Jeremy Corbyn should stay in the fudge business. Credit: Ian Forsyth/Getty Images
Dear Jeremy,
I’m not a leftie. I’ve never voted Labour in my life and, until recently, I was a member of the Conservative Party.
Still, the reason why you should listen to my advice rather than the squabbling socialists surrounding you is this: I’m better placed to understand what your opponents would least like you to do right now. So here goes:
1) Don’t panic
I know, it’s been a rough year. You may be on your third Tory leader, but all of those leaders have been Prime Ministers – unlike you. If you want the top job, then evidently you need to be doing something different.
But don’t despair, not every poll shows a double digit lead for the Tories. According to some polling companies, like ComRes, it’s a lot closer than that. Also don’t forget that your position before the 2017 general election looked even worse – and you turned that one around (though not enough to actually win, of course).
2) Your instincts are right on Brexit
Right now, though, there’s no denying you’re in a tight spot. The Tories and the Lib Dems are setting out clear positions on Brexit, but you’re still selling fudge. Still, don’t get me wrong: Labour has to be in the fudge business. You absolutely have to hold on to your support among working class Leavers in the North and among middle class Remainers in the South. That’s your election-winning coalition right there and there’s no alternative to it.
For a while, it looked as though another path was possible: Labour as the ‘Party of Remain’ – an alliance of public sector professionals, students, resentful renters and urbanites of all classes, bolstered by affluent remoaners who’d normally vote Lib Dem or Conservative. In theory, limited losses in Leave heartlands would have been offset by gains in London and breakthroughs in the South East. But it was always a vain hope. Look closely at a People’s Vote march and you can see it for it really is: the larval form of a Lib Dem party conference.
With Liberal Democrats back in play, the Party of Remain strategy doesn’t work for Labour anymore. I’m not sure that even your most anti-Brexit colleagues think they can outflank Jo Swinson. Granted, there is a wide-open space between Revoke and No Deal, but that doesn’t mean the Labour’s Brexit policy – a raging dumpster fire – will be seen as a reasonable compromise. It won’t, it just makes you look ridiculous.
If, after next week, Labour is still neck-and-neck with the Lib Dems or, for shame, still trailing in third place, you must use the ensuing crisis to your advantage. Tell your colleagues that the almost-Remain positioning has failed and it’s time to make a virtue out of genuine compromise – because right now that’s a vacant niche. In other words, it’s time to reformulate the fudge recipe: commit yourselves to negotiating a ‘Labour Brexit’ (whatever that is) with a second referendum only if all else fails.
The Brexit fundamentalists on either side won’t like it – but you’ve already lost them. Luckily for you, there’s a big constituency for a bring-the-nation-together approach that is currently unrepresented. It’s also the only hope for keeping the Labour coalition together.
3) Beware a ‘progressive alliance’
Of course, it might not be long before events overtake all of the above. One possibility is that Boris Johnson will cave, agree to an extension and cling-on as a weakened, humiliated Prime Minister. You can then demand a general election. However, the other possibilities are that the Government gets a deal or that there’s No Deal or that Johnson resigns rather than be dictated to by a Remain Parliament.
In all of these cases (and perhaps others I haven’t considered) you’ll find yourself pressured to join a ‘progressive alliance’ – consisting of Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, plus Plaid and the SNP.
Don’t do it! You’ve got little to gain and a lot to lose from a stitch up. Unlike most of its continental sister-parties, Labour is still a vital force – capable of winning 40% of the vote. Political loyalties run deep in this country, especially in those northern seats you have to hold on to. So, if you’ll forgive the capitalist language, don’t dilute the brand.
Moreover, any stigma still attached to the Lib Dems for their time in bed with the Tories would disappear if you let them climb into bed with you. Of course, tactical voting could help at the next election, but keep it covert – black ops, not photo ops .
The worse case scenario is a ‘government of national unity’. Just imagine being sat around the Cabinet table with Jo Swinson, Ian Blackford, Chuka Umunna, Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke – especially with the latter in the Prime Minister’s chair! Have you gone through the last four years of trench warfare just to become the Ramsay MacDonald of the 21st century?
4) Remember why you (nearly) won in 2017
Never forget the 8th June, 2017. I certainly won’t. They said you couldn’t do it – even Owen Jones thought so – but you did (almost). In 2015, Ed Miliband got 30.5% of the vote, you got 40.0%: a remarkable achievement.
Admittedly you had some help. The Lib Dems were still on the floor and Ukip was imploding. Then there were your ‘assets’ inside Tory high command. Just how you guys got so many expert saboteurs into so many high ranking positions I’ll never know. One of them, let’s call her ‘Agent Tracey’, did an especially good job.
It won’t be so easy next time. Tracey’s gone, the Lib Dems are back and so is Farage. Nevertheless, your basic strategy – to inspire support by offering a meaningful choice – is still valid. After all, Ed Miliband didn’t fail because he was too radical, but because he wasn’t radical enough – you proved that in 2017, despite what the Blairites said.
In retrospect, it all seems so obvious. In every general election since the financial crash, the change candidates have done spectacularly well. In 2010, that was partly obscured by Cameron and Clegg cancelling each other out – still, Cameron made a net gain of 108 seats. In 2015, the change candidates were Nicola Sturgeon north of the border and Nigel Farage south of it. Sturgeon swept the board in Scotland – and Farage increased UKIP’s vote share from 3% to 13%. In 2017, the change candidate was you, Jeremy. It could have been your main opponent, but with maximum muppetry the Tories went with the anti-change message of “strong and stable”.
This time, the ‘change space’ will be heavily contested: no one expects stasis from Boris Johnson; Jo Swinson is the new face; Nigel Farage will be making trouble; and you’re in danger of looking like yesterday’s man. With Labour plotting a middle course on Brexit, you’ll need a fresh, radical agenda on the other big issues.
But simply dusting-off the 2017 manifesto isn’t good enough. The whole commie hipster thing is already moving on. As this year’s Euro-elections showed, the red wave has been swallowed up by a green wave. The young and young-ish voters who swung behind you two years ago may be radical in their politics, but they’re bourgeois to their fingertips. A return to 1970s socialism just won’t do it for them.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t promise to spend shed-loads of money. But you need something much smarter than a crude giveaway (especially now the Tories are splashing the cash). Fortunately, one of your economic advisors – Ann Pettifor – has got a plan for a Green New Deal. Apparently, she was into it long before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg made it cool.
It’s just the ticket for your next manifesto – plenty of stuff that can be sold both to your new supporters (like action on climate change and anti-neoliberalism) and to your traditional supporters (green manufacturing jobs and public transport for traffic-choked northern cities).
Furthermore, unlike a free-stuff-for-everyone-and-let’s-nationalise-Facebook agenda, a Labour Green New Deal would allow you to push back on questions of affordability. After all, a higher level of investment in productivity-enhancing projects might pay for itself if it’s done right. Indeed, you could accuse the Tories of running up an ‘infrastructure deficit’ by running down the public realm.
And as for the charge of ‘crowding out’ private sector investment, you only need ask: ‘what private sector investment?’
5) Localism not Leninism
A promise to re-nationalise the odd utility won’t do you any harm. But an across-the-board policy of nationalisation? If you pay full price for the companies, voters won’t believe you’ll have the money. If you enforce a discount – i.e. expropriate a private business – you’ll kill the economy. Anyone with any assets will worry they’re next.
In the 21st century, the Left should champion radical localisation not centralisation. Preston council is the exemplar of Labour local governance in this regard – a model of how the public realm can be regenerated in a co-operative, community-led manner.
Remember what people hate about capitalism right now is not markets and competition, but monopolies and cronyism. They want you to return power to the people, not hoard it for yourself. Ignore your more doctrinaire colleagues, ‘democratic centralism‘ is a fraud and always has been.
Anyway, that’s enough unsolicited advice from the class enemy. I genuinely wish you (and your opponents) good luck in the forthcoming general election. It will be brutal.
Best regards,
Peter
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_ 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf a group of protestors went to the same place and did the same thing, but were – say – urging the government to deport everyone who hadn’t been born in the UK, would they be allowed to explain their beliefs to the court for four hours?
Exactly, the regime permits protest groups that they have common cause with. Just Stop Oil and BLM are pushing against an open door. Compare their treatment with Tommy Robinson’s etc.
The “regime”, my foot. You never faced a moment of state oppression in your cossetted life mate.
Covid?
In the UK who has faced a moment of state oppression?
Have you? May I ask.
As at 15.57BST, stunned silence from the “oppressed “ McCusker.
Idiotic objection. We have a political class openly intent – through Net Zero – on the deliberate destruction of our liberty and living standards but you, presumably, don’t want anyone to refer to them in draconian terms until they’ve actually succeeded?
Grow up.
Covid?
In the UK who has faced a moment of state oppression?
Have you? May I ask.
As at 15.57BST, stunned silence from the “oppressed “ McCusker.
Idiotic objection. We have a political class openly intent – through Net Zero – on the deliberate destruction of our liberty and living standards but you, presumably, don’t want anyone to refer to them in draconian terms until they’ve actually succeeded?
Grow up.
I shared your view until this verdict, it seems the pendulum is swinging the other way.
And the authorities are always absent in the event of left wing violence against right wing groups
Are you the author of this article?
He is not!
He is not!
The “regime”, my foot. You never faced a moment of state oppression in your cossetted life mate.
I shared your view until this verdict, it seems the pendulum is swinging the other way.
And the authorities are always absent in the event of left wing violence against right wing groups
Are you the author of this article?
You’re allowing self-pity to cloud your thinking. You’re failing to distinguish between (i) illegal actions in support of a legal cause (such as helping the environment) and (ii) illegal actions in support of an illegal cause (such as Nazi-style deportation policies).
You do appreciate the distinction, don’t you? Although the amount of upticks suggest that there are lots of folks with an over-developed sense of ideological self-pity lol.
Regarding your (ii) – the actions could be being taken to get the law changed so then the cause wouldn’t be illegal.
Oh, good, someone answers me by talking about Nazis.
You know nothing about my opinion of Just Stop Oil or of immigration policy.
The hypothetical about immigration policy was intended, of course, to contrast *illegal* protests in support of a “left-wing’ cause and a “right-wing” cause. A democratically elected government could pass legitimate legislation to deport all foreign-born residents (or at least those who had not already been granted permanent residency). Again, I say nothing about whether I think that would be good legislation or bad, but it could be perfectly legal.
The nazis actions caused the deaths of tens of millions of people. According to the doom goblin’s predictions five years ago, the earth should be barren and all life destroyed right now.
Regarding your (ii) – the actions could be being taken to get the law changed so then the cause wouldn’t be illegal.
Oh, good, someone answers me by talking about Nazis.
You know nothing about my opinion of Just Stop Oil or of immigration policy.
The hypothetical about immigration policy was intended, of course, to contrast *illegal* protests in support of a “left-wing’ cause and a “right-wing” cause. A democratically elected government could pass legitimate legislation to deport all foreign-born residents (or at least those who had not already been granted permanent residency). Again, I say nothing about whether I think that would be good legislation or bad, but it could be perfectly legal.
The nazis actions caused the deaths of tens of millions of people. According to the doom goblin’s predictions five years ago, the earth should be barren and all life destroyed right now.
Exactly, the regime permits protest groups that they have common cause with. Just Stop Oil and BLM are pushing against an open door. Compare their treatment with Tommy Robinson’s etc.
You’re allowing self-pity to cloud your thinking. You’re failing to distinguish between (i) illegal actions in support of a legal cause (such as helping the environment) and (ii) illegal actions in support of an illegal cause (such as Nazi-style deportation policies).
You do appreciate the distinction, don’t you? Although the amount of upticks suggest that there are lots of folks with an over-developed sense of ideological self-pity lol.
If a group of protestors went to the same place and did the same thing, but were – say – urging the government to deport everyone who hadn’t been born in the UK, would they be allowed to explain their beliefs to the court for four hours?
The problem is that Just Stop Oil are religiously ideological in their outlook. They believe so fervently that the world is coming to an end that any action is justified. Their lack of doubt makes it impossible deal with them at a logical level – true believers become fanatics. The only thing we can do is protect the public from them, unless they accept that there must be some balance and duty to the public in their actions. Them having reasoning is not helping because they refuse to accept counter-arguments.
Which makes their being permitted 4 hours to talk about Global warming extremely dubious as they’re not prepared to listen to any reasoned replies to what they say. And there is a very important reasoned reply – that despite what they probably claim, the evidence supporting what they say is by no means 100%, or even 98%, both of which figures I’ve heard, of the scientific community.
The common sense argument is simple: climate change may or may not kill millions of people. Net zero policies will definitely kill millions of people – and probably whilst having little or no effect on the climate. The common sense solution therefore is adaptation.
The common sense argument is simple: climate change may or may not kill millions of people. Net zero policies will definitely kill millions of people – and probably whilst having little or no effect on the climate. The common sense solution therefore is adaptation.
Which makes their being permitted 4 hours to talk about Global warming extremely dubious as they’re not prepared to listen to any reasoned replies to what they say. And there is a very important reasoned reply – that despite what they probably claim, the evidence supporting what they say is by no means 100%, or even 98%, both of which figures I’ve heard, of the scientific community.
The problem is that Just Stop Oil are religiously ideological in their outlook. They believe so fervently that the world is coming to an end that any action is justified. Their lack of doubt makes it impossible deal with them at a logical level – true believers become fanatics. The only thing we can do is protect the public from them, unless they accept that there must be some balance and duty to the public in their actions. Them having reasoning is not helping because they refuse to accept counter-arguments.
Do Just Stop Oil deserve to be in prison?
Yes, if their protest is too disruptive. There’s a spectrum from peaceful protest, through disruptive protest, through to terrorist protest. At some point protest is so disruptive or damaging that the general public reasonably expect to be protected against it.
At last, a sane answer. Of course they will face criminal consequences, albeit minor. There will be a stain on a surface of a snooker table. In the grand scheme of things, not the most shocking offence a criminal court will ever have seen lol. Do keep things in perspective folks.
I don’t think they should be jailed, but they should have to reimburse every spectator the cost of their ticket who missed out on the session due to their actions, as well as replacing the baize on the table and any television money lost through no play being able to happen
I don’t think they should be jailed, but they should have to reimburse every spectator the cost of their ticket who missed out on the session due to their actions, as well as replacing the baize on the table and any television money lost through no play being able to happen
Yes, and blocking roads in major cities is an example of where the public ‘reasonably expect to be protected’ against.
At last, a sane answer. Of course they will face criminal consequences, albeit minor. There will be a stain on a surface of a snooker table. In the grand scheme of things, not the most shocking offence a criminal court will ever have seen lol. Do keep things in perspective folks.
Yes, and blocking roads in major cities is an example of where the public ‘reasonably expect to be protected’ against.
Do Just Stop Oil deserve to be in prison?
Yes, if their protest is too disruptive. There’s a spectrum from peaceful protest, through disruptive protest, through to terrorist protest. At some point protest is so disruptive or damaging that the general public reasonably expect to be protected against it.
Yes. They are criminals. They deliberately and knowingly set up to engage in criminal activity and cause criminal damage. They are also fully aware of the laws they are breaking – though ignorance of the law is no defence. Pre-medidated crime is always more serious than opportunistic or provoked crime.
It’s really very simple. We must enforce the laws we have. If we do not wish to punish such people, we should change the laws (not a position I agree with in these cases).
Judges who selectively fail to enforce the law due to their personal sympathies also need to be punished. This is professional misconduct.
In fact thanks to the antics of Hoffman and others, it has been quite obvious for years that we need a professional judiciary.
In fact thanks to the antics of Hoffman and others, it has been quite obvious for years that we need a professional judiciary.
Yes. They are criminals. They deliberately and knowingly set up to engage in criminal activity and cause criminal damage. They are also fully aware of the laws they are breaking – though ignorance of the law is no defence. Pre-medidated crime is always more serious than opportunistic or provoked crime.
It’s really very simple. We must enforce the laws we have. If we do not wish to punish such people, we should change the laws (not a position I agree with in these cases).
Judges who selectively fail to enforce the law due to their personal sympathies also need to be punished. This is professional misconduct.
“Do Just Stop Oil deserve to be in prison?”
Yes.
That’s the headline answered. The rest of the article, predictably, is only tangentially related to the headline and very interesting it all is, too. The most welcome argument was this: “If you know that a barrister could have refused to act for an unpopular client, you are more likely to believe that he or she approves of their actions.”
I hadn’t thought of it that way before of course, not being a lawyer myself, but it makes perfect sense. If advocates are free to reject defending people with whom they may personally disagree, then it follows that any advocate defending a person might on some level approve of that person’s actions and the crime of which they might eventually be found guilty. How then are people accused of terrible crimes to expect a fair defence? The institution of the right to a fair defence is fatally undermined by such a development.
Of course, the sorts of activists in question don’t care about that sort of thing, just as they do not care for the liberty and living standards of people in general. Their claims to care about future generations instead are the nothing more than a repeat of the same horseshit trotted out by power junkies in every generation: a distant and vague danger is hyped up so as to scare people into handing over rights and freedoms to a bunch of corrupt zealots who don’t care who they stamp upon in getting to the top.
“Do Just Stop Oil deserve to be in prison?”
Yes.
That’s the headline answered. The rest of the article, predictably, is only tangentially related to the headline and very interesting it all is, too. The most welcome argument was this: “If you know that a barrister could have refused to act for an unpopular client, you are more likely to believe that he or she approves of their actions.”
I hadn’t thought of it that way before of course, not being a lawyer myself, but it makes perfect sense. If advocates are free to reject defending people with whom they may personally disagree, then it follows that any advocate defending a person might on some level approve of that person’s actions and the crime of which they might eventually be found guilty. How then are people accused of terrible crimes to expect a fair defence? The institution of the right to a fair defence is fatally undermined by such a development.
Of course, the sorts of activists in question don’t care about that sort of thing, just as they do not care for the liberty and living standards of people in general. Their claims to care about future generations instead are the nothing more than a repeat of the same horseshit trotted out by power junkies in every generation: a distant and vague danger is hyped up so as to scare people into handing over rights and freedoms to a bunch of corrupt zealots who don’t care who they stamp upon in getting to the top.
They deserve to be inconvenienced enough that they think twice about doing it again and serve as a deterrent against similar activities.
Community service may suffice. Perhaps cleaning up dead birds killed by windfarms or helping out at a rare minerals mine in Africa.
They need to get ‘woke’ to the fact that their net zero absolutism is wrongheaded.
Or a ticket to China to enable them to protest what, in their terms, has to be the most serious threat, the proliferation of coal fired fire stations.
But you know what, they wouldn’t go
Of course not.
The first thing the ‘Chinks’ would do is despatch them to a Re-Education Camp in the Gobi Desert, from which very few would survive.
Would that be any loss?
Exactly, most of “climate emergency” woke idiots are Neo-Marxists who hate the West.
Usually grads in soft subjects in 3rd rate pseudo universities….
You can meet them as staff in many craft beer bars in London.
Not as customers. They are too stupid to have a job to afford it…
Of course not.
The first thing the ‘Chinks’ would do is despatch them to a Re-Education Camp in the Gobi Desert, from which very few would survive.
Would that be any loss?
Exactly, most of “climate emergency” woke idiots are Neo-Marxists who hate the West.
Usually grads in soft subjects in 3rd rate pseudo universities….
You can meet them as staff in many craft beer bars in London.
Not as customers. They are too stupid to have a job to afford it…
The huge quantities of balsa for rotor blades destroying forests and communities in Equador, the BPA resin accumulations (preventing foetal brain development as well as other detrimental effects) in crop fields and waterways (declared as safe by the American Clean Power Association(!!) though not by other environmental agencies) and run offs into the sea, the pressure waves from the rotors killing bats as they fly past, shredding birds on migration routes, the interference with sediment/nutrition mixing in marine systems, the lack of recyclables…..and they don’t work if the wind don’t blow. Problem with net zero? A minor spit in a bucket compared to EV’s.
AND Greenpeace are now campaigning for windfarms in the Northern right whale breeding grounds in the Arctic which the old protesters risked their lives to protect in the seventies!
It beggars belief that people who purportedly have enough capacity to run a country (Boris, Sunak) could be duped into thinking net zero is a solution and thereby strengthening the beliefs of ER. Net zero may well have disastrous effects on climate. CO2 in the atmosphere is back in favour with the real scientists with a vengeance! A public education drive could go a long way to turning the protest tide.
Meantime, they’ll do less damage to the environment if they’re locked up.
Public education drive?
Great idea but who would do it?
Surely not teachers and MSM who are pushing this agenda?
No ‘duping’ is involved. The likes of Sunak and Johnson work for the WEF, not for us. They are only following orders…
Public education drive?
Great idea but who would do it?
Surely not teachers and MSM who are pushing this agenda?
No ‘duping’ is involved. The likes of Sunak and Johnson work for the WEF, not for us. They are only following orders…
Or a ticket to China to enable them to protest what, in their terms, has to be the most serious threat, the proliferation of coal fired fire stations.
But you know what, they wouldn’t go
The huge quantities of balsa for rotor blades destroying forests and communities in Equador, the BPA resin accumulations (preventing foetal brain development as well as other detrimental effects) in crop fields and waterways (declared as safe by the American Clean Power Association(!!) though not by other environmental agencies) and run offs into the sea, the pressure waves from the rotors killing bats as they fly past, shredding birds on migration routes, the interference with sediment/nutrition mixing in marine systems, the lack of recyclables…..and they don’t work if the wind don’t blow. Problem with net zero? A minor spit in a bucket compared to EV’s.
AND Greenpeace are now campaigning for windfarms in the Northern right whale breeding grounds in the Arctic which the old protesters risked their lives to protect in the seventies!
It beggars belief that people who purportedly have enough capacity to run a country (Boris, Sunak) could be duped into thinking net zero is a solution and thereby strengthening the beliefs of ER. Net zero may well have disastrous effects on climate. CO2 in the atmosphere is back in favour with the real scientists with a vengeance! A public education drive could go a long way to turning the protest tide.
Meantime, they’ll do less damage to the environment if they’re locked up.
They deserve to be inconvenienced enough that they think twice about doing it again and serve as a deterrent against similar activities.
Community service may suffice. Perhaps cleaning up dead birds killed by windfarms or helping out at a rare minerals mine in Africa.
They need to get ‘woke’ to the fact that their net zero absolutism is wrongheaded.
The ideas behind “protest” are to peacefully bear witness, and in the US under the First Amendment to peaceably petition the government. Nowhere was there a right to disrupt or threaten people in their pursuit of their normal activities or business. All the confusion comes because we now allow such tactics of disruption, intimidation, and threats and have trouble knowing where to draw the line.
The line should be drawn at or very near zero. You can bear witness or present a petition of grievances, and if that attracts media and public attention, fine. If you plan a huge crowd, there should be an avenue to get a permit that involves special accommodations such as temporarily preempting the public right of way. Beyond that level of approved disruption, you cannot disrupt, intimidate, or physically abuse or threaten people.
That would be right and fair and pretty easy to adjudicate.
The ideas behind “protest” are to peacefully bear witness, and in the US under the First Amendment to peaceably petition the government. Nowhere was there a right to disrupt or threaten people in their pursuit of their normal activities or business. All the confusion comes because we now allow such tactics of disruption, intimidation, and threats and have trouble knowing where to draw the line.
The line should be drawn at or very near zero. You can bear witness or present a petition of grievances, and if that attracts media and public attention, fine. If you plan a huge crowd, there should be an avenue to get a permit that involves special accommodations such as temporarily preempting the public right of way. Beyond that level of approved disruption, you cannot disrupt, intimidate, or physically abuse or threaten people.
That would be right and fair and pretty easy to adjudicate.
I have long thought that protesters can always defy laws they disagree with, provided they are prepared to accept the legal consequences. I would consider doing so myself. However, defying a law, even a bad one, and expecting to be let away with it is not part of the deal. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not living on the right planet.
I have long thought that protesters can always defy laws they disagree with, provided they are prepared to accept the legal consequences. I would consider doing so myself. However, defying a law, even a bad one, and expecting to be let away with it is not part of the deal. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not living on the right planet.
The one guy has been arrested six times. I get protests. I support the right to protest, but there needs to be an example at some point.
I know someone who is the same in my area of living. He is a nice chap, but once he is in protest mode he comes across as a cult member. And until he received home arrest, which I agree was onerous, he was getting arrested every few months. I think after a few arrests it seems like an addiction too for many. Just Stop Oil and my acquaintance would be much better off getting their hands dirty and actually helping people and local projects in regards to the environment.
I know someone who is the same in my area of living. He is a nice chap, but once he is in protest mode he comes across as a cult member. And until he received home arrest, which I agree was onerous, he was getting arrested every few months. I think after a few arrests it seems like an addiction too for many. Just Stop Oil and my acquaintance would be much better off getting their hands dirty and actually helping people and local projects in regards to the environment.
The one guy has been arrested six times. I get protests. I support the right to protest, but there needs to be an example at some point.
Wouldn’t it make much more sense to compel these idiots to compensate every single person whose property they’ve damaged or whose life they’ve disrupted – even if that takes many years.
Let’s face it: they’ll be out in a few months to a hero’s welcome.
Wouldn’t it make much more sense to compel these idiots to compensate every single person whose property they’ve damaged or whose life they’ve disrupted – even if that takes many years.
Let’s face it: they’ll be out in a few months to a hero’s welcome.
Britain is now imprisoning people for the most disturbingly insignificant crimes, not least today for a farmer dredging a river. Prison more often that not destroys peoples entire future and lives, giving them no option other than becoming career criminals, using skills that they have actually acquired in prison.
The climate change eco sandaloids are a slightly different case, in as far as they and their acolytes see imprisonment as a superb ” martyrdom” asset, so imprisonment is actually a double negative to and for all concerned.
Our prisons are a disfunctional disgrace, run by criminals, using a regime of drugs and violence, with successive governments doing absolutely nothing about this chilling situation: yet another example of the descent of a once great country into a third world mess.
Our entire Criminal Justice system is an utter disgrace!
Certain QC/KC’s raking in salaries of over half a million for ‘Legal Aid’ work, and then being promoted to the zenith of the pile!
If this continues anarchy will be the result. And that will be anarchy “sine missione”.
Our entire Criminal Justice system is an utter disgrace!
Certain QC/KC’s raking in salaries of over half a million for ‘Legal Aid’ work, and then being promoted to the zenith of the pile!
If this continues anarchy will be the result. And that will be anarchy “sine missione”.
Britain is now imprisoning people for the most disturbingly insignificant crimes, not least today for a farmer dredging a river. Prison more often that not destroys peoples entire future and lives, giving them no option other than becoming career criminals, using skills that they have actually acquired in prison.
The climate change eco sandaloids are a slightly different case, in as far as they and their acolytes see imprisonment as a superb ” martyrdom” asset, so imprisonment is actually a double negative to and for all concerned.
Our prisons are a disfunctional disgrace, run by criminals, using a regime of drugs and violence, with successive governments doing absolutely nothing about this chilling situation: yet another example of the descent of a once great country into a third world mess.
Maybe there should be escalating sentences. Maybe light treatment for first conviction and stiffer penalties for each subsequent conviction.
Maybe there should be escalating sentences. Maybe light treatment for first conviction and stiffer penalties for each subsequent conviction.
“Do Just Stop Oil deserve to be in prison?”
YES!!
“Do Just Stop Oil deserve to be in prison?”
YES!!
Well, laws around protests are very complex. What is not too complex to understand, however, is the fact that if the protesters’ desired outcome is to get people on their side (and influence the government), it is having the opposite effect.
Well, laws around protests are very complex. What is not too complex to understand, however, is the fact that if the protesters’ desired outcome is to get people on their side (and influence the government), it is having the opposite effect.
Like most readers i find these eco-loons beneath contempt, despite their hypcracy and luxury beliefs being what you’d expect from posh kids who’ve never had to work. They seemingly ignore our rampant disregard for the bioshpere whilst wittering about warming and cow farts. However they seem to be unlucky here. The UK lacks a real legal system and a legitimate judiciary. These ecos clearly got the judge who worked for Brown and Root or has a lot of Exxon shares. In the same week i read about someone getting i think it was 4 years for a killing and a cleric only 3 years (out in 12m?) for child sex offences. The eco-loons are IMO misguided, their dead-eyed loyalty to the cause is scary. I’ll leave the readers to consider how they’d rate the “legal” system and “judiciary” by comparison?
Like most readers i find these eco-loons beneath contempt, despite their hypcracy and luxury beliefs being what you’d expect from posh kids who’ve never had to work. They seemingly ignore our rampant disregard for the bioshpere whilst wittering about warming and cow farts. However they seem to be unlucky here. The UK lacks a real legal system and a legitimate judiciary. These ecos clearly got the judge who worked for Brown and Root or has a lot of Exxon shares. In the same week i read about someone getting i think it was 4 years for a killing and a cleric only 3 years (out in 12m?) for child sex offences. The eco-loons are IMO misguided, their dead-eyed loyalty to the cause is scary. I’ll leave the readers to consider how they’d rate the “legal” system and “judiciary” by comparison?
Yet again draconian censorship has ruined this discussion.
You MUST do better UnHerd.
Yet again draconian censorship has ruined this discussion.
You MUST do better UnHerd.
So we allow ‘peaceful protest’ and then put in rules that make the protests totally ineffective. We allow freedom of speech and then jail protesters for ‘silent prayer’.
So we allow ‘peaceful protest’ and then put in rules that make the protests totally ineffective. We allow freedom of speech and then jail protesters for ‘silent prayer’.
To better understand the fanatics, read an old book, Eric Hoffer’s
“The True Believer.” His examples are drawn from Nazis and Communists, but his conclusions are applicable to human kind.
Thank you Adam. A beautifully lucid statement of the arguments.