Plane Stupid shut down Stansted Airport

[danny la rouge]

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]

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

no, it probably wouldnt affect anyone except themselves

 

[smokedout]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Exactly.

 

[teuchter]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Who's sitting? I'm standing.

 

[kyser_soze]

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.

Tom Logan, the largest hippy, said: "What happens, right, is that these planes are being filled with petrol, right, and then the pilot switches it on and all the petrol gets burnt, right, and then all the trees die and we run out of water .

"People need to understand the consequences of setting fire to petrol."

Angry travellers stuck in the airport's departure lounge said they were concerned about global warming and the expansion of low cost air travel but called for each and every one of these fucking hippies to be strung up from a lamppost.

Stephen Malley, on route to Zermatt, said: "Petrol's bad. I get it. I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it. I - FUCKING - GET - IT. OKAY?"

Wayne Hayes, an intermediate snow-boarder from Cambridge, said: "I am deeply concerned about the sort of world we will bequeath to our children and I promise you, the minute I get back from my holiday I will write a letter to my MP demanding that they do whatever it is you want them to do.

"But please, for the time being, fuck off bastard hippies."

Emma Bradford, a hanger-on from Lincoln, said: "I'm a supporter of WWF and I have a Greenpeace Visa card. If I wasn't going on holiday I'd be down there with

 

[Taxamo Welf]

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]

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]

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]

What would a humourless little twat like you know about funny anyway?

 

[cantsin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.