Extinction Rebellion ‘own goal’ shows why climate action needs working-class people at the forefront

1. if you wanna get a pat on the back from the press for fucking up public transport and acting like an asshole go to hong kong

   Log in to Reply Report comment

2. Let’s protest against people polluting the environment by inconveniencing the ones that are using the most energy efficient form of public transport.

   Maybe it’d be better to go and hassle people directly burning fossil fuels on the surface.

   Log in to Reply Report comment

3. Either the spies have infiltrated the XR protests or the organizers are incredibly stupid. Or both perhaps. I have no sympathy for the guy being brought down from the roof of the tube. He even managed to launch a kick before brought down. What a peaceful response!!!

   Log in to Reply Report comment

4. At least one guy was seriously and violently kicked and punched to all parts of his body and would have suffered even more serious injury if a black woman and train staff hadn’t intervened. The new is how the general public turn into a pack of dogs in 2019 not the poor little working class epithet. Your children and grand children are not going to have a future and may endure a fight for life for many years the type only seen on war footage and a few people are made late for work. I don’t care if it was the wrong target and I hope the thugs involved are prosecuted. You may find they are mid level management.

   Log in to Reply Report comment

5. Maybe targeting the relatively ecological tube was not the best idea, but all the tweets and comments about having to have the “working class” on side are way off the mark. We are all responsible for our overconsumption, and we all overconsume here in our first world countries, and anyone who thinks that the average commuter is not consuming much doesn’t seem to be making much sense to me. Those commuters need to reduce consumption just as much as anybody else, and 99% of them are not reducing much at all beyond a bit of recicling.
   Yes there are some people that behave worse than others as far as being ecological in their lifestyles goes, but those who think they are better should guard against feeling “better than thou” and therefore doing nothing themselves. If you are going to point the finger then you should be putting your own house in order at the same time.
   One last thing: If all these “working class” commuters can’t do the protesting because they need to “feed their family” (no suv’s or foreign holidays involved for any of them?), and the existing “middle class” and “student” protesters are not allowed to because they are so privileged, then who is actually going to protest?
   I myself am very happy and grateful that these people are prepared to give their time and in some cases liberty to protest in my name while I work, and to be honest I don’t care what “class” they come from.

   Log in to Reply Report comment

6. Well meant commentary but wrong diagnosis and wrong solution offered.

   Labour is at a critical time for itself and the UK at large. At the next general election Labour must appeal to people from divers backgrounds if it is to make a mark on the future of our society comparable in magnitude to the 1945 general election. There are similarities of circumstance in 1945 and 2019.

   In 1945 the people had emerged from a period of uncertainty, deprivation, and suffering; the UK was bankrupt and one may posit that had a Conservative government emerged it would, in the unlikely event it had deep social reforms in mind, have reined in social spending as justifiable ‘austerity until the economy improved.

   The run up to 2019 differs with respect to the nature and extent of suffering but there’s no doubting, as evinced by food banks and so forth, existence of pockets of genuine absolute (as distinct from relative) poverty and decline in quality of life and expectations for the future among the bulk of the rest of the population. Whilst voters in 1945 had suffered ‘austerity’ to finance a war, so it is that those in 2019 have undergone nearly a decade of austerity to rescue the financial sector, particularly banks, from its neo-liberal inspired folly rather than doing the sensible thing of letting rotten to the core institutions go into liquidation.

   The challenge for 2019 is to convince a broad swathe of voters, many of whom, such as I, hitherto would not have dreamt of voting Labour in its Kinnoch/Blair/Brown manifestations, that the generality of people are burdened by poor public services, declining prosperity, reduction in plausible ambition for their children, and so forth, consequent upon de-regulation of markets, financialisation, unchecked greed, and a succession of governments corrupted by powerful vested interests. They need be persuaded of the root cause (neo-liberalism and the Ayn Rand ‘selfishness’ it spawns) and convinced that Johnson and his cronies, despite any tempting electoral bait (e.g. regarding taxation) they dangle, beckon down the road to worse.

   Yes, Labour ought stand for ‘socialism’ in the general sense of recognising the existence of ‘society’ as a mutually supportive arrangement rather than ‘may the Devil take the hindmost’ competition. That starting point does not necessitate lauding lowest common denominator expectations from life, manipulated trash popular culture, or belief that all opinions and life-style choices are of equal worth. It is about providing opportunities for the full sentience available only to those not dependent on subsistence living. Moreover, it entails ensuring even the least capable of availing themselves of opportunity may live in dignity. Its core belief is that everyone is entitled to a share of income/wealth generated by economic activity; how that is apportioned must rely on a mix of principle and flexible pragmatism; the latter entailing consideration of motivation and incentive but not in the ludicrous manner adopted following neo-liberal doctrine.

   Labour ought point out how active participation, e.g. creating goods and offering services, in a mixed economy of private enterprise (regulated) and public services is beneficial to all whereas rentier economics (e.g. land and buildings thereupon, and distributing so-called ‘intellectual property’) are a drain on individual resources and an opportunity cost for the UK as a whole. Consider the reduction in the cost of living for individuals and business should property rental costs be rendered negligible. Even the price of a pint in the pub is inflated by rental: that of the building/franchise and that gouged out for negligible effort by such as Premier League football live broadcasts. The man in the street will intuitively grasp rip-offs when pointed out to him.

   Language used is very important. People spouting on about the ‘working class’, ‘working class solutions’ ‘solidarity’, ‘class loyalty’, ‘class warfare’, ‘inequality’ (rather than variations), ‘inclusiveness’ and in the next breath ‘diversity’, and a host of other terms in the traditional but now anachronistic Labour lexicon, will help turn away potential Labour voters at time of desperate need. A lexicon based upon expressions of the underdog and derived from long forgotten political/social battles is unattractive. Ideas contained within some of the terms and retaining present day currency ought be expressed differently.

   The article prompting these remarks exemplifies how ill-chosen expressions can deflect attention away from matters worthy of consideration. Opting to portray confrontation of climate change protesters by discommoded commuters in terms of ‘working class’ angst is to misrepresent what went on and to lose sight of the key issue. Although in one sense almost everybody dependent on employment may be called ‘working class’ that means little and triggers suspicion of ‘luny left’ in people not brought up to treasure Labour mythology: ‘proud to be working class’, as if that portrays fulfilment of an ambition.

   A better description of the documented events would be of angry commuters drawn from divers educational, income, and cultural sources, working together to get rid of pests. The underlying point being that people disrupting the lives of others so as to make an ideological statement are arrogant and burdened by specious sense of entitlement. Introducing Rosa Parks into the discussion adds nothing of relevance. Neither does extensive quotation of ‘Tweets’ as if they were authoritative texts; a habit sadly endemic in what passes as journalism these days.

   Log in to Reply Report comment

Please read our comment moderation policy here.