The Left: Moribund.

[ahinton]

I'd guess that the UK 'movement' has been inspired both by 'Occupy Wall Street' and by 'Indigniez-Vous' by Stéphane Hessell which was linked to the Facebook/twitter revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...rotesters.html

Quite possibly so.

That we don't know what their plans are may be as much to do with our Media's priorities as it is to do with the protestors' apparent lack of a plan?

Again, quite possibly so, but I take leave to doubt it for the reason that there'd be little point in protesting at all if no, ot insufficient, notice were to be taken and I have to admit that I'm not especially suspicious that such ideas as protesters may have are being suppressed wile the fact of their protest is being widely reported - that doesn't especially smack of logic, to me. Also, given that some of these folk are very outspoken and given that we have heard from some of them what it is that they are protesting against, I think it unlikely that we'd be denied opportunities to hear about their proposed remedies if the really had them to talk about. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems all abit odd to me.

[amateur51]

Quite possibly so.


Again, quite possibly so, but I take leave to doubt it for the reason that there'd be little point in protesting at all if no, ot insufficient, notice were to be taken and I have to admit that I'm not especially suspicious that such ideas as protesters may have are being suppressed wile the fact of their protest is being widely reported - that doesn't especially smack of logic, to me. Also, given that some of these folk are very outspoken and given that we have heard from some of them what it is that they are protesting against, I think it unlikely that we'd be denied opportunities to hear about their proposed remedies if the really had them to talk about. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems all abit odd to me.

Perhaps there are many plans that have yet to coalesce into The Plan?

I'm not prepared to write them off just because their development is not, as yet, linear.

I remember in the 1970s that the 'aims' of the Gay Liberation Front were in a right old tangle for years and many 'actions' were really an excuse for dressing up and frightening the horses, stirring things up, but then Hodges & Hutter wrote & published 'With Downcast Gays' and suddenly ... there it was!

http://www.outgay.co.uk/intro.html

[ahinton]

Perhaps there are many plans that have yet to coalesce into The Plan?

For the third time, quite possibly so.

I'm not prepared to write them off just because their development is not, as yet, linear.

Nor am I - but it's up to them to make and present their case in due course.

[amateur51]

For the third time, quite possibly so.


Nor am I - but it's up to them to make and present their case in due course.

We're in total agreement, ahinton

[aeolium]

I recall that in the late 1970s and early 1980s disparate environmental groups were widely portrayed as 'fringe' and eccentric in the media and across the major political parties. Those groups too sometimes had very different priorities and historical backgrounds (e.g. in some cases links with the anti-nuclear movement). Yet now, that environmental concern has been supported by extensive scientific studies and has become part of the mainstream - the eccentrics are those who persist in denying man-made climate change.

It seems strange that at a time of arguably the greatest global economic crisis in human history, created principally by the operation of neo-liberal capitalist economics, it is the cogency of anti-capitalist philosophy rather than that neo-liberal orthodoxy that is being questioned.

[teamsaint]

I recall that in the late 1970s and early 1980s disparate environmental groups were widely portrayed as 'fringe' and eccentric in the media and across the major political parties. Those groups too sometimes had very different priorities and historical backgrounds (e.g. in some cases links with the anti-nuclear movement). Yet now, that environmental concern has been supported by extensive scientific studies and has become part of the mainstream - the eccentrics are those who persist in denying man-made climate change.

It seems strange that at a time of arguably the greatest global economic crisis in human history, created principally by the operation of neo-liberal capitalist economics, it is the cogency of anti-capitalist philosophy rather than that neo-liberal orthodoxy that is being questioned.

Absolutely.
"How did we get to this situation ".. seems a good question.

Easy to blame the banks, and smart economic brains who know how to squeeze every ounce of value out of an asset, but............

[Lateralthinking1]

In policy making, unequivocal evidence is generally less influential than belief. In fact, they wouldn't believe in such a thing as unequivocal evidence. That is only really a part of the public presentation of their policy decisions. That "how could any right minded person believe in anything else". Out here we are getting the mantra via the media that everything is bad, whether economically or environmentally. We are told they are putting things right. In the offices of Westminster, there is almost a religious emphasis on “we are great at what we do”. The need to improve is discussed in terms of becoming “even better”. Actually, I think the same is true in private companies. It is an alternative reality that is considered necessary for momentum and drive.

If they believe that what they do is good, they also believe that their beliefs are right. This isn't to say they ignore the other arguments. We might think that there are obvious truths and falsehoods that become crystal clear by being supported by all the evidence. Climate change is a good example. They see evidence as a device for supporting one belief or another. In essence, they think that anything could in theory be argued persuasively and in many respects that is true. They have to know the alternatives to defend their beliefs effectively but they principally select any evidence that is there to support their beliefs.

But not initially. Many people would be staggered by the sheer amount of detailed work that is undertaken. Some of it is dire beyond belief and some of it is awesomely good. The public can sometimes underrate the latter. There are brilliant academic types pouring out reams of stuff from all angles, the true thinkers, sometimes with few winning social skills. And then there are the brightish managerial types who are far shallower and know how to sell, not that they really understand what they are selling.

Unfortunately, it is the latter who now rule the roost. The former may produce hundreds of pages, if not thousands, which describe something like climate change in the kind of depth few could imagine and which for 97% of the time put forward innovative policy approaches. But if the Government of the day believes that it is over-stated, or you have to modify approaches to help the economy, or you have to rein it all in for murky reasons like the wish to win the next election, then they will be pushed to produce more detailed work on the 3%. Basically, that is the way it works and not always without gnashing of teeth.

Public consultation isn’t quite the sham it can seem to be. Certainly they go through the motions of analysis and it can be a hell of a job but corners will often be cut and who you are really matters. If you are Virgin or BAA, your response will be heavily weighted. Environmental groups matter more than individual environmentalists but they tend to be rather picky there and listen mostly to conservative minded green groups. The only voters who get big attention are those who have friends in high places or have the money and connections to take matters into the courts. The rest of us will be seen in terms of numbers. We never mattered much. And the position there has shifted for the worse since 2010. The new regime feels that too much time has been wasted on the oppositional views of people like those on this forum. In fact, they don't like independent citizens of any intellectual substance.

[Serial_Apologist]

What I think is of value in it is her implied drawing of attention to the idea that we shouldn't expect too much of government as though it's somehow going to sort out all our ills and woes, as though that is its bounden duty and is all that we elect it to do. To my mind, government's only rôle in this regard should concentrate on sorting out those particular ills and woes that it has itself imposed upon us; that alone should give it more than enough to do! Yes, there should be no sense of entitlement without one of obligation, just as there can be no rights without responsibilities.

A few rhetorical straw persons here, ahinton.

Eg the cliche that anyone expects government to sort out all our ills and woes, ("all"??); and

there should be no rights without responsibilities. The logical conclusion to be drawn from the latter principle is that until you I or anyone else has proven our responsibilities by presumably verifiable demonstration, we deserve no rights. Really?

I am only raising these since you so rarely resort to platitudes.

S-A

[ahinton]

I recall that in the late 1970s and early 1980s disparate environmental groups were widely portrayed as 'fringe' and eccentric in the media and across the major political parties. Those groups too sometimes had very different priorities and historical backgrounds (e.g. in some cases links with the anti-nuclear movement). Yet now, that environmental concern has been supported by extensive scientific studies and has become part of the mainstream - the eccentrics are those who persist in denying man-made climate change.

Nearly but not quite; the eccentrics are perhaps those who believe that all climate change is not only bad but also bad because it is all man-made. Much of the rest of what you write here is pretty much on the money, except that the feed-in tariff and other governmental encouragements to people to get involved in sustainable power use are now on the wane - and very short-sightedly so, in my view.

It seems strange that at a time of arguably the greatest global economic crisis in human history, created principally by the operation of neo-liberal capitalist economics, it is the cogency of anti-capitalist philosophy rather than that neo-liberal orthodoxy that is being questioned.

Not only does laying 100% of the blame for this crisis firmly at the door of "the operation of neo-liberal capitalist economics" constitute a rather over-simplistic conclusion (although I much appreciate your use of the word "operation" here in orer to distinguish the practice of capitalism from its theoretical principles) I would have thought that both sides are becoming incresingly open to question these days, albiet not sufficiently so.

[ahinton]

the cliche that anyone expects government to sort out all our ills and woes, ("all"??)

It's not my cliché - nor even one that I endorse as universally valid - but one that originates with those of Thatcherian bent, which is why I referred to it; I do, however, believe that it is not without relevance altogether - for example, I think that governments have tried unwarrantably to interfere in certain aspects of our lives (not least the public and private sector pensions issues that are now under so much discussion) and at the same time have interfered with them too little in areas for which it is more reasonable for us to elect them to assume responsibility.

there should be no rights without responsibilities. The logical conclusion to be drawn from the latter principle is that until you I or anyone else has proven our responsibilities by presumably verifiable demonstration, we deserve no rights. Really?

For two distinct reasons, that is not the only conclusion to be drawn from my remark, nor is it even necessarily logical, as you claim; firstly, I did not imply, or intend any significance to be imputed from, the specific word order, to the extent that I could as easily have written "no responsibilities without rights" to convey the same meaning and, secondly, I did not suggest that either one has first to be provable by means of verifiable demonstration in order to justify the other.

I am only raising these since you so rarely resort to platitudes.

Well, thank you for that, at least! I certainly have no wish to do any such thing, of course.

[Frances_iom]

.. except that the feed-in tariff and other governmental encouragements to people to get involved in sustainable power use are now on the wane - and very short-sightedly so, in my view.

it was stupidly overpriced - the technology could easily be predicted to fall considerably in price (application of existing technology to making solar panels) - it is obvious from the explosive growth (and several of the interviews) that companies saw this as a free gift from all other consumers - it may be just about the only sensible decision made by the gov in last year. The next sacred cow that needs slaughtering is the mantra that wind power will produce green + cheap energy - neither is true

[Lateralthinking1]

I am keen on wave power. We are floating in natural resource.

[Serial_Apologist]

Nearly but not quite; the eccentrics are perhaps those who believe that all climate change is not only bad but also bad because it is all man-made.

The problem there is that, as long as some go on claiming the jury to be still out on that one, it provides a let out to those who want no action to try and mitigate the (undoubted) effects of global warming to be taken.

[Serial_Apologist]

I am keen on wave power. We are floating in natural resource.

I agree! Also tend to agree with Frances on wind power. If they do feel they have to build wind farms, they should be located in the most wind-prone places. Complaints about noise are not usually directed at wind! As to appearance - I have some sympathy: why don't they paint the damned things blue? or green? or camouflage?

[ahinton]

it was stupidly overpriced - the technology could easily be predicted to fall considerably in price (application of existing technology to making solar panels) - it is obvious from the explosive growth (and several of the interviews) that companies saw this as a free gift from all other consumers - it may be just about the only sensible decision made by the gov in last year.

True as that may be - and I hope that it will continue to be ever more so - I was not referring only to the arrangements made in Britain but those made by other governments as well; I don;t see this as an excuse not to encourage this kind of use, because it benefits not only the customers but also the nation and the power suppliers, the last of these especially in France where the already over-stressed nuclear power industry cannot just go build and commission another reactor the moment a supply runs out.

The next sacred cow that needs slaughtering is the mantra that wind power will produce green + cheap energy - neither is true

That's very true, even in the windiest areas where they've been installed; I think that some people are beginning to realise this now, but the interest is different to the extent that wind power is usually used by power supply and other companies whereas solar ditto is more often used by individuals for their homes and small businesses.