spent on the CTRL because they went all NIMBY on it.
> 
> I wonder if Plane Stupid would be quite so passionate if BAA were following Boris' idea and building an airport using reclaimed land in the Thames estuary? I don't think they would somehow.


are you saying that climate change campaigners shouldn't link up with local groups who're more concerned with the impact of airport expansion on localised noise, air pollution, traffic, and the destruction of local houses and land?

it really is tough to please everyone isn't it. I mean for years people on here have been bemoaning the environmental protest movement's inability to engage with local residents on the issues and protests, and now when they do start to do this, the goal posts are moved.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Free spirit, I have no problem with multinational corporations being targeted.



Working class people work for multinational corporations though. If you damage the corporations' profits you are putting the workers' short term interests at risk, surely. Just like these protests against these flights we are told are all full of hard-working working class folks.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Free spirit, I have no problem with multinational corporations being targeted.



so long as no working class people are temporarily inconvenienced by the actions?

what actually are your parameters? I'm struggling to work it out, and if I'm struggling then it's no wonder that the Plane Stupid lot are having problems gaining the DLR seal of approval.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 10, 2008)

> there is a somewhat bigger picture here



Refer to my posts about how this protest is making that bigger picture harder to sell.

Thing is, even some basic marketing analysis like SWOT - who do we need to convince of this, what are the wider aims, how will this action be perceived - would have shown that this wasn't a great idea.

Compare that with the CCC - generally neutral to good press coverage, widespread public support, geniunely successful in raising awareness of the issues, even got old polecat out debating about coal. Compare that even with the biggest own goal Greenpeace ever scored - Brent Spar. Widely successful (altho it screwe them credibility-wise in the papers) in gathering public support.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Dec 10, 2008)

free spirit said:


> ok here's my take on it.
> 
> I don't think the Plane Stupid action was perfectly thought out, and I don't think that Plane Stupid as a campaigning group are at the stage where they've either fully thought through their strategy or actions in every nuanced detail, and yes they probably are largely from educated middle / upper class backgrounds so may not have a fully worked through class analysis of their actions.


aaaaactually that's not the case; the people you see doing Plane Stupid stuff are not the only people making decisions about actions and media strategy etc. The people doing the actions are totally genuine but no, they didn't come up with this all themselves, neither did they have the nous for media, court and so on. There are professional interests at work. If you think about it, a group of previously apolitical young people *all* suddenly deciding that aviation was _the most pressing environmental issue of the day_ is some coincidence...



> But then so fucking what. There's a fair argument that it takes groups of young and fairly politically naive people to have the balls, energy and determination to actually attempt to take on such an entrenched government backed industry in this manner. Most older activists I know who may be more politically aware are pretty much burnt out, so yes I'm going to support the fact that there is a new generation of protesters coming through who're prepared to take the government on head on, regardless of the supposed imperfections of their politics or strategy (much of which seems to be based on nothing more than class envy)
> 
> They are taking high profile actions targeting the most obviously hypocritical aspect of the UK government's climate change policy - ie. the decision continue with a predict and supply policy to enable continued rapid expansion in air travel regardless of the environmental consequences.
> 
> ...


i like this, well said 

I'm not reading through the 15 or so pages, but i went to the heathrow climate camp expecting a very 'us and them' mentality and was actually faced with a totally class conscious campaign that had local interests at its heart. Now Plane Stupid are quite separate, but its the same people and same kind of scene; writing them off was a mistake.


----------



## kropotkin (Dec 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> And that, if you don't mind me saying, is why you're a liberal and I'm not.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> aaaaactually that's not the case; the people you see doing Plane Stupid stuff are not the only people making decisions about actions and media strategy etc. The people doing the actions are totally genuine but no, they didn't come up with this all themselves, neither did they have the nous for media, court and so on. There are professional interests at work. If you think about it, a group of previously apolitical young people *all* suddenly deciding that aviation was _the most pressing environmental issue of the day_ is some coincidence...


I'm aware that at least 2 of the founders of plane stupid now work for greenpeace, that links have been forged with the older generation Earth First networks, and between plane stupid and the climate camp people - and that they're all fairly interchangable.

I'm sure there is strategic thinking going on, and some older wiser heads involved, I wasn't really trying to denigrate Plane Stupid at all, merely preface what I was about to say about their actions deserving support regardless of them maybe not being 100% perfect in the eyes of the class analysts of urban 75.

I also think they could well be playing a much better media game than Kyser Soze gives them credit for.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 10, 2008)

> a group of previously apolitical young people *all* suddenly deciding that aviation was the most pressing environmental issue of the day is some coincidence...



Not to mention all coming from West London...


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Dec 10, 2008)

free spirit said:


> I'm aware that at least 2 of the founders of plane stupid now work for greenpeace, that links have been forged with the older generation Earth First networks, and between plane stupid and the climate camp people - and that they're all fairly interchangable.



there's more to it, but it isn't my place to say.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Refer to my posts about how this protest is making that bigger picture harder to sell.
> 
> Thing is, even some basic marketing analysis like SWOT - who do we need to convince of this, what are the wider aims, how will this action be perceived - would have shown that this wasn't a great idea.
> 
> Compare that with the CCC - generally neutral to good press coverage, widespread public support, geniunely successful in raising awareness of the issues, even got old polecat out debating about coal. Compare that even with the biggest own goal Greenpeace ever scored - Brent Spar. Widely successful (altho it screwe them credibility-wise in the papers) in gathering public support.


go on then, let's do a media strategy analysis shall we.

your take on this seems to be based upon the assumption that the aim of the media coverage generated by this campaign should be to generate positive across the board coverage of the issue in order to sway public opinion of the entire population behind the campaign.

While this would obviously be a nice way to do things, in reality it is never going to happen, and isn't actually necessary to achieve the ultimate goal of the campaign in terms of reversing the government policy on airport expansion. This policy really is tetering on a knife edge, with high level cabinet opposition, large numbers of MP's opposed to it, and large scale local opposition around the airports seeking expansion.

Plane Stupid therefore doesn't need to convince 100% of the population as to the rightness of it's cause, it merely needs to convince a few additional percent of the population to come off the fence, at the same time as making it clear to MP's that there is going to be a sustained high profile campaign on the issue to convince fence sitting MP's that this is a battle that's not worth fighting.

To do this, they do not need to target the readership of the Sun, who'd be the hardest constituency to win over to their side given the decades they've had swallowing the suns bollocks... besides the fact that the sun would never support the campaign without murdoch's backing, and the chances of murdoch backing an environmental protest movement over multi-national corporate interests is slim to nil. 

What they need to do is to target the readerships of the guardian and independant who're most likely to be sympathetic to their cause, to bring them off the fence, to start writing to their MPs, and getting riled up about the issue generally.

Essentially this relies on the concept that airport expansion won't be an electrion issue for people who're generally pro-expansion, or more likely haven't actually got a position on it, but are slightly narked at crusty protestors delaying working class families from going on their well earned holidays... but the specific airport expansions could well become an election issue in the immediately affected areas among those opposed to the expansions, and that the airport expansion programme can also become an election issue for the wider constituency of environmentally conscious voters for whom airport expansion could be forced onto the agenda as being the symbol of whether the government is serious about tackling climate change or not.

essentially it's about consilidating the campaigns base of support among those who're already most likely to be sympathetic to the issue, rather than trying to win over hardened climate sceptics and the like. 

Another crucial element to it IMO is that it could well act as a rallying call for other activists to converge on this issue as a winnable issue with an active high profile campaign to get involved with, potentially bringing in more experienced older activists to the campaign.

I'd say it was fairly successful on these terms.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> there's more to it, but it isn't my place to say.


I've no doubt there is.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Dec 10, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Not to mention all coming from West London...



1) not true, some are from islington and nice villagey type places outside london   Actually they are a from everywhere and they aren't _all_ middle class either.

2) that they seem quite similar really isn't sinister - what it is a big friendship group or groups that met through childrens camping holidays, grew up and went to climate camp and wanted to keep doing climate activism. I've known most of them since i was 14.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Dec 10, 2008)

if you need a whipping boy by the way have a bit of this

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/12/414837.html

_RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE_


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

kropotkin said:


>


well, I was a fairly confrontational activist happy to work alongside and support more revolutionary left type's until I was informed in no uncertain terms that me and my lot would all be first against the wall come the revolution.

Turkey's may or may not vote for christmas given the option, but I personally choose not to actively work towards a revolution where my would be revolutionary partners intend to stab me 'and my kind' in the back as soon as the revolution is won.

I don't know if this is DLR or your personal position, but it is the position of a fair few of your comrades / fellow travellers, so apologies if I chose to work confrontationally to change the current system rather than work alongside a bunch of hopelessly ineffectual 'class warriors' endlessly spouting revolutionary drivel, while actually achieving fuck all, who in the highly unlikely event that we did manage to force a revolution that put them in charge, would then line me up against the wall and shoot me.

It may have just been drunk bravado, but it seemed more like their mask had slipped for a minute to reveal what they truly thought... and history shows that such threats shouldn't be taken lightly.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Dec 10, 2008)

free spirit said:


> It may have just been drunk bravado


Nope.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> Nope.


no, I didn't think so either.

anyway, they showed their true revolutionary colours throughout the G8 protests...

stopping activists from getting off their coaches to join in the blockades our lot had been keeping up since around 3am - ie. actively refusing to open the coach doors to allow people to get off / saying that anyone who did get off the coaches would not be allowed back on to the return coaches. Solidarity in action - well done comrades.

When Revo actually did manage to break through the fence with pretty much their full block, they marched halfway through a field, declared a symbolic victory, turned round and marched back out again to avoid arrests. Compare that with the huge numbers of people we'd had nicked already that day blockading the roads to stretch police resources to the point where it was possible for Revo or anyone else to break through the fence... chicken shit wannabe revolutionaries IMO.

if this is 'revolutionary' socialism in action, then I'm happy to have nothing to do with it or them.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

ps as thread starter I'm claiming ranting rights on this thread...


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Dec 10, 2008)

WTF? I thought you meant the the difference between revolutionaries and liberals in general.

You're all mixed up now cos you've put Revo (Workers Power) on one side and anarchists building barricades at Sterling on the other. When the question is 'would they kill someone' the answer is yes, they both probably would. They are both violent revolutionaries; its debatable whether they'd all actually have the stones to kill someone but neither of them are opposed to it.


----------



## Dan U (Dec 10, 2008)

smokedout said:


> Ryan Air customers are predominantly working class people going on a well deserved holiday or to see relatives.



i hate to let facts get in the way of a good rant but this is bobbins.


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2008)

I really enjoyed free spirit's posts about class and revolution.

I am worried about the levels of cynicism today, but I can see where it comes from, oh how much easier and secure my life would be if I could find a group to identify with, and an enemy to hate and blame.

The myriad of things that we find to separate and divide us would be amusing if it were not so tragic. 

I am left to apply my cynicism to humanity as a whole, for aspects of all classes and beliefs leave me holding my head in despair. All are to blame, all are the problem, all are the solution. Of course those with more opportunity, resources & power bear more direct responsibility for our sorry state, but putting their backs up against the wall also poisons the revolution and dooms humanity to repeat the same fundamental mistakes.

If I were able to find fuel for my ideals about how humans could organise, my politics aged 33 would be in a very different place. But forums such as Urban75 have only made my expectations of human political nature worse, and at this rate, given the looming environmental & energy woes, I expect I will wake up one day and take the governments side, as they are the ones in the position where words and purist positions are not enough, where they must either fudge and compromise or take a side and screw specific groups.  I could stomach them when they are compromising rather than screwing, and I suppose this pushes me towards liberal territory. Not where I really want to be, but in the face of extremism from many other quarters, what else is a person to do?

Meanwhile there was something in the FT the other day about the Stansted runway not being needed for quite a number of years, as the economic woe has already affected projected traffic.


----------



## Dan U (Dec 10, 2008)

elbows said:


> Meanwhile there was something in the FT the other day about the Stansted runway not being needed for quite a number of years, as the economic woe has already affected projected traffic.



the air traffic projections by BAA are fanciful at best imo. They were pretty crap at forecasting passenger growth on a month to month basis when i got their projections for work, let alone forecasts 20 years hence

the growth in numbers seem to be to be based on the exponential growth in passenger numbers that the consumer shift from package holidays (still the preserve of the 'working classes' ) to low cost flights (the more monied traveller - all research i've seen by airport operators supports this) continuing ad infinitum. Certainly at Stansted.

Heathrow is based on a slightly different model as a hub but i still think they are cock. Gatwicks model is more mixed short/long distance although the way that airport operates will change when it's sold imo (BA will move out, Virgin will move in and much more low cost, Ryan Air may well desert Stansted if Luton and the new Gatwick owners pony up with better landing fees). Then where will Stansted's new runway be  

as big corporate cheese pieces as they may be, both Michael O'Leary and Steliossleazyjet know there markets. O'Leary has been bang on the money so far about airlines going to the wall and Stelios is desperately trying to renegotiate the contracts for their new airline stock to delay delivery.

less airlines may well mean less competition and higher prices. but it will mean less empty planes, less routes, less waste and, erm, less planes in the sky

white elephant alert.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 10, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> if you need a whipping boy by the way have a bit of this
> 
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/12/414837.html
> 
> _RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE_



thats gotta be a spoof, i wish id written it


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> WTF? I thought you meant the the difference between revolutionaries and liberals in general.
> 
> You're all mixed up now cos you've put Revo (Workers Power) on one side and anarchists building barricades at Sterling on the other. When the question is 'would they kill someone' the answer is yes, they both probably would. They are both violent revolutionaries; its debatable whether they'd all actually have the stones to kill someone but neither of them are opposed to it.


nah, I'm talking about the revolutionary socialist types, and what their plans would be for their anarchist / green types if the revolution ever happened and they ended up in charge.

Prior to my involvement with Dissent I was pretty open to building links with the socialists, I foolishly thought we were all on the same side. The words 'you lot would be first up against the wall' uttered by some of the G8 Alternatives (socialist) mob, could well be taken as just a drunk outburst, but combined with their actual actions in the build up to, and during the G8 protests, leads me to want fuck all to do with them, firstly because if it came to anything they'd stab us in the back at the first opportunity, and secondly because they're all mouth and no trousers anyway, not to mention most likely infiltrated and controlled by the state...

so yeah, so called revolutionary socialists can call me a liberal all day long as far as I'm concerned, I've seen the reality behind the rhetoric and it stinks IMO.

ps in case you've missed it the difference is between groups killing 'someone', and groups killing me and mine, tis a subtle but important distinction


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 10, 2008)

So, the lesson is you can't do anything political if you're middle class/slightly well off, and you certainly can't do anything that stops a bunch of chavs leaving the country...


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

elbows said:


> I really enjoyed free spirit's posts about class and revolution.


cheers, it's good to have a rant every so often I find, plus I figured I ought to nail my colours to the mast.

Not that I can really see how fighting for the right of the working classes to get treated like shit by a specifically anti-trade union airline is a particularly brilliant strategy for a class warrior type socialist to take... 

We must defend the rights of the poor oppressed working classes to take cheap flights...

erm, but the company providing those cheap flights can only do this because it is non unionised, can pay it's workers less than other airlines, treats them worse, has worse customer service, fights tooth and nail not to cover any customers costs caused by flight delays, and it's expansion has caused unionised airlines to go out of business / lay off staff.

yeah but no buy yeah but no but your a middle class liberal eco hippy how dare you try to tell us the glorious leaders of the working classes what to do.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 10, 2008)

free spirit said:


> nah, I'm talking about the revolutionary socialist types, and what their plans would be for their anarchist / green types if the revolution ever happened and they ended up in charge.



hang on, im a green anarchist revolutionary socialist, and id quite happily put you up against a wall when the glorious day comes


----------



## smokedout (Dec 10, 2008)

that was a drunken outburst by the way


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> So, the lesson is you can't do anything political if you're middle class/slightly well off, and you certainly can't do anything that stops a bunch of chavs leaving the country...


that's about the size of it... probably best if we just kill ourselves now and leave the working class and their glorious leaders to get on with their revolution.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

smokedout said:


> hang on, im a green anarchist revolutionary socialist, and id quite happily put you up against a wall when the glorious day comes


that's fine mate, I got your number a while back.

btw you realise you'd probably be next up against the wall once you'd dealt with me... far too much like a trouble making free thinker.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 10, 2008)

free spirit said:


> that's about the size of it... probably best if we just kill ourselves now and leave the working class and their glorious leaders to get on with their revolution.



Heh I was just taking the piss. I really couldn't give a fuck about the class of those who did the action or those on the plane. If you spend your life worrying about what actions you can take due to your class or your likely affected targets class you'll never get any fucking thing done. 

People forget that even some of the salt of the earth, tunnelling road protesters of the 90s had support from very wealthy people, aristocracy and the like. Fuck, wasn't one of the founders or early activists involved in RTS the son of a fucking Lord??

There is no pure politics. And those that think there is are no better than Hitler.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Heh I was just taking the piss. I really couldn't give a fuck about the class of those who did the action or those on the plane. If you spend your life worrying about what actions you can take due to your class or your likely affected targets class you'll never get any fucking thing done.
> 
> People forget that even some of the salt of the earth, tunnelling road protesters of the 90s had support from very wealthy people, aristocracy and the like. Fuck, wasn't one of the founders or early activists involved in RTS the son of a fucking Lord??
> 
> There is no pure politics. And those that think there is are no better than Hitler.


I know, I was also taking the piss... as well as setting you up nicely to make the above statement, which pretty neatly summarises my thoughts and experiences as well


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2008)

Well the babbling in my last post probably shows that Im annoyed and confused about class politics.

The horrible history of injustice in this country, along with social immobility and rapid change in the sense of self & community, makes it hard for me to dismiss class issues as irrelevant today. But they dont half get in the way of things, whether it be through division and hate, or sponsoring a series of oversimplified and bloody solutions.  

I look at the USA and whilst I wouldnt describe them as a classless society, its interesting to see how having less class hangups affects their politics and debates. With one less hurdle in the way they sometimes achieve far more, although Im sure there are plenty of occasions where Americans have been screwed due to an absence of class awareness.

Potential state involvement with groups has certainly not helped my cynicism over the years, and sometimes it is tempting to believe that a rather simplistic divide and conquer strategy takes hold in this land, keep those at the bottom hating the buffer in the middle, and vica versa, so the top can carry on with relative immunity.

Anyway I clearly dont believe class issues help the climate change or peak oil problems, all classes are to blame and will suffer as we transition. Ive received some criticism in environmental, energy & economic threads for sounding too liberal or wanting to crap on the working class. This only makes me more determined not to care what class anybody is, I want everyone to be warm and fed in difficult times, I want the planet and humanity to survive, I dont want us to slaughter each other. I suspect there are people of all classes who have similar desires, therefore class warriors can either stick a solar panel where the sun does shine, or get out of the way  as far as Im concerned.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 10, 2008)

free spirit said:


> I know, I was also taking the piss... as well as setting you up nicely to make the above statement, which pretty neatly summarises my thoughts and experiences as well



Wow. I bow to your Francis Urquhart levels of manipulation!


----------



## david dissadent (Dec 10, 2008)

elbows said:


> Well the babbling in my last post probably shows that Im annoyed and confused about class politics.


From where I sit the UKs working class is not going to be on planes in Stanstead, they are working in steal mills in Indonesia, iron mines in Papua New Guniea and toy factories in China. The UK now mostly has the well off of the ruling class and the losers amoung the ruling class. Life may be hard for someone in a low paid service sector job, buts its not the hardest life that will bring the toys under your christmas tree. If someone wants to make a class based analysis of a protest movement then at least be honest and include how it affects the people who work to make the disposible goods the UK now consumes. Its not semantic either. My dad used to work in the craig steel works, they took them down and literaly shiped the works to Indonesia. 

Which brings me to another hobby horse about carbon trading. If we want to trade carbon then we should be resonsible for the carbon we import as well as that that we produce to consume domesticaly.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 10, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Wow. I bow to your Francis Urquhart levels of manipulation!


lol

tbf I didn't actually know you were going to make that statement*, just glad someone did


*or did I?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 10, 2008)

free spirit said:


> lol
> 
> tbf I didn't actually know you were going to make that statement*, just glad someone did
> 
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> So, the lesson is you can't do anything political if you're middle class/slightly well off, and you certainly can't do anything that stops a bunch of chavs leaving the country...


We'll leave aside the second part of that, I think, and concentrate on the first: if you think that's what class analysis is, then no wonder you don't like it.  It isn't, as I've already explained. 

There is no reason why the son or daughter of a lord cannot support the social revolution*.  My criticism of the protesters wasn't their class (I didn't know what class they were at first), but their liberalism.  Similarly, working class people could easily be liberals or worse.

I said the protesters were class-blind because their actions are fairly obviously not part of a coherent critique of capitalism.

Now, having said that, we ask was their action a protest or direct action? If the latter then the action they directly took was to prevent people from flying.  We know from the figures that these people were proportionately more likely to be working class than at other airport/carrier they could have chosen.  So the conclusion must be that they want working class people not to fly.

My argument is that while flying does heavily use scare resources and is a heavy polluter, actually a better target would be frequent flyers and business flyers (business because while an individual business person may be making his/her first flight to a meeting in NY, his/her company is nevertheless thereby responsible for systematically squandering scarce resources in the pursuit of profit).

But since the protesters did not target those flyers, actually the message (if this is direct action) is that they don't want the masses flying, even infrequently.

(Again, c/f Bookchin on equitable use of resources).


*Having said that, it would tend to make it more difficult for a group to orient itself if _all_ if them are children of aristos: it makes it harder for them to distinguish the interests of the social revolution from their own narrow class interests.  This would be exacerbated if their funding comes from wealthy capitalists.



teuchter said:


> Working class people work for multinational corporations though. If you damage the corporations' profits you are putting the workers' short term interests at risk, surely. Just like these protests against these flights we are told are all full of hard-working working class folks.


Which is one reason that alienating workers is so counter-productive.  

Capital can, through struggle, be forced to make compromises: history is littered with these incremental victories - the welfare state being one.  However, an isolated band who doesn't understand the structure of society is unlikely to be able to be able to achieve anything of the sort.  It'll take a mass movement, and you won't build a mass movement by pissing off the masses.


(Oh, and, Free Spirit, I wouldn't have you neck shot.  Tommy Sheridan however - he has it coming).


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> We'll leave aside the second part of that, I think, and concentrate on the first: if you think that's what class analysis is, then no wonder you don't like it.  It isn't, as I've already explained.
> 
> There is no reason why the son or daughter of a lord cannot support the social revolution*.  My criticism of the protesters wasn't their class (I didn't know what class they were at first), but their liberalism.  Similarly, working class people could easily be liberals or worse.
> 
> ...




I agree with much of this.

However, it shoul not lead to the conclusion that Plane Stupid cannot or should not take actions like they did.

Merely, that its important that they select the right tactic for specific goals.

As I said above, as a protest this failed to generate much widespread support. Seemingly sending the wrong message to the wrong people.

I would repeat that this was not a Direct Action, and should not be confused as such. Such confusion may be partly responsible for its failure as a media targetting protest.

It seems to me to be activity for activity's sake. A point underlined by many of the arguments in favour above. We've all seen the futility of such a strategy with the SWP and the StWC. Just because this action was more "militant" in presentation and certainly has the appearance of a direct action (if not the substance) does not make it any the more effective.

There is a place for DA, and when it is used, yes it will cause inconvenience, but to alienate ordinary folks for the sake of some hostile/dismissive media coverage just seems wasteful to me.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> go on then, let's do a media strategy analysis shall we.
> 
> your take on this seems to be based upon the assumption that the aim of the media coverage generated by this campaign should be to generate positive across the board coverage of the issue in order to sway public opinion of the entire population behind the campaign.
> 
> ...



Is this a very long winded way of saying 'They're trying to appeal to the base'?

Unfortunately I've got a busy day so will be off board for most of it, but you haven't actually said anything different here to my analysis in effect - that it won't reach out to anyone outside of those already decided on the issue or those who are immediately affected by it (and whom will probably be even more polarised on the issue than elsewhere, between those who don't want the extra runway and those who want the jobs that will come with it) for whom it will be a hot electoral issue anyway.

In the meantime, the wider picture is that it splits opinion of those who aren't committed protestors between action supporters and those who think it was ill-advised.

By appealing to the base you _always_ alienate and divide those aren't diehards.

But thanks for agreeing with me nonetheless.


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> the ultimate goal of the campaign in terms of reversing the government policy on airport expansion.



So is the campaign (and thus the Stanstead action) against all airport expansion?

or a specific new runway?

or to reduce air travel?

or kinda all three at once?


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 11, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> if you need a whipping boy by the way have a bit of this
> 
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/12/414837.html
> 
> _RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE_



Ha. Ha ha. HA HA HA.

It's become a parody hasn't it? 

Oh, and for anyone thinking that this lot are playing the ass in a sophisticated game of double bluff with the media:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article...Blue_Peter&in_article_id=439826&in_page_id=34

Outstandingly stupid comment to make, especially in light of the point the Beeb make about Blue Peter's long commitment to environmental issues...


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

chilango said:


> However, it shoul not lead to the conclusion that Plane Stupid cannot or should not take actions like they did.
> 
> Merely, that its important that they select the right tactic for specific goals.


Exactly.  That is precisely what I've been saying.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 11, 2008)

Indeed.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 11, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> We'll leave aside the second part of that, I think, and concentrate on the first: if you think that's what class analysis is, then no wonder you don't like it.  It isn't, as I've already explained.
> 
> There is no reason why the son or daughter of a lord cannot support the social revolution*.  My criticism of the protesters wasn't their class (I didn't know what class they were at first), but their liberalism.  Similarly, working class people could easily be liberals or worse.
> 
> ...




spot on


----------



## steve0223 (Dec 11, 2008)

This is quite a long post but i would like to add to to this as a long term activisty sort that did work based around consumption, ecology, peak oil and permaculture. 

A couple of years ago i probably would have thought 'great! it's raising awareness!' when reading about the plane stupid actions.  And probably when reading posts by DLR and others would have thought ' fcking hell going on and on about w/class, how 80s! ' 

But over the past couple years, you could see the climate change debate going mainstream (GOOD!) but then the response mainly seemed to be making a new market from carbon emissions (BAD!) and government adverts suggesting that people turn off the lights. Then you head into the shops and see places with the lights on all the time, sometimes  with each commodity lit by its own lightbulb. And various class warrior sorts would say ' you see - capital is trying to push the cost of the ecological crises onto the working class. It's called austerity and it means that life gets harder for the majority with no real change' and i went 'well thats interesting' and investigated a bit more about all this class stuff. 
And it turns out that it's not about accents, flat caps, whippets, pigeons or whether you work down t'pit. And that it is really worth trying to separate the party politics vanguardy sort from the more grassroots autonomous sort, one lot are a lot more friendlier than the others in terms of getting shot after the revolution etc



> From where I sit the UKs working class is not going to be on planes in Stanstead, they are working in steal mills in Indonesia, iron mines in Papua New Guniea and toy factories in China. The UK now mostly has the well off of the ruling class and the losers amoung the ruling class.



There is no solidarity in sharing poverty.  The exclusion of working class people in developing countries from wealth is not the result of the actions of working class people in the UK. There have been specific investment decisions , normally between those with Capital, the ruling classes of both north and south. I see parallels between say the gleaming Docklands surrounded by decaying social public infrastructure over here , and some of the new chinese megacities with skyscrapers and shanty towns in close proximity.  So whilst over here the working class earn vastly more than those in the shanty towns, the relationship between employer and employee is the same. Rewind 100 years here and maybe you could say that materially conditions were the same but guess what -  we got organised and conditions improved. And the same is happening now in china.  which is why the chinese state and capital is starting to invest in africa. the same pattern again and again.

I think that when people bang on about class it's not because they are fetishising the working class, or think 'they' are perfect or anything like that. It is more a recognition that 'work' STILL dominates our lives. And this 'work'  is based around wages, capital and profit. How and what this work actually is is determined by class interests. It's really simple. There has been a 3 decade long class war in the UK and USA. 

 When profit was threatened in the 70's, manufacturing (which was 70% of the UK economy) went abroad, and thats why we we now have a 70% service economy in the UK. The vast amounts of pollution generated from shipping commodities back here is a result of the profits that manufactors have made by exploiting workers and relocating to the east. 

If we made stuff we needed here then there would be incredible cuts in CO2. But i can't wake up tomorrow and go 'Oh - i would like there not to be a service economy, i would like to make socially useful products in an ecological way'. Well i could - but then i would need to go to work and make some money for someone else to invest in the most profitable way that they see fit. Which probably won't be making socially useful products in an ecological way. So as an individual i don't have this power. But by building solidarity with others in the same position you do have power. 

But this is vastly more difficult and unimaginable than targetting the end of the chain, consumer choices of what products and services. But all these class forces determine access to consumer goods. So basically the big hoo haa about 'cheap flights' means an inherent acceptance that therefore the way to go is 'expensive flights'. So in many ways it's a defeat. Because it is saying that those who have enough money have the right to pollute. 

Also just to make clear - this doesn't mean that you are arguing for the right of everyone to pollute and consume more ok - its fcking obvious that consumption and energy use is a problem. I think i am trying to say that ecological degradation is a by product of this system and not the aggregate of individual consumer choices.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 11, 2008)

^
bingo!


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

Indeed.


----------



## elbows (Dec 11, 2008)

OK despite my earlier rantings about class warriors, recent posts have explained things to me, cheers.

I still suspect there will not be a strong mass movement against climate change, rather that economic woes and failures of certain parts of capitalist systems will destroy much consumption. Then we may see mass movements against the devastating effects of this. People will be rather miffed that their consumption has been curtailed, that theyve lost their jobs, that capitalism has failed them in a more direct and obvious way, and the injustice that a few can still afford the unsustainable lifestyle. If there is no access to electricity, or only at a stupidly high price, then I can imagine the masses campaigning for renewables. I find it less likely that the masses will campaign for renewables now, where there isnt a really obvious shortage of supply, and where despite rising energy bills, renewables are seen as a possibly expensive and unreliable option that the workers cannot afford to support? OK I have painted this in terms that are too black & whte, but hopefully I am making a shred of sense.

Capitalism is under some strain right now, it is going to attempt to regenerate itself into a slightly different form of capitalism, its going to be interesting to see what happens, in an ugly and unsettling sort of way.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 11, 2008)

just thought id share this comment left on my blog 



> I was down at Alex’s party on monday morning where things were very tense. Fortunately the mornings mood was lifted when some plane stoopid demonstrators who had turned up handed their banner to the Police so they could ‘look after it in their van’, a group of us went to remonstrate with the filth thinking they were ‘arresting a banner’ but then heard these twats saying to the copper, ‘yah like we totally understand, yeah can we pick it up when we leave? They fucked off after about 15 minutes anyway, good fucking riddence and i hope they choked on their mokachocalattefrappachino-useless fucking waste of air


----------



## steve0223 (Dec 11, 2008)

> Then we may see mass movements against the devastating effects of this. People will be rather miffed that their consumption has been curtailed, that theyve lost their jobs, that capitalism has failed them in a more direct and obvious way,



i think this is the key. If we organise where we live, with our friends and maybe , maybe even our neighbours by resisting bailiffs, helping with work and debt issues and access to benefits, all that kind of thing daily life stuff. THEN all what we are saying about acting on climate change stops being an abstract issue with no constituency except the state,  it has a basis in solidarities and the means of getting there.  Obviously thats a long term thing tho - and climate change means it feels like we don't have time to try and build these sorts of networks. But look at italy, greece, shit can happen really really fast.  It didn't come out of nowhere either.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

steve0223 said:


> i think this is the key. If we organise where we live, with our friends and maybe , maybe even our neighbours by resisting bailiffs, helping with work and debt issues and access to benefits, all that kind of thing daily life stuff. THEN all what we are saying about acting on climate change stops being an abstract issue with no constituency except the state,  it has a basis in solidarities and the means of getting there.


Absolutely.  That's where my activism is directed: towards community self-management/ self-reliance.

And, incidentally, it's why I get pissed off at liberals who fuck up the hard work of good people by putting causes back when they selfishly sail in creating ill-will with their float-free tactics.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

steve0223 said:


> i think this is the key. If we organise where we live, with our friends and maybe , maybe even our neighbours by resisting bailiffs, helping with work and debt issues and access to benefits, all that kind of thing daily life stuff. THEN all what we are saying about acting on climate change stops being an abstract issue with no constituency except the state,  it has a basis in solidarities and the means of getting there.  Obviously thats a long term thing tho - and climate change means it feels like we don't have time to try and build these sorts of networks. But look at italy, greece, shit can happen really really fast.  It didn't come out of nowhere either.


sorry, run this one by me again... the way to tackle climate change is not by campaigning at all on any issue related to climate change, it's to spent all our energies concentrating on winning the support of local communities by working with them on totally unrelated issues, then hoping they'll eventually magically see the light and support the campaign to prevent climate change.... well I must say the logic of that arguement is flawless.

While I am happy to support the other stuff you talk about, it can and should happen in tandem with high profile climate change campaigns targeting obvious high profile targets such as the new runways at Heathrow and Stansted. To expect 50 activists to do enough community based work to convert a significant proportion of the working class to their cause prior to it being OK for them to actually do anything to change government policy on airport expansion daft, and a recipe for inaction if ever I heard one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> the way to tackle climate change is not by campaigning at all on any issue related to climate change, it's to spent all our energies concentrating on winning the support of local communities by working with them on totally unrelated issues, then hoping they'll eventually magically see the light and support the campaign to prevent climate change


No, that's not it either.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2008)

elbows said:


> Well the babbling in my last post probably shows that Im annoyed and confused about class politics.
> 
> The horrible history of injustice in this country, along with social immobility and rapid change in the sense of self & community, makes it hard for me to dismiss class issues as irrelevant today. But they dont half get in the way of things, whether it be through division and hate, or sponsoring a series of oversimplified and bloody solutions.
> 
> ...





elbows said:


> OK despite my earlier rantings about class warriors, recent posts have explained things to me, cheers.
> 
> I still suspect there will not be a strong mass movement against climate change, rather that economic woes and failures of certain parts of capitalist systems will destroy much consumption. Then we may see mass movements against the devastating effects of this. People will be rather miffed that their consumption has been curtailed, that theyve lost their jobs, that capitalism has failed them in a more direct and obvious way, and the injustice that a few can still afford the unsustainable lifestyle. If there is no access to electricity, or only at a stupidly high price, then I can imagine the masses campaigning for renewables. I find it less likely that the masses will campaign for renewables now, where there isnt a really obvious shortage of supply, and where despite rising energy bills, renewables are seen as a possibly expensive and unreliable option that the workers cannot afford to support? OK I have painted this in terms that are too black & whte, but hopefully I am making a shred of sense.
> 
> Capitalism is under some strain right now, it is going to attempt to regenerate itself into a slightly different form of capitalism, its going to be interesting to see what happens, in an ugly and unsettling sort of way.



I agree with most of what is said in these two posts.

As regards the Plane Stupid actions - there are two main objections to them being expressed on this thread as far as I can make out. Firstly the suggestion that it was a strategic error, as argued by Kyser who may or may not be right about it being ineffective in getting the desired message to the right people. 

Secondly the more fundamental objection coming from Danny La Rouge and others which in simple terms seems to be that all the issues to do with climate change can only really be solved as part of a much bigger picture which would involve major social change including getting rid of capitalism and hence the whole "class" issue. They reckon that trying to tinker with the existing system is missing the point and a distraction from the larger project.

Well, I can see the argument in theory, and I also have plenty sympathy for the point of view that the current capitalist system relying on the idea of economic growth is inevitably going to continue to compound the problems we are starting to face with CO2 emissions and in the depletion of natural resources in general.

However - where I fundamentally differ from the point of view of DLR is that I simply don't believe the kind of "revolution" the class warrior types want to see is ever going to take place. It simply is not sellable to the main body of people whose support would be needed to make it happen, and furthermore I don't even believe it would actually work in practice. I do agree that some, possibly quite significant, changes are likely to be forced upon the current system in the future but these will come out of economic and technological necessity rather than as a result of some sort of popular political movement. I imagine those changes are going to be rather uncomfortable for a lot of people. As far as I am concerned, the green agenda is all about trying to foresee these, and start making the changes as early as we can, in an attempt to lessen the pain of the changes when they become absolutely inavoidable.

From my point of view the most pragmatic approach is to do all we can to tinker with what we have; and to tinker as much as popular opinion is going to allow. As far as I am concerned, waiting for the revolution to happen is a waste of time and energy. We can only do as much tinkering as mainstream opinion is going to tolerate, and therefore I think that it is mainstream opinion that we need to try and influence. As far as I can see, trying to convert mainstream opinion to the "class warrior cause" is a complete dead end. And in fact, tying the "green" agenda up with other more radical political ideas only serves to put "mainstream" people off.

I realise that taking this approach means that I am accused of being a "liberal" but I don't care. If that is what I am so be it; to me it is not a derogatory term. My opinions are probably more "mainstream" than many posters on here but I am fairly sure they are less so than the bulk of the population. If no-one is able to convince me that there exists a workable system that can wholly replace capitalism, there is surely no hope of selling it to the masses.


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> To expect 50 activists to do enough community based work to convert a significant proportion of the working class to their cause prior to it being OK for them to actually do anything to change government policy on airport expansion daft, and a recipe for inaction if ever I heard one.



If all there is is 50 activists willing take action against airport expansion then surely that suggests something worth taking note of, no?

Incidentally, whilst the "turn to the community" is good, we have to remember that in many places there is no community and there is a danger for activists to busy themselves setting up "community schemes" for nobody except themselves. . We need to be clear about what we mean by by what we say we do. In workplaces, in communities, in direct action, in electoral politics, in protests and awareness raising. Too often activists are too focussed on activity and not enough on being "reflexive" about their practise as it were.

Sometimes "inaction" is good. Sometimes its worth stopping. Taking a look around and listening to what non-political, non-activist people are saying - and not just to try and campaign on that either, but to place the activists' own desires and demands within a wider context.

In this case, its worth considering why people are still flying, still using budget airlines etc. and what people think about climate change and our way of life. Plane Stupid may well be right, the more important question is how (or indeed whether) they can win.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2008)

steve0223 said:


> iBut look at italy, greece, shit can happen really really fast.  It didn't come out of nowhere either.



If what is going on in Greece leads to a fundamentally different and stable replacement of capitalism I will eat my hat.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 11, 2008)

An example would be:

You work in a large company that flys people around a lot. You organise internally to demonstrate to the company that by using alternatives (v-confering, skype, trains), they can save money, save stress-related time off (flying loads stresses you out, especially if you're stuck in cattle class all the time), it will also reduce their carbon emissions, thus gaining them cash in carbon trading allowances as well as being able to slap 'We're Green!' shit all over their literature, get them some easy PR...

That's community work.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> No, that's not it either.



go on then danny, enlighten me. How would you propose a successful campaign to prevent the current government backed plans to enable a continued rapid expansion of air travel from and through the UK via the building of new runways at Heathrow and Stansted should be mounted?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

The ideal campaign is in your own community with your own peers.  The ideal is bottom-up, not top-down.  The idea is not to ‘convert’ people, but together to bring about practical changes for your own community.  This is known as direct action.  It is practical, and it builds the confidence in people that we can make a real difference ourselves; that we don’t need to plead with those in power to do it for us.

Of course there can be single issue campaigns, but these need to be very careful about their tactics, and all-the-more need to ensure that those tactics are borne of a sound understanding of how society works.  If there is a strong, healthy spread of community activism, those people will pick up on stuff that's going on and run with it.  If, however, society has become so atomised that Thatcher's wish has come true, then we really are stuffed.

I'm not going to quote any more writers at you.  There's stuff you can read to give more depth and substance to this, but the point is that resistance has to be autonomous, we have to understand how networks get into motion, and how mobility is capable of proliferating.  But if we don't have the material conditions, the population will not seize the moment.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

chilango said:


> If all there is is 50 activists willing take action against airport expansion then surely that suggests something worth taking note of, no?


er no.

what it suggests is that those 50 activists should concentrate on the most effective way they can utilise their numbers to achieve their target.

option 1 - spread out into the community doing good works in the hope that the community will come round to their way of thinking sometime before runway 3 is built at Stansted, by which time most of the activists will have become utterly demoralised and given up on the organisation as an inefectual waste of space.

option 2 - actually get out there and do something to raise the profile of the issue and campaign as high as possible.

I make no apologies for thinking option 2 is the correct option, and let's face it, it's not exactly like environmentalists haven't also been doing option 1 for decades is it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

Free Spirit, do you think there are only 50 people who care about climate change in the country?


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> er no.
> 
> what it suggests is that those 50 activists should concentrate on the most effective way they can utilise their numbers to achieve their target.
> 
> ...




But its not _that _choice is it?

Its about what will _work_.

...and _why_.

Profile on its own acheives absolutely nothing.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> The ideal campaign is in your own community with your own peers.  The ideal is bottom-up, not top-down.  The idea is not to ‘convert’ people, but together to bring about practical changes for your own community.  This is known as direct action.  It is practical, and it builds the confidence in people that we can make a real difference ourselves; that we don’t need to plead with those in power to do it for us.
> 
> Of course there can be single issue campaigns, but these need to be very careful about their tactics, and all-the-more need to ensure that those tactics are borne of a sound understanding of how society works.  If there is a strong, healthy spread of community activism, those people will pick up on stuff that's going on and run with it.  If, however, society has become so atomised that Thatcher's wish has come true, then we really are stuffed.
> 
> I'm not going to quote any more writers at you.  There's stuff you can read to give more depth and substance to this, but the point is that resistance has to be autonomous, we have to understand how networks get into motion, and how mobility is capable of proliferating.  But if we don't have the material conditions, the population will not seize the moment.


what you mean community activism like the stop stansted expansion campaign?

or maybe the 'Stop Heathrow Expansion' campaign?

in case you missed it, the local campaign won their battle locally, but then the industry lobbied the government and the government stepped in to over-rule the local council. Therefore a bit of national level solidarity from a nationwide network of activists is entirely in order... also the fact that this is not just a local issue, it's a national and international issue due to it's significance for this countries carbon reduction targets, plus the passengers come from all over the country.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 11, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I agree with most of what is said in these two posts.
> 
> As regards the Plane Stupid actions - there are two main objections to them being expressed on this thread as far as I can make out. Firstly the suggestion that it was a strategic error, as argued by Kyser who may or may not be right about it being ineffective in getting the desired message to the right people.
> 
> ...


Good post, and thanks for summing up the thread so I don't have to read it 

I'm in a similar camp to you. I don't think I'm a liberal but I'm not hugely insulted if people think I am. I'm happy to admit that I have liberal leanings, and also libertarian leanings, and also socialist leanings...

Some people think I'm just confused. That's fine too, cos I'm pretty sure they don't have all the answers either - and at least I *know* I don't have the answers 

Anyway, on the Plane Stupid action - because of my lack of dedication to revolutionary causes, I also see stuff like this in a tactical light. I think this action was pretty borderline in the strategic sense. Nowhere near the "Digging-up-dead-grannies" league yet, but I hope they know what they're doing and aren't going in that direction.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> Therefore a bit of national level solidarity from a nationwide network of activists is entirely in order...


I'm consistently puzzled by what on earth you think I believe and why you think I believe it.

- Class analysis does not mean making sure all your activists have the right accents.

- Community activism does not mean there are never national networks, or national solidarity.

- Choosing your targets intelligently does not mean supporting Ryanair, giving in to government, or giving up.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 11, 2008)

Just jumping into the thread, but I don't think people are affected enough in this country to care about climate change and to make it an issue.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Secondly the more fundamental objection coming from Danny La Rouge and others which in simple terms seems to be that all the issues to do with climate change can only really be solved as part of a much bigger picture which would involve major social change including getting rid of capitalism and hence the whole "class" issue. They reckon that trying to tinker with the existing system is missing the point and a distraction from the larger project.


Missed this.  No, that's not it either.  

I'm sorry, I did think I'd explained myself fairly well, but seeing as so many people are misunderstanding me, I suppose I'm starting in the wrong place or something.

For the record, no, I don't think we can do nothing about climate change until there's been a social revolution.  I have said that we can, through struggle, force capital to make compromises.  I remember saying it.  I gave the welfare state as an example.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Free Spirit, do you think there are only 50 people who care about climate change in the country?


yes danny, that's obviously what I think.

alternatively I could have been referring to the number of activists from plane stupid who were prepared to face arrest in the action referred to in the first post on this thread, and their options for what they as a group of 50 people prepared to face arrest, but with relatively limited other resources could take to help further their aims.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> yes danny, that's obviously what I think.


I didn't think you thought that, I just wondered why you'd think they should be responsible for spreading into the community doing good works?  That's not how community activism works.  That's missionary work. 

If they want to do big set-piece demonstrations, they need to choose more effectively.  Which is what I've said all along.  I suggest that the reason they chose badly this time is their class-blindness and liberalism.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Missed this.  No, that's not it either.
> 
> I'm sorry, I did think I'd explained myself fairly well, but seeing as so many people are misunderstanding me, I suppose I'm starting in the wrong place or something.
> 
> For the record, no, I don't think we can do nothing about climate change until there's been a social revolution.  I have said that we can, through struggle, force capital to make compromises.  I remember saying it.  I gave the welfare state as an example.



But you do think that a social revolution that would lead to a workable system fundamentally different to our current capitalist one is possible, desirable and worth striving for, no? And therefore worth spending a significant amount of effort on which could otherwise be directed towards more "liberal" campaigns? And that you would view certain "green" campaigns as counterproductive to your principle aim of a social revolution and would oppose them on this basis?

Or have I misunderstood that as well?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

teuchter said:


> But you do think that a social revolution that would lead to a workable system fundamentally different to our current capitalist one is possible, desirable and worth striving for, no?


Yes.



> And therefore worth spending a significant amount of effort on which could otherwise be directed towards more "liberal" campaigns?


No, that's not how I see the struggle against capital.  We are all within the system, and if we want to change it we must understand its nature, but we can win, and have won, victories along the way.  



> And that you would view certain "green" campaigns as counterproductive to your principle aim of a social revolution and would oppose them on this basis?


I don't see campaigning on green issues as inherently counterproductive, no.  I do see some campaigns, green and otherwise, as counterproductive, though.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm consistently puzzled by what on earth you think I believe and why you think I believe it.
> 
> - Class analysis does not mean making sure all your activists have the right accents.


other than some vague notion that they don't understand the role capitalism plays in the problem, I remain pretty perplexed about what you actually do mean by class analysis if it's not about the class of the people the action is affecting, or the class of the people taking part in the action.

I had presumed you meant that the action by targeting one of the airports used most by working class people was wrong, and they should instead be targeting the city boys or something similar... now it just looks like a term that you're using in a way that means you can alter it's meaning to suit your argument at whim.




danny la rouge said:


> - Community activism does not mean there are never national networks, or national solidarity.


I'm fully aware of this fact, which is why I was attempting to point out to you in my previous post that this action does in fact fit within your own stated framework for how a campaign like this should be run.



danny la rouge said:


> - Choosing your targets intelligently does not mean supporting Ryanair, giving in to government, or giving up.


They have chosen their target intelligently though. This action was a direct response to the government overturning the local council decision to reject the building of a new runway at Stansted.
A protest at Stansted is an intelligent target, and pretty much any sort of protest that aims to do more than leaflet a few people is going to cause disruption to passengers, therefore you may as well take the most high profile action you can - which is what they did.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> other than some vague notion that they don't understand the role capitalism plays in the problem, I remain pretty perplexed about what you actually do mean by class analysis if it's not about the class of the people the action is affecting, or the class of the people taking part in the action..



http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Foundations.pdf


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I didn't think you thought that, I just wondered why you'd think they should be responsible for spreading into the community doing good works?  That's not how community activism works.  That's missionary work.


I don't think they should be responsible for spreading into the community doing good works, but that's the logical conclusion from the various posters in this thread arguing that they should have done this rather than taking this action.

What it boils down to IMO is theoretical bollocks versus practical reality in terms of the options open to a group of 50 people determined to influence government policy, ideally in a relatively short space of time.



danny la rouge said:


> If they want to do big set-piece demonstrations, they need to choose more effectively.  Which is what I've said all along.  I suggest that the reason they chose badly this time is their class-blindness and liberalism.


their we go again danny - class-blindness




			
				danny said:
			
		

> I said the protesters were class-blind because their actions are fairly obviously not part of a coherent critique of capitalism.



how does the fact that they've targeted stansted airport, equate to them being class blind by your very own definition as stated on this thread? Unless I've missed something and stansted is actually now owned and run as a workers co-operative, as are all the airlines flying out of it.

or do you actually mean something different by 'class blind'?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> I don't think they should be responsible for spreading into the community doing good works, but that's the logical conclusion from the various posters in this thread arguing that they should have done this rather than taking this action.
> 
> What it boils down to IMO is theoretical bollocks versus practical reality in terms of the options open to a group of 50 people determined to influence government policy, ideally in a relatively short space of time.
> 
> ...



read that link I posted


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

Blagsta said:


> http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Foundations.pdf


which bit was I meant to be looking at? this line?


> This is a tricky business for within Marxism there is no consensus on any of the core concepts of class analysis.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> which bit was I meant to be looking at? this line?



You're meant to read it if you want to understand something of what is meant by "class analysis".

duh


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

Blagsta said:


> read that link I posted


did you actually read that link?

funnily enough I'd already pulled that link up from google myself skimmed through it and discarded it as utter drivel.

since you want me to use it though, perhaps you can help fit the protests against stansted into this diagram, and use that to illustrate why a protest targeting stansted is a bad thing.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> I had presumed you meant that the action by targeting one of the airports used most by working class people was wrong, and they should instead be targeting the city boys or something similar... now it just looks like a term that you're using in a way that means you can alter it's meaning to suit your argument at whim.


Let's take this specific protest.  I have explained it several times, but I'll do it again if you like.  

If activists have a clear understanding of how society works, they can use that to intelligently choose tactics and targets.  Basically, the government will protect the interests of the class with the power and the wealth.  The corporation generates the wealth of that class. The working class does the work which creates the wealth, but the wealth is channelled upwards to the top.  

The corporation is amoral.  It is a machine for generating wealth, and it does so with no regard for people or planet.  Capital basically wages a war on labour, and unless resisted, its only boundary will be what gets in the way of short-term gain.

So, what do we know about aviation?  It is heavily wasteful of scarce resources, it is heavily polluting, and it contributes about 1.6 % of CO2 emissions.

So, frequent flying is obviousy something society is going to have to do something about.  Therefore, hitting frequent flyers or business class passengers is the intelligent thing to do.

These campaigners didn't, though.  They chose a target proportionately more likely to be working class, and not frequent flyers.

But, you say, the campaigners want to protest about runway expansion.  OK, so who is responsible?  BAA and Ryanair, for a start.  So, target their offices, maybe.  An occupation, a blockade. 

Not sexy?  Done that before?  OK, well if you want direct action, then chain yourself to a digger.  



> They have chosen their target intelligently though. This action was a direct response to the government overturning the local council decision to reject the building of a new runway at Stansted.


But their target was the flyers.  It made it look like they were saying they didn't want working class people to fly.  Maybe they weren't, but that's what it looked like. Who had responsibility for overturning the council decision?  Joe Public and the kids off on a holiday?  

If you piss off people who you need to support you, then your action has been counterproductive.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

I'm not necessarily saying that class analysis as a concept is utter drivel, but that paper you linked to certainly is.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> did you actually read that link?
> 
> funnily enough I'd already pulled that link up from google myself skimmed through it and discarded it as utter drivel.
> 
> since you want me to use it though, perhaps you can help fit the protests against stansted into this diagram, and use that to illustrate why a protest targeting stansted is a bad thing.



If you don't want to know what people mean by "class analysis", that's fine.  Just don't complain when people use terms you don't understand because you're too lazy to do any reading.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> I'm not necessarily saying that class analysis as a concept is utter drivel, but that paper you linked to certainly is.



It's been a couple of years since I read that paper admittedly.  Maybe you could tell me what you disagree with?


----------



## steve0223 (Dec 11, 2008)

i think thats a great idea actually of how to make this stuff relevant and meaningful so if i get some time i will try and do that.Meanwhile here's one of my own






but in the meantime an accessable and comprehensible audio file by david harvey called the enigma of capital is worth a listen..

http://davidharvey.org/media/Enigma_of_Capital.mp3


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> I don't think they should be responsible for spreading into the community doing good works, but that's the logical conclusion from the various posters in this thread arguing that they should have done this rather than taking this action.


No, it isn't.  That isn't at all what i've said, and I'm pretty sure nobody else has.  That's a misreading.



> What it boils down to IMO is theoretical bollocks versus practical reality in terms of the options open to a group of 50 people determined to influence government policy, ideally in a relatively short space of time.


A group of 50 people will have limited effect if they think they can get a government to act against the interests of the business classes by acting in a vacuum.




> their we go again danny - class-blindness


Yup.  Class-blind liberals.



> how does the fact that they've targeted stansted airport, equate to them being class blind by your very own definition as stated on this thread? Unless I've missed something and stansted is actually now owned and run as a workers co-operative, as are all the airlines flying out of it.


I'm sorry, but I've explained this loads of times.  I'm not sure how to proceed now without sounding grumpy and patronising.  I obviously want to be sure I'm explaining myself properly, but since others seem to have understood me, I have to assume there's a starting point they share with me that you and others don't.

But, again, I don't have a problem with them chosing Stansted - they want to hit BAA and Ryanair, fine.  But the way they chose to do it was counterproductive.  I have been through all this.  I don't know how else to say it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

steve0223 said:


>




Well, exactly.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> <snip>But their target was the flyers.  It made it look like they were saying they didn't want working class people to fly.  Maybe they weren't, but that's what it looked like. Who had responsibility for overturning the council decision?  Joe Public and the kids off on a holiday?


so like I presumed you meant, the problem you refer to when you talk about their class blind approach, and the lack of a class analysis is the class breakdown of the users of Stansted airport, and the fact that it is used more by working class people.

if you don't want to have to explain basic concepts, then perhaps you shouldn't confuse the picture by stating that you actually meant something different... ie.


> I said the protesters were class-blind because their actions are fairly obviously not part of a coherent critique of capitalism.



to blagsta - I fully understood what danny was on about up until the point when he stated that he meant something entirely different by it, and your link was the marxist version of an attica special, so please accept my sincere apologies for not asking you to explain the bit's I disagree with - life really is too short.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> to blagsta - I fully understood what danny was on about up until the point when he stated that he meant something entirely different by it, and your link was the marxist version of an attica special, so please accept my sincere apologies for not asking you to explain the bit's I disagree with - life really is too short.



I posted it because I thought it was quite easy to understand.  I assume you read it all?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> > *Originally Posted by danny la rouge*
> > <snip>But their target was the flyers. It made it look like they were saying they didn't want working class people to fly. Maybe they weren't, but that's what it looked like. Who had responsibility for overturning the council decision? Joe Public and the kids off on a holiday?
> 
> 
> ...


Two aspects of a whole.  The first is about whether their tactic was intended to be _direct action_ or not, if it was direct action then it looks like they are acting directly to prevent workers from flying.

However, the reason they made that mistake is that they don't have a coherent critique of capitalism, which I suspect you don't have either, since you seem unable to tell the difference between targeting Ryanair and targeting working class flyers.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2008)

steve0223 said:


>








Marxist aeroplane does not take off.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

anyway, it's neither fair nor accurate to say that Plane Stupid haven't done any class analysis of Stansted.


> It’s the rich who are really benefiting from the artificially low prices of air travel.
> 
> The average income of people using Stansted Airport is £47,000 per year – and it’s supposed to be a budget airport!
> 
> ...



and just to try to bring this thread around to what the point of the protest actually was, here's a graph curtest of the Department for Transport to illustrate what the impact of building new runways at Stansted and Heathrow is expected to be on passenger numbers.

With no new runways, passenger numbers from London's airports would rise by about 25% between now and 2030. With new runways at both Stansted and Heathrow they are expected to rise by around 90%.






this is over a time period when all other aspects of the UK's economy and life, including all other modes of transport are being expected to severely cut their CO2 emissions.

Once they've built the runways we can be certain the companies will do everything they can to use them as much as possible - ie. to maximise the profit potential from the additional airport capacity, so the only realistic method of stopping this totally unsustainable increase in flights from London airports is to prevent the runways being built in the first place.

Running alongside that battle is the battle for improved and cheaper public transport (preferably in public ownership), which if done right, should be able to replace the majorty of the internal flights that actually make up a significant proportion of stansteds traffic, leaving enough space for the working class holidays to continue relatively unaffected.

Obviously there's a potential battle ahead if the supply is constrained as the airlines may feel able to up their prices, but the price charged by the airport itself for landing fee's is already heavily regulated, and I see no reason why the airline ticket prices shouldn't be as well if it looked like they were profiteering. To be honest though I think price is most likely to go up because of increases in fuel costs as the airline industry isn't taxed on fuel, it's price is likely to be more greatly affected by fuel price increases than other modes of transport... at which point we'll really be wishing we'd invested in the alternatives rather than relying on cheap air travel fueled by cheap oil and tax breaks.


----------



## elbows (Dec 11, 2008)

OK lets try another real example and see how much of a confusing mess is made as the class blind and the class blinkered dance.

It has recently emerged that near the end of November, someone got into a coal power station, and fiddled with something which caused a 500MW turbine to go offline, and they didnt switch it back on for about 4 hours. 

The person left a crudely made banner saying 'no new coal'. 

It is estimated that this action of a single person lowered our total carbon output for that day by 2% 

Nobody suffered blackouts because other capacity made up for it, but it is possible to imagine similar action that disrupted power stations could cause a temporary loss of power to many homes and businesses, affecting people pretty much along the full spectrum of class. Or a shortfall in power may be better managed, and specific high-electricity using businesses would be cutoff and homes wouldnt be affected.  Its not possible to say whether the infrastructure and humans would manage such a shortfall well or not, a specific geographical area might get shutdown almost at random, as happened a while back when lots of power stations went offline at the same time. So anybody engaging in such a disruptive protest, cannot really be sure who will suffer the most from their actions.

So how does that example fit into the things being argued here? As far as I know the identity of the intruder is unknown, I suppose it could be funny business, we may never find out.

Personally Im not too sure about action like that, the potential for some people to suffer quite badly due to loss of electrical supply makes it rather risky. At the same time our power stations are an issue I care rather a lot about. But again, I expect that unless demand for electricity is destroyed for other reasons, we are going to face a time where supply doesnt meet demand. So I suppose I believe that one day we will no longer be able to take for granted our ability to fly, drive, heat our homes and power our gadgets.. Our electricity grid becoming flakey and blackouts becoming normal is a striking example of the reality check I think will come. If capitalism had been successfully building new capacity, if the raw resources/fuel were there for the future, then only direct action protesters or terrorist attacks on infrastructure would be likely to bring about that sort of reality check, there would be nothing much else in the way of continued growth of carbon emissions. Its hard to say that governments or business would do much unless they were afraid of resources peaking, or they actually believe the climate change will be soon enough and catastrophic enough to destroy their position & profit.


----------



## chilango (Dec 11, 2008)

freethinker, I don't want to get too bogged down with long statements so a quick recap of my main question..

what was the specific aim of that specific action?

Once we're clear on that, we can discuss whether the action was tactically correct, and strategically correct or not.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> anyway, it's neither fair nor accurate to say that Plane Stupid haven't done any class analysis of Stansted.


You're using the term in a different way.  To have a class analysis is to have a philosophy of society, rather than an exercise one carries out on a situation. like a risk assessment.  But that aside, average income of people using Stansted Airport might be £47,000 per year, but what is the mode income?

Furthermore, class is not usefully defined by income, but best defined by relationship to the means of production.



> It’s the rich who are really benefiting from the artificially low prices of air travel.


I don't dispute that.



> Low-skilled people and people on benefits, despite making up a quarter of the population, only took 6% of the flights whilst the top quarter of the population took almost half of all flights. (Civil Aviation Authority)


Is that at Stansted, or in general?  If in general, it backs up what I've said: target business class. (And it misses out those who are not 'low-skilled' or on benefits nor 'in the top quarter').

But chilango asks the pertinant question: what was the aim, and was it direct action?


----------



## david dissadent (Dec 11, 2008)

chilango said:


> what was the specific aim of that specific action?


To once again bring airport expansion into the national media limelight. 

It did not happen 'in a vacuum'. It happened in an enviroment where the government is determined to present itself as being genuinely green as part of its stratagy to try to remain in power. The governmetns narrative is that it is commited to CO2 emission reductions. The protesters rather successfully reminded a huge number of people that they are not. 

In that it was successful. The government now as just that little bit more to think about when it weighs the political costs and gains from airport expansion. The more it looks like it will be kept in the public conscious, the less attractive it will be to persue. 

If sufficient pressure is brought to bear that the government backs down, this will endorse the views of those who are claiming the government is not acting enough on climate change and enhance the credibility of those calling for more action. It will also make the government more exposed to other pressure.

It is one tiny part of a very broad movement that often has very different goals, objectives, political 'analysis', economic outlook, hopes, fears and education. But it also has a major UN appointed panel full of the worlds leading experts to give advice to the very highest levels of civil society. It is a movement that has managed to get its message to the very center of world politics.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 11, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Marxist aeroplane does not take off.


Who's a Marxist?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Two aspects of a whole.  The first is about whether their tactic was intended to be _direct action_ or not, if it was direct action then it looks like they are acting directly to prevent workers from flying.
> 
> However, the reason they made that mistake is that they don't have a coherent critique of capitalism, which I suspect you don't have either, since you seem unable to tell the difference between targeting Ryanair and targeting working class flyers.


ah right, so nobody can ever take any action against anything unless they have first submitted a full critique of capitalism in triplicate for approval by the thought police.

well, in that case you're probably right.

or there is an alternative point of view you may wish to consider which is that you are wrong, and it is both possible and desirable for people to take action, and make a positive contribution to a campaign without first doing a night study course in marxism.

If people want to study marxist thinking to the nth degree as well as taking action then that's their choice, but it isn't a pre-requisite thankfully.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Who's a Marxist?


so you're not a Marxist than? 

you could have said before I attempted to plough my way through 23 pages of tedium that Blagsta posted to explain you POV on a paper entitled 'Foundations of Class Analysis: A *Marxist* Perspective.'


----------



## steve0223 (Dec 11, 2008)

Even marx said don't be a marxist. Anyway, i hate averages as in my experience they hide a multitude of sins.



> But that aside, average income of people using Stansted Airport might be £47,000 per year, but what is the mode income?



That average income they've used proves little except that statistics are very political,  but it's also quite revealing. 

The document they refer to contains all sorts of figures and divides each table into 'Business' and 'Leisure'. But plane stupid have pulled out all their figures from the Leisure section. So there you go - that's who these actions seem to be aimed at.

There's also more to that figure that makes it sound like it's mainly the super rich that are flying all the time from Stanstead. For example that average income of £47,000. This is a 'household income', which these days is like 2 wages, after tax, bills,  2 kids worth of spending etc.  So it's not one 'persons' income after all. And on top of that it's a 'mean' figure, which means that it is highly distorted because of the extreme disparities of wealth (or class as it is known)

A quick look at the table shows that more than 68% of passengers earned household incomes  * less* than this figure of £47,000, 7.2 % on less than £ 5,750. 81% of the flights were people going on holiday or visiting friends of relatives. This isn't the super rich swanning around, this is everyday people on a holiday, or doing the very human thing of going to see people. Attacking these people is not a way to build a movement for social change

Never trust statistics tho, see for yourself:

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=81&pagetype=90&pageid=10195


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> But that aside, average income of people using Stansted Airport might be £47,000 per year, but what is the mode income?


The mode income is £57,500-80,499.

I got bored and made you a graph which should pretty conclusively illustrate the point that an action taken at Stansted can in no way be said to be disproportionately affecting poor working class people.






also bear in mind that (as has previously been pointed out in this thread), this was a monday morning in term time - ie. the protest was timed as far as possible to minimise the problems caused to families going on holiday and the like.

when you look at the actual stats, it's probably about right if it was mainly middle class and a few posh uns targeting an airport with mainly middle and upper income passengers.

[source=CAA]


----------



## steve0223 (Dec 11, 2008)

But if anyone wants to help blockade this , i would LOVE to:

"Planes ‘fly empty’ to keep slots at Heathrow
Ghost flights to secure multimillion-pound rights"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article4340518.ece


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

lol - well 2 people look at stats and see 2 different things...

the 50% mark for income distribution is around £36,000.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 11, 2008)

free spirit said:


> so you're not a Marxist than?
> 
> you could have said before I attempted to plough my way through 23 pages of tedium that Blagsta posted to explain you POV on a paper entitled 'Foundations of Class Analysis: A *Marxist* Perspective.'



So you didn't read it.  Pity.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 11, 2008)

Blagsta said:


> So you didn't read it.  Pity.



right, I've read upto page 15 and learned nothing I didn't already understand about the term, merely developed a rapidly growing desire to headbut the nearest wall rather than read any more of it.

is there some particular point in that 23 pages that makes class analysis particularly relevent to the temporary closure of an airport by protestors protesting against the recent decision of the government to allow a new runway to be built at that airport?

if not, then like I said before, forgive me, but I decline to put myself through anymore of that torture.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2008)

I think it's just the regular Blagsta tactic of make patronising remarks and tell people to read up on something instead of actually backing up whatever point he is making.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 12, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I think it's just the regular Blagsta tactic of make patronising remarks and tell people to read up on something instead of actually backing up whatever point he is making.


either that or he's trying to get back at me for my occasionally overlong rants on this thread...


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2008)

free spirit said:


> ah right, so nobody can ever take any action against anything unless they have first submitted a full critique of capitalism in triplicate for approval by the thought police.


 Thought police now?

I was invited to give my opinion on a demonstration, which I'm doing. I'm not stopping anyone thinking or doing anything.  How is my opinion "thought police" and yours not?  

If anything, Plane Stupid are the thought police: if Monday's action was _direct action_, then they acted directly to stop those people flying.  

Which brings us back to the question: was it intended as _direct action_ or not?


----------



## steve0223 (Dec 12, 2008)

i think this debate is useful and think its good that free spirit is making the effort to try and understand what having a class analysis means. Rather than getting bogged down in details of the charts of what income passengers from stansted have, it's worth zooming out a little.

What if they were to win? that is, Plane Stupid were successfull? Either no flights or the majority are priced out of being able to fly.that would mean that this one process that releases Co2 stops. 3 (ish) % of emissions are saved. But outside of this the world of work (making profits) continues, the underlying reason for the big, really big emissions continues, and grows. Whilst one of the safety valves of individual people doing this work, going on holiday, is closed. The world becomes smaller, except for those with the income. And in the process of doing this large swathes of the population are alienated from the possibility that green politics has something to offer them other than 'less' or 'worse', no solidarities are built up, no movement with demands that you can really imagining spreading like wildfire.

And this very process of the reduction of CO2 will only leave the state and capital stronger. As their solution is : more tax on 'non essential travel'. So who decides what is 'non essential'? the UK state would. That's the same state that dismantled public transport networks, smashed domestic coal  meaning that 70% is imported over vast distances, facilitated the exodus of manufacturing from here (where potentially we could implement greener production techniques) to the East, the same state that consistently refuses to invest on the massive scale needed for a renewable infrastructure. 

And what would 'essential travel be? movement that makes more profits, and for people with enough money to pay the tariff. Be careful what you wish for.

Free spirit - if the wordyness of that text is getting on your nerves then have a look at the 'capitalism and climate change' slideshow here:


http://freelyassociating.org/downloads/


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I think it's just the regular Blagsta tactic of make patronising remarks and tell people to read up on something instead of actually backing up whatever point he is making.



Hang on a minute - Free Spirit asks what is meant by "class analysis", I post something explaining it, Free Spirit calls it drivel and doesn't read all of it and it's _me_ being the arse?  Run that by me again will ya?

btw, I'm not "making a point", I was trying to be helpful.  I won't bother next time.  If someone doesn't want to do the reading and thinking that will help them understand certain points of view, that's _their_ problem surely?

FWIW, I used to think that class analysis was "drivel" too.  But people on here kept talking about it and some of them were obviously intelligent.  I decided to look into it.  That link I posted was one of the first things I read and I found it very interesting, which is why I thought it may be helpful to others.  I did a lot of reading and a lot of thinking and my views changed.  It's a way of looking at society and it's relationships and it makes a lot of sense to me.  Without a coherent framework for political action, you just end up thrashing around in the dark acheiveing nothing IMO.

What annoys me sometimes about debates on here is that often people expect stuff to be handed to them on a plate.  If you want to understand what people mean, sometimes you have to do some reading and thinking on your own.  Sorry if anyone finds that patronising.  Maybe I am patronising sometimes, but it irritates me when people dismiss things as drivel without having made the effort to read them (and yes I know I do it myself sometimes too).


----------



## teuchter (Dec 12, 2008)

OK. But it is actually quite a lot to ask, to read 23 pages of something that may or may not be any good or even relevant. There are a number of times I've read stuff that people have linked to insisting that it's the only way I am going to understand where they are coming from, and I have dutifully ploughed through it but got to the end none the wiser, either because it is unintelligible or badly written, or it is unclear in what way it's relevant to whatever whoever has linked to it is on about.

I'm generally not inclined to spend valuable time reading through stuff unless whoever has recommended it to me is someone I know and trust. This usually doesn't apply to people on internet bulletin boards.

You say people expect stuff to be handed to them on a plate; OK, this is sometimes true but if you are asking them to make a big effort trying to understand something you are saying then you have to do some work in return. Perhaps a one-paragraph summary of what you understand by "class analysis" and then a link to something more substantial for those interested to read further.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2008)

Maybe it's because I've been posting on here for so long (nearly 10 years!   ) and I know this subject has been gone over again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again that I'm surprised that longer term posters _still_ don't have an inkling what people mean when they talk about class in this context.  I guess that frustration shows in my posts.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 12, 2008)

Fairy nuff.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 12, 2008)

Blagsta said:


> Maybe it's because I've been posting on here for so long (nearly 10 years!   ) and I know this subject has been gone over again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again that I'm surprised that longer term posters _still_ don't have an inkling what people mean when they talk about class in this context.  I guess that frustration shows in my posts.


ffs I have an inkiling, I had an inkiling before I asked the question I was just fucking asking what exactly DLR personally meant by it in this context as he kept moving the goal posts.

I never said class analysis itself was drivel, I said that article you posted was - find something written by someone with the ability to write in clear and concise language, using paragraphs less than a page long to express what they mean and I'll maybe read it, but that still wouldn't answer my question which was what DLR personally meant by it in THIS context.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 12, 2008)

Blagsta said:


> Hang on a minute - Free Spirit asks what is meant by "class analysis", I post something explaining it, Free Spirit calls it drivel and doesn't read all of it and it's _me_ being the arse?  Run that by me again will ya?
> 
> btw, I'm not "making a point", I was trying to be helpful.  I won't bother next time.  If someone doesn't want to do the reading and thinking that will help them understand certain points of view, that's _their_ problem surely?
> 
> ...


tell you what blagsta, next time someone asks a question about something I've said about climate change on here I'll just post a link to the IPCC report, tell them to read it then tell them I'm not going to actually answer their question until they've read it all.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2008)

free spirit said:


> ffs I have an inkiling, I had an inkiling before I asked the question I was just fucking asking what exactly DLR personally meant by it in this context as he kept moving the goal posts.



You still seem a tad confused about it tbh!



free spirit said:


> I never said class analysis itself was drivel, I said that article you posted was - find something written by someone with the ability to write in clear and concise language, using paragraphs less than a page long to express what they mean and I'll maybe read it, but that still wouldn't answer my question which was what DLR personally meant by it in THIS context.




Oh.  I thought that paper was relatively clear myself.  Horse for courses I guess!


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2008)

free spirit said:


> tell you what blagsta, next time someone asks a question about something I've said about climate change on here I'll just post a link to the IPCC report, tell them to read it then tell them I'm not going to actually answer their question until they've read it all.



Remind me not to bother trying to be helpful to you in future.

Miserable sod.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2008)

We've probably now reached the stage, haven't we, where some of us think it was a counterproductive action and have given our view, and some of us don't, and have given their view.  I'm not sensing a meeting of minds is imminent.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2008)

Indeed.

Apologies for being a little tetchy, but I did think I was being helpful.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 12, 2008)

Let's just wait until Plane Stupid carry out their next action and then we can all argue about it all over again, but on a nice fresh new thread.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 12, 2008)

steve0223 said:


> What if they were to win? that is, Plane Stupid were successfull? Either no flights or the majority are priced out of being able to fly.that would mean that this one process that releases Co2 stops. 3 (ish) % of emissions are saved. But outside of this the world of work (making profits) continues, the underlying reason for the big, really big emissions continues, and grows. Whilst one of the safety valves of individual people doing this work, going on holiday, is closed. The world becomes smaller, except for those with the income. And in the process of doing this large swathes of the population are alienated from the possibility that green politics has something to offer them other than 'less' or 'worse', no solidarities are built up, no movement with demands that you can really imagining spreading like wildfire.
> 
> And this very process of the reduction of CO2 will only leave the state and capital stronger. As their solution is : more tax on 'non essential travel'. So who decides what is 'non essential'? the UK state would. That's the same state that dismantled public transport networks, smashed domestic coal  meaning that 70% is imported over vast distances, facilitated the exodus of manufacturing from here (where potentially we could implement greener production techniques) to the East, the same state that consistently refuses to invest on the massive scale needed for a renewable infrastructure.
> 
> ...


so this is your analysis of the situation is it?

you think the results of this protest will be people being priced out of flying?

well that is one potential consequence of it, if the government chose to use price as the mechanism to restrict the number of flights, but it's not the only potential consequence, and to be perfectly honest, price is more likely to need to be used to restrict flights if the new runways are built and the extra capacity is added.

If the new runways are to be built then landing charges will need to go up to pay for them for one thing, which will push flight prices up as the landing charges are currently controlled. The justification for the controls on landing charges would also be removed by the increase in airport capacity, meaning they'd likely be removed and landing fees would then be dictated by the whims of the market - how does that square with your class analysis?

Once the new runways are built there will still be the need to reduce and restrain flight numbers, which massively increases the likelihood that a future government would be forced to use price as a mechanism to reduce demand. If supply is the mechanism that restrains demand (in the form of take off and landing slots) then the government can then intervene to prevent profiteering and keep prices lower as flight levels will already be capped.

Capping the number of take off and landing slots will also mean airlines will be likely to try and maximise the use of their slots by filling all their planes, rather than having loads of half empty ones competing with each other on the same routes. Full planes are more efficient both carbon and price wise than half empty ones, so prices could be kept lower (unless your arguing in favour of the primacy of the markets as a mechanism for reducing price, which would be  an odd arguement for someone to make who's lecturing me on class analysis).

Airport expansion will also allow the government to continue to ignore the chronic underinvestment in additional capacity on our existing railways, and lack of investment in new high speed rail infrstructure to link the rest of the country to the channel tunnel that would act to massively reduce our reliance on air travel for short haul trips. BTW for those earlier in the thread arguing about the price difference between the flying from london to edinburgh and taking the train, bear in mind national express are paying the government £1.4 billion for the right to run that franchise, which go some way to explaining the price of the tickets.

So yes, I agree the the green movement should offer something other than 'less' or 'worse', the thing is that it actually does. If you've missed that, then rather than lecturing me on class analysis, maybe you should be the one doing some research and learning.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 12, 2008)

steve0223 said:


> Free spirit - if the wordyness of that text is getting on your nerves then have a look at the 'capitalism and climate change' slideshow here:
> 
> 
> http://freelyassociating.org/downloads/


other than the last page of that I could have written that, and have written similar stuff in the past.

'A world without work' strikes me as a fairly unrealistic aim - who would fly the planes, or would that be redefined as 'play'?


----------



## Belushi (Dec 12, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> We've probably now reached the stage, haven't we, where some of us think it was a counterproductive action and have given our view, and some of us don't, and have given their view.  I'm not sensing a meeting of minds is imminent.



Nah, the Liberals are holding out for a compromise


----------



## chico enrico (Dec 12, 2008)

can't be bothered to read this thread as it looks pretty dull but to state my position:

I like flying. flying is fun. flying is exciting. big metal bird in the sky - _how does that work?_ one of the great wonders of the world. 

and surely more runways means more planes can arrive and depart which would surely mean the cost of flying would be reduced to certain destinations? so i really don't understand what problem anyone can have with that. 

they're just a bunch of posh, crusty wanks who want to get their faces in the papers IMO. i'm off to Italy next week and if they fuck about with my flight i hope they set the alsations on them.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2008)

Belushi said:


> Nah, the Liberals are holding out for a compromise




Free spirit, have you read Bookchin's _Post-Scarcity Anarchism_?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 12, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> and surely more runways means more planes can arrive and depart which would surely mean the cost of flying would be reduced to certain destinations? so i really don't understand what problem anyone can have with that.



please explain how flying more half empty planes is cheaper in the long run than flying less full planes.

short term there may be price battles to get the customers, but then as soon as the competition is wiped out, the price will go up to recover the costs of the price battle that preceded it.

Full planes cost less to run per passenger than half empty planes.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 12, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Free spirit, have you read Bookchin's _Post-Scarcity Anarchism_?


no, is it better than blagsta's link?

have you read the brundtland report?


----------



## chico enrico (Dec 12, 2008)

free spirit said:


> no, is it better than blagsta's link?
> 
> have you read the brundtland report?



murray bookschin is well dull by the way.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 12, 2008)

.


----------



## chico enrico (Dec 12, 2008)

free spirit said:


> please explain how flying more half empty planes is cheaper in the long run than flying less full planes.
> 
> short term there may be price battles to get the customers, but then as soon as the competition is wiped out, the price will go up to recover the costs of the price battle that preceded it.
> 
> Full planes cost less to run per passenger than half empty planes.




well, if they made the tickets cheaper more folk would fly so the plane would be full then? or they could load other stuff on to make up the optimum weight and make some money for the airline so the plane would be half people and half freight.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 12, 2008)

Don't bother, free spirit. He's just trolling.


----------



## Nigel (Dec 12, 2008)

Blagsta said:


> http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Foundations.pdf



Where is this from?
Its written like a dissertation to pass M.A. or something.
personally I think the answer is Air Ships


----------



## chico enrico (Dec 12, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Don't bother, free spirit. He's just trolling.



and how am i 'trolling', pray tell? 

*bookchin is boring.

flying is fun.*

don't see how anyone can disagree with those two statements


----------



## teuchter (Dec 12, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> and how am i 'trolling', pray tell?
> 
> *bookchin is boring.
> 
> ...



You don't understand why anyone would have any problem with there being more flights.

Really?

Either your trolling or you're a bit dim.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2008)

free spirit said:


> have you read the brundtland report?


Years ago, yes.


----------



## chico enrico (Dec 12, 2008)

teuchter said:


> You don't understand why anyone would have any problem with there being more flights.
> 
> Really?
> 
> Either your trolling or you're a bit dim.



no, i understand their reasoning. carbon emissions and the environment and stuff and i've got nothing against that, but to be honest i really amn't that bothered about it either.  but what i DO have something against is a load of posh, crusty wanks disrupting any flight i might take. 

their 'direct action' ain't gonna change anything. it's just a tokenist protest so they can get their indolent, ruddy & full lipped faces in the papers and mater and pater can joke about their offsprings 'subversive activities' to the grandparents over the vintage port at christmas.

and about 25 years ago when i had a lot more time to waste i read murray bookshin's 'post scarcity @' and i think a book he wrote on the spanish syndicalists. i just remembered them being boring.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 12, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> their 'direct action' ain't gonna change anything


On the contrary, this issue is very winnable, the wider anti-airport expansion campaign has a huge level of local support in the affected areas, high level cabinet support, support from large numbers of MP's, support from the local council, and support from (most?) independent transport experts. Pretty much the only people dead set in favour of it are Gordon Brown, and his new transport secretary lackey, who appear to have fallen for the industry lobbiest's bullshit, plus a section of the population who've also fallen for the corporate line that the nasty envrionmentalists are trying to them of their holidays, as propagated by the Sun and company.


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2008)

You shouldnt worry about boring crusty people getting in the way of your fun. Resource woes & economic doom will get in the way of your fun.

Peoples ideas about what is fun, and what is practical are going to change so much in the next couple of decades. Ignore this for as long as possible if you like, it will bite you on the lifestyle choices in the end.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 12, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Years ago, yes.


me too.

shall we play again, or should I just concede that you've won the book reading competition 1-0?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 12, 2008)

free spirit said:


> me too.
> 
> shall we play again, or should I just concede that you've won the book reading competition 1-0?


Are you just feeling a bit grumpy or something?

I just thought you might find it interesting.  I mentioned it in the context of your comments about Steve's link, which you said was utopian or something. I wondered if you found Bookchin utopian, as some do.

I wasn't playing book whist or anything.  Although if you're challenging me...


----------



## free spirit (Dec 13, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Are you just feeling a bit grumpy or something?
> 
> I just thought you might find it interesting.  I mentioned it in the context of your comments about Steve's link, which you said was utopian or something. I wondered if you found Bookchin utopian, as some do.
> 
> I wasn't playing book whist or anything.  Although if you're challenging me...


lol - yeah, sorry I may have been getting a bit grumpy, just a bit dismayed to find so little support for an action and campaign I see as being absolutely crucial. 

Having actually googled it, and found a preview (full introductions and cover page), I'm thinking that maybe I have read actually read it as the cover looks strangely familiar, and I was getting a proper deja vu feeling reading the introduction. I think I probably covered it as part of the background reading to my degree, but that was over a decade of frying my brain ago, and before I'd really sussed out what was what.

If I get some book tokens for christmas, I think I'll get myself a copy.

eta : 2:2 score draw (+DLR get's bonus points for being able to remember what he's read)


----------



## chilango (Dec 13, 2008)

free spirit said:


> lol - yeah, sorry I may have been getting a bit grumpy, just a bit dismayed to find so little support for an action and campaign I see as being absolutely crucial.



free spirit,

please don't take my quetsions and criticisms of this particular action as an indication that I don't care.

Rather, that our (as a society) response to climate change is _too_ important to mess up with ill-considered grand-standing and posturing.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 13, 2008)

free spirit said:


> eta : 2:2 score draw (+DLR get's bonus points for being able to remember what he's read)


 oh, God, you've no idea.  I buy books I've already got, and only realise when I get to the ending.


----------



## october_lost (Dec 14, 2008)

According to the guy who popped into the social space they were using recently, "theyre all a bunch of toffs..." which sort of explains the crap politics.


----------

