David Miliband Supports Third Runway
Didn’t I argue the other day that David Miliband realises his route to power is to cement the ‘pact’ John Kampfner refers to in ‘Freedom for Sale’? He’s now come out in support of the defunct third runway project at Heathrow:
He believes that it could boost London‘s economy and businesses, sources close to him insisted, and it should go ahead as long as the climate change consequences are addressed. His leadership rival and brother Ed opposes the runway.
He has repeatedly said that Labour‘s Heathrow policy was an example of how the party had misjudged the public.
But business groups and trade unions have long lobbied for more aviation capacity for the south east, claiming it boosts jobs and overall trade.
Baroness Jo Valentine, Chief Executive of business group London First praised Mr Miliband. She said: “At last a politician prepared to publicly acknowledge the vital importance of international transport links to London and UK’s economic success, though the critical question is not whether to make Heathrow bigger but how to make it better.”
As Blair before him, he’s putting the argument together piece by piece that he and Labour can & should do entirely as they please for their corporate buddies in the public sphere, then implicitly allowing almost unlimited freedom from government intrusion for the middle classes in the private sphere in return. That’s the ‘pact’ – he’s counting on most people not being bothered enough to put up a fight should he resurrect the third runway project as Prime Minister. I wonder.
Of course David isn’t going to look into why unlimited air growth should be necessary, because he’s fundamentally as wedded to the neoliberal model (another cornerstone of the ‘pact’) as his mentor. Unrestricted wealth creation is much harder if you change the economic system, so best not to ask whether unlimited air growth actually makes economic sense, nor to ask where the growth would come from to boost the economy if it’s not already there…
Why Protest at Ratcliffe-on-Soar?
A Climate ‘Swoop’ protester explains the direct action protest at the Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal fired power station.
Climate Activism is NOT Terrorism!
It was always likely that the run-up to the December UN climate summit in Copenhagen would see the British police revert to their repressive ways, after their charm offensive in the summer. It’s already begun:
UK border police used anti-terrorist legislation to prevent a British climate change activist from crossing over into mainland Europe where he planned to take part in events surrounding the forthcoming United Nations summit in Denmark.
Chris Kitchen, a 31-year-old office worker, said he feared his treatment by police could mark the start of a clampdown on protesters, hundreds of whom are planning to travel to Copenhagen for the climate change talks in December.
Tonight he will make a second attempt to reach Denmark, where he plans to take part in discussions organised by a network of protest groups coming together under the banner Climate Justice Action.
He said he was prevented from crossing the border yesterday at about 5pm, when the coach he was travelling on stopped at the Folkestone terminal of the Channel tunnel.
Kitchen said police officers boarded the coach and, after checking all passengers’ passports, took him and another climate activist to be interviewed under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a clause which enables border officials to stop and search individuals to determine if they are connected to terrorism.
The passports were not initially scanned, Kitchen said, suggesting the officials knew his name and had planned to remove him from the coach before they boarded. During his interview, he was asked questions about his family, work and past political activity. The police also asked him what he intended to do in Copenhagen.
When Kitchen said that anti-terrorist legislation does not apply to environmental activists, he said the officer replied that terrorism “could mean a lot of things”. By the time his 30-minute interview had concluded, Kitchen’s coach had gone.
This should surprise noone. The reason why the police’s behaviour was different to normal throughout the summer was because the interests of the state weren’t seen as being threatened. Granted there is clearly a widely held attitude amongst the police that climate activism is tantamount to terrorism – there’s little other explanation for their unprovoked and unwarranted violence against Climate Camp at Bishopsgate earlier in the year. But a camp in Blackheath, with the occasional forays into Canary Wharf and the City for PR stunts is hardly the same as a mass demonstration to coincide with the G20 leaders’ visit to London, or a ‘swoop’ on a power station like Ratcliffe-on-Soar. So nothing happened in the summer, whilst harsh scenes are likely in three days’ time, and ever more the closer we get to December. The violence in April was unwarranted and unacceptable – it’s equally unacceptable that the police should choose to use anti-terrorism legislation against environmentalists. Just don’t expect any major party to be able or want to unpick this mess any time soon.
Change the Politics, Save the Climate
As I type 55 Greenpeace activists are on top of the Houses of Parliament. From their site:
Fifty-five Greenpeace volunteers have scaled the walls of the Houses of Parliament and are now occupying the roof to call for for a new style of politics in Britain, one capable of rising to meet the challenge of climate change.
Tomorrow MPs return from their summer break and the government’s own Committee on Climate Change will publish a progress report on UK carbon emissions. They make it clear that Britain is not doing enough to meet its commitments, and insist that a “step change” in emissions cuts is needed. With just 60 days go until the critical climate summit in Copenhagen – which faces a very real chance of failure as things stand – Britain has yet to show true commitment to making the process a success. We need politicans who are thinking about the next generation, not just the next election.
The climbers have unfurled a banner on the roof of the Palace of Westminster’s Great Hall which says: “CHANGE THE POLITICS, SAVE THE CLIMATE.” They are vowing to stay on the roof overnight so they can welcome politicians back in the morning.
Before breaching Westminster security they told police officers exactly who they were, making it clear that they were about to embark on a peaceful protest.
Five of the volunteers – all of them experienced rope access experts – then climbed up the building’s 15m lightning conductor to the roof’s apex. They are now out of reach of security guards, and plan to stay up there for the next 24 hours.
Anna Jones is on the roof of Parliament and says: “We need a green economy that will create jobs and bring prosperity while helping us beat climate change. We need politicians to be fighting for the next generation, not just the next election.”
The other protesters are on a lower roof, equipped with tents and enough food and water to maintain an overnight occupation. They’ve issued a climate manifesto and are asking all politicians to sign it. It lists twelve simple steps our politicians could take to quickly cut Britain’s carbon use, and to provide the help poorer countries need to develop clean energy, adapt to the impacts of climate change and protect their rainforests.
Our manifesto includes ruling out all emissions from new coal-fired power stations, ending airport expansion and delivering on the clean energy revolution that would see Britain harness the huge natural resources of our wind-swept island to build employment, develop new green industries and cut pollution. People say they get into politics to make a real difference. Well here’s their chance.
The clock’s ticking down to the big climate summit in Copenhagen, but politicians are still treating the most important issue of our time as a political plaything. We need a green economy that will create jobs and bring prosperity while helping us beat climate change.
Does Climate Camp Need Confrontation?
Following news of Marc Vallée’s assault by someone whom he describes as a Climate Camp protester, I’m forced to reevaluate this piece:
And that is the greatest threat to the campers: that their political relevance is defined not by a meaningful encounter that challenges both the political mainstream and a wider community, effecting change, but is defined, as it increasingly appears to be, by the act of protest itself.
Because the reality of an organisation for successful political change is that it requires a mass movement behind it, drawn not just from those who already passionately believe in it but from those who have been persuaded. And those who may be persuaded.
Climate Camp, with its often hazy message and complex inner negotiations, with its indulgent obsession with its own workings, its insularity and the suggestion of elitism of its direct-action hard core, is in danger of becoming about Climate Camp, the institution, rather than about the wider fight to halt global warming. With all its energy and motivation, that would be a shame.
And here’s the question – without their grudge match with the police, what are Climate Camp? Camped in Blackheath, with largely unnoticed (but well-meaning) direct actions in Bishopsgate and Canary Wharf, fenced off to protect themselves from the Metropolitan Police (who haven’t so far cared two hoots about them), are they not in danger of becoming parodies of themselves? There are so many honest and motivated people, particularly young people, but after Kingsnorth and G20 can they only define themselves by conflict, rather than by the validity of their arguments and principles? It’s great that they’re taking a stand on perhaps the most important issue in modern society, but I can’t help but wonder if there is now a siege mentality taking over, which is drowning out their positive message.
Climate Camp’s Climate Casino
The Blackheath Climate Camp has gone ahead with its first direct action, setting up a climate casino outside the European Carbon Exchange in Bishopsgate, scene of the now-infamous attack against them by the Metropolitan Police in April:
Climate Camp’s Odd Rules for Photographers
Jonathan Warren reports from Blackheath’s Climate Camp:
As Climate Camp set up on Blackheath in south London yesterday I got hold of a copy of the code of conduct that journalists will be asked to sign if they want to stay on the camp outside of media hours (10am-6pm) and it makes for fascinating reading.
Most of it reinforces the camp’s existing media policy such as asking for everyone’s permission when taking a photograph. The code says ‘When you want to take a picture or a video and it includes people, always, always ask first. If you can’t ask don’t take the picture.’
The camp’s organisers claim that all decisions are made with consensus from everyone. But reading through the minutes of the national meetings before the camp, the code of conduct is only ever mentioned in passing. There is never a discussion about what it should be and what it should contain.
So what has resulted is the media team’s moral view on what the press should be allowed to do being imposed on everyone at the camp and on journalists. We do not allow the police to impose their moral view of what should be photographed on us, so why should journalists subscribe to the media team’s views?
Warren makes the salient point about this year’s camp being on public land, making it even more remarkable that the Climate Camp organisers should feel able to impose rules on anyone. I was up there last night and when on ‘their’ space always asked for permission to take people’s photograph – it’s a common courtesy after all. But ‘informing on camp activities’ – would the brief audioboo I submitted count? – is that as much a sign of paranoia as the highly unusual fencing they’ve encased themselves in?
(via Marc Vallee)
Lewisham Mayor vs Climate Camp
He’s my local mayor, but I won’t be voting for Sir Steve Bullock again. Staggeringly he compares the Climate Camp protesters occupying Blackheath for a week with football hooligans, before saying:
The problem with the Campers is that no matter how well intentioned and nice they are what they are doing is counterproductive. It will be seen as self indulgent by lots of people who are struggling through the recession and could even make it harder to win support for some of the difficult measures that will have to be taken in the future. And who do you think is going to have to pay to take the rubbish away, provide water and repair the Heath when they’ve gone? That’s right you and me – the taxpayers of Lewisham who were never asked and never agreed to the camp being here.
Being angry with the Climate Change Campers doesn’t mean you don’t care about the issue – for me they are a distraction from the real task of changing how we behave and persuading ever more of our fellow citizens to change the way they behave too.
I’d say Bullock is part of the problem. Speaking as a resident of Lewisham their ‘measures to reduce the impact of climate change’ are undetectable. It’s the same mentality which permeates the top level of the entire Labour Party – protest and you’re a hooligan – it’s only those in authority who can (read: ‘should’) make change, except they never seem to. It’s a cheap political shot, which I suspect most of his constituents won’t agree with. Is he really claiming Lewisham’s council tax will go up as a result of climate protesters occupying common land for one week? Speaking as someone entirely happy with my new, temporary neighbours, I know who’s really coming across as patronising and selfish!
As Climate Camp Begins…
Don’t forget what the Metropolitan Police did in April at the G20 protest:
Police officers’ notebooks lodged at the high court tell how they punched people in the face and beat others with riot shields during the G20 demonstrations in April.
The notebooks, which have been lodged as evidence in an action brought by three protesters, also disclose how Metropolitan police were given no restrictions on the use of force when they were ordered to move protesters attending the Climate Change camp in the City of London on 1 April. The accounts were written up the day after the demonstrations.
In one notebook, a police constable recounts how when he saw a protester pushing against officers’ shields: “I punched him in the jaw and he moved backwards.”
Another officer describes how he hit people with “shield strikes both flat and angled. I also delivered open palm strikes to a number of individuals and fist strikes as well.”
A third constable logged: “To get the protesters who would not move, I needed to hit the flat part of my shield to get them to move back. I also used open-handed palm strikes. Once the protesters were moved back to the required distance, we remained in a closed cordon until relieved.”
The Met insists that this time they’ll engage in ‘community policing’, but what evidence is there that they’ll keep their word? Their operation last time in Bishopsgate promised (and for a time delivered) ‘community policing’, but entirely peaceful protesters still faced the brutality mentioned above. After all Chief Superintendant Helen Ball, in command of policing Climate Camp’s swoop and camp (beginning as I write) has said:
“At the moment we will be photographing people on arrival at the camp because it is important for us to know if there are people coming who want to cause violence and disorder.
“We will not be routinely stopping and searching everybody going into the camp and we have briefed officers carefully on searching people and what the spirit of the operation is.”
In other words the first tactic will be to use Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) from the outset. Given that FIT teams used for protest are never used to track people who might cause violence and disorder, how can we possibly believe that the stop and search tactics used at Kingsnorth won’t be reappearing, not to mention the suppression and attacks on the media? The jury’s out and the country is watching…
Shell Swoop Activists Take Off!
Today’s Climate Camp ‘swoops’ have taken off. Destination: still unknown…
