'You can't live on a scorched earth.' (Photo by Tomas Cuesta/Getty Images)

It is easy to mock Argentina’s president Javier Milei with his crazy hair, cloned dogs and claims of expertise at tantric sex. He was, after all, nicknamed El Loco (The Madman) as a teenage goalkeeper and seems often determined to perpetuate this reputation with his egotistical boasts and brutal attacks on critics. Yet, when this explosive character said recently he was one of the two most important politicians on this planet alongside Donald Trump, he might just turn out to be right.
For this self-styled “anarcho-capitalist”, who campaigned with a chainsaw as a symbol of his desire to slash the bloated state and free the economy, has embarked upon a messianic mission to salvage his stagnant nation. Carried unexpectedly to power on a wave of public contempt for failed politicians and a corrupt elite, Milei is trying to unleash a libertarian revolution in a statist society that one aide describes to me as “turbo-charged Thatcherism”.
His radical experiment is being watched closely around the world. Debt-laden governments are grappling with surging spending — not least in Washington, where Elon Musk has been tasked by Trump to perform similar surgery to their federal budget, and in Westminster where shattered Conservatives are searching for fresh ideas after ejection from office. Milei has responded with a typical lack of modesty, bragging that he is “exporting the model of the chainsaw and deregulation to the whole world”, while telling The Economist his contempt for the state remains “infinite” after his first year in office.
This mercurial loner, who once sang in a Rolling Stones covers band, is engaged in a high-risk gamble: to shake his country out of its decades-long stupor by slashing subsidies, sacking public servants, scrapping taxes, shutting ministries, ripping up regulations and privatising scores of state enterprises from airlines and banks through to football clubs and waterways. He has rattled his many foes, who often write him off as a political joke or a poisonous far-Right populist. But as he comes up to the first anniversary of his ascent to power, Milei can point to significant successes in curbing the curse of inflation and shrinking the state — although consumer spending has crashed, poverty has risen and growth remains elusive.

Sources close to the president tell me that whatever the outcome of his revolution, Milei believes it will offer valuable lessons for the world. “He might fail but he thinks the experience will be important and benefit others — not just in Argentina,” says one. At the very least, this unusual leader is proving to be a rare politician who keeps his word and does not hide from telling harsh truths. He warned people his medicine would be hard for them to swallow, insisting “there is no alternative to adjustment, there is no alternative to shock” in an inauguration speech that predicted “negative impact” on jobs, real wages and the number of people living below the breadline.
This prediction proved right as prices surged to the world’s highest annual inflation rate. Since then, his tough austerity measures have restrained further rises, reducing monthly inflation from 25% to 2.7% on latest data. The gap between the official dollar and the blue (illegal) dollar has fallen. A generous tax amnesty brought $20bn out from under mattresses into the formal economy. But Milei’s actions, including the firing of 30,000 federal workers — one in 10 of its staff — have also reduced consumption by one-fifth since he took power; beef sales in this steak-loving country, for instance, have fallen to their lowest levels for 13 years after a price-freeze ended. And more than half the 46m population are living in poverty, with the minimum wage plummeting almost one-third in a year.
Inevitably, Milei’s reforms sparked protests, especially over cuts to university funding and from people such as pensioners or teachers whose incomes fell. Yet remarkably, this leader of a country in its second year of recession has retained his popularity, and has the support of around half the electorate. One poll even indicated a slight rise in his ratings over the past month. Much of this backing comes from fed-up younger voters, who flocked last year to support him and his exuberantly populist message of change. “People are suffering but they know someone has to fix the mess,” said political scientist Sergio Berensztein. “He won because a large proportion of voters said enough is enough. We are a failed state that is over-spending.”
Critics, though, accuse him of ideologically pursuing a cruel experiment in “social Darwinism” in which only the strongest survive. “It works in books, it works in lessons but it does not work in the real world,” said one leading Argentinian banker when we met earlier this year in Buenos Aires. Yet even this man — worried about the lack of growth strategy to go with savaging the state — readily admitted there had been “some very good financial results” when we spoke again this week. And as he said, “the old system was rotten” with the nation living beyond its means and with incomes for ordinary people stagnating while a succession of corrupt leaders milked the system.
Milei’s path to victory was fuelled by scandals involving the Peronists who have long ruled Argentina. They left the country owing an an astonishing $263bn to creditors — yet the state’s size had doubled over two decades as Left-wing populists sought to buy popularity with costly subsidies and corrosive interventions such as price and rent controls. Cristina Kirchner, the powerful vice-president and former two-term president who followed her husband into office, was sentenced to six years in prison for stealing from state coffers in a massive fraud involving public works. Her sentence was upheld by a federal court last month following an appeal. Another political operative was jailed after being caught taking out cash at a bank using 48 debit cards for staff at a provincial legislature — and later found to have placed at least 20 family members and friends on the public payroll.
So this political caste relied on lies, patronage and printing of money was ousted by arguably the world’s first anarchist elected leader of a modern democracy — a man who sees taxes as a form of state coercion, is such a devout free marketeer that he supported the concept of trade in human organs, and has argued that the only true role for government should be defence and law-enforcement. While often called far-Right — or compared with Donald Trump and his combative populism — he is, in reality, an intellectual character who likes to spend two hours a day reading economic journals — and a libertarian, not an insular protectionist.

This wildly-eccentric yet fiercely-ideological politician knows how to attract attention. During his election campaign, Milei’s interview with Tucker Carlson received 300m views in 24 hours. Musk was among those sharing it on social media, saying it showed how “government overspending, which is the fundamental cause of inflation, has wrecked countless countries”. After his victory, Milei flew to Davos where he argued that the West was in danger from dark forces such as feminism, socialism and environmentalism putting its values in jeopardy from a vision “that inexorably leads to socialism and thereby to poverty”. Last month, the 54-year-old firebrand became the first foreign leader to visit Trump after his presidential victory — his attacks on the state, its political sinecures and power hubs have made him a hero among many US conservatives and members of the MAGA crowd.
But where did he come from?
The son of a bus firm boss, Milei alleges he was beaten and verbally abused by his parents. “They are dead to me,” he said later. “My father always told me that I was trash, that I was going to die of hunger and that I was going to be useless all my life.” His biographer claimed this treatment left him so embittered that other pupils at his Catholic school in Buenos Aires nicknamed him El Loco for his angry outbursts. He went on to play soccer in lower-level leagues, then worked as an economist at a bank and a conglomerate, but this forceful — some would say furious — nature led to prominence as a pundit on television, where he would launch savage attacks on the ruling “caste”.
His freewheeling discussions on everything from the perils of inflation through to the pleasures of sexual threesomes won him fame, followed by a seat in parliament three years ago, where he continued to show great skill at grabbing attention with stunts such as donating his salary to a monthly raffle giving “stolen” cash back to the people. His most trusted adviser is his younger sister, Karina, who stood by his side during those dark childhood days. She sold cakes on social media and communed as a medium with dead pets before using her public relations training to assist his campaign, then becoming his chief of staff. He adores his four pet Mastiffs, named after economists and cloned from his first dog called Conan, calling them his “little four-legged children” and once claiming to have telepathic conversations with Conan.
“When I hear him talking about the dogs and the idea that he is chosen by God I find this hard to take,” said one respected financial figure in Buenos Aires. “But he is an honest person and he is motivated to change Argentina.”
A government adviser described Milei to me a “very 21st-century politician” with his dishevelled image, insults and social media diatribes. “He has very direct communications with the people,” he said. “Remember just two years ago he was a crazy economist on TV. He’s also genuine — he says what he thinks and does what he says. He speaks his truth and made it clear he wants to adjust the economy.” This adviser added that he was very different in private. “He’s like a nice child — he’s very warm and does not appear egotistical. He is very willing to talk and listen. He is a much nicer personality than the public image: the lion calling everyone names.”
Another person who has known Milei for almost three decades said he used to be a conventional Keynesian economist until driven to his disruptive ideology a decade ago by the Kirchner’s mismanagement of Argentina. It is not hard to find voters who back his mission. “He is a madman but let’s see if he can make a difference,” said Jorge, serving me coffee in a small cafe in Buenos Aires. “I’ve worked hard all my life and have so little to show for it.” Jonathan Ezequiel, 33, one of the bicycle riders delivering food hailed by the president as being the vanguard of his vision of an unfettered economy, admitted he was struggling financially but saw the urgent need for change. “There was a lot of theft and corruption,” he said. “And a lot of money wasted on social plans for people who did not need them.”
Argentina — which had higher GDP per capita than France and Germany a century ago — should be as successful as its world-beating footballers, given its well-educated citizens, substantial energy resources and formidable agriculture. Instead, half its workers disappeared into the informal economy due to labour laws that Milei calls a “cancer”. There were 15 dollar exchange rates and import duties pushed up the prices of many goods — but subsidies drove down costs of cars. One analyst said this meant a fridge made in South Korea cost 10 times more in Argentina than in the US; another said this meant middle-class families such as his own could drive big cars which were subsidised by the poor. “This was not some kind of social democrat consensus,” he said. “It was opportunism, corruption and poor public policy.”
Peronist efforts to protect workers, restrain prices and fleece successful sectors such as agriculture prevented Argentina competing in the global market, resulting in some of the world’s lowest levels of trade as a percentage of GDP. The state payroll rose 10 times faster than the private sector over the past decade. One bus driver told me he failed to stop his daughters backing Milei due to their fury at the ñoqui — a derogatory nickname for officials who rarely turn up to work.
So can Milei salvage this nation? “I would give him a 40% chance of success,” said one well-placed observer. Although he has minimal current opposition — traditional parties were left shell-shocked and rudderless following his insurgency — the president’s coalition has little support in parliament and none among the 23 powerful provincial governors. He has never run anything in the past, loathes consensus, becomes easily embroiled in distracting culture wars and won power by railing against the political elite he needs to pass his reforms. Yet he has discovered the art of pragmatism in office, scaling down his pivotal “omnibus bill” after it was picked apart in Congress. “He has overachieved anybody’s expectations,” said one insider.
There have been stumbles. Milei embarrassingly signed a decree that included a 48% presidential pay rise soon after his accession, which he blamed on his predecessor after it was seized on by foes, then hastily ditched and sacked a minister. One ally — a former Peronist minister who defected and helped swing a key vote — was arrested last month in Paraguay after entering with $200,000 in undeclared cash. And there is anger among those who are losing out from his reforms — such as at one national scientific institute where staff were lined up in pouring rain outside their building to be told if they still had a job. “Perhaps we will have to emigrate, forced to do so by the destruction of science and public education,” said Natalia, 40, who works at the unit. “You cannot live on a scorched earth.”
Others rail against his weaponising of the culture wars and his direct appeal to angry young men frustrated by feminism. One of Milei’s first edicts was to end use of gender-neutral language in government and many of his young and liberal supporters loathe his anti-abortion stance and ambivalence over their nation’s military past. There are also fault-lines in his coalition between liberals and conservatives: he has already fallen out with his vice-president Victoria Villaruel, a hardline culture warrior whose father was an army colonel, to such an extent she no longer attends cabinet meetings.
Milei has launched a fascinating revolution — and as we have seen often in the past, such events are highly unpredictable. He knows he is likely to be judged on his economic success, especially his ability to curb inflation and kick-start growth — and that the most important weapon in his political arsenal is his personal appeal, based on despair, disenchantment and desperation for change that he has weaponised for an assault on the state and key power hubs of the Left.
Yet political popularity is a fragile beast, especially in a place scarred so badly by atrocious leaders. So he is engaged in a race against time: to prove to people that his remedies are right and the pain they suffer is worth enduring for the sake of their children and their nation’s future. The impact of this shock therapy will be watched intently around the world — and the waves could be felt far beyond Argentina.
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.