Plane Stupid shut down Stansted Airport

[Taxamo Welf]

It may have just been drunk bravado

Nope.

 

[free spirit]

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]

ps as thread starter I'm claiming ranting rights on this thread...

 

[Taxamo Welf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

that was a drunken outburst by the way

 

[free spirit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

lol

tbf I didn't actually know you were going to make that statement*, just glad someone did


*or did I?

 

[danny la rouge]

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.

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]

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.

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).

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Indeed.

 

[Blagsta]

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.

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).

spot on