Mother of God. Starmer celebrates flying, then uses air travel as an example of how he wants to put recovery "above all else", presumably including the survival of life on Earth.
Where has he been these past few years?
He might as well just tell young voters to eff off.
In combination with Labour's rejection of proportional representation again today, it seems as if it's trying to burrow back into the 20th Century. Perhaps it feels safer there.
Then there are the optics. Starmer steps down from the plane like some visiting dignitary with a remind-me-which-country-this-is-again expression, meets some people in the airport then presumably flies out.
It might as well be an ad for Scottish independence.
The more I think about this video, the weirder it looks.
The message seems to be:
"Scotland is a distant country that scares me so much that I daren't travel by train, the only place I'll visit is an empty airport and the only people I'll speak to are Labour Party apparatchiks."
I mean, nothing says "wannabe colonial overlord" like a literal flying visit.
So with one short video, Starmer is likely to have further alienated two crucial constituencies.
Remember how his inner circle used to lash Jeremy Corbyn for being "offputting" and "out of touch"?
I clicked "Translate Tweet". It gave me:
"We hope that by planting a few trees we can greenwash our ecocidal business model and trip people into believing we're a force for good."
Incidentally, what in God's name are @Natures_Voice and @WoodlandTrust doing in partnership with this planetary death machine?
It's a classic example of how conservation groups, dazzled by corporate power and money, lose their moral compass.
Good spot by @andyheald
Which part of "greenwash" do these organisations not understand? And why should we continue to support them when they become a PR vehicle for fossil fuel companies?
1. I’m often asked by the industries I criticise to “work with us and find solutions”. It sounds reasonable. But is it?
In some cases (fossil fuel companies for example), I don’t think any environmentalist should work with them. We should combine to shut them down.
Thread/
2. In other cases, it’s probably a good thing that some environmentalists are working with industries to improve their performance – if indeed that’s what they’re really doing.
But at least some of us – I would say most – should stand apart and apply external pressure.
Why?
3. a. Because the industries tend to be richer and more powerful than we are. They spend more on advocacy and persuasion. Former critics soon adopt their worldview. I have seen so many groups and individual campaigners swallowed whole by them, never to be seen again.
How I became a human plague – and stumbled into one of the most astonishing scientific stories I’ve ever encountered.
My column.
Plus thread. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
1. There’s an aspect of this story that I didn’t have space for in the column. This is about how the scientific and media establishment closed ranks around bad science, defending it from legitimate questioning and criticism.
2. In 2011, the Lancet’s editor, @richardhorton1, a man I otherwise admire, was challenged about major anomalies and irregularities in the PACE Trial paper he published. He dismissed the critics as “a small but highly vocal minority”. They turned out to be right.
We have a thriving intellectual culture in this country. But what distinguishes us from the rest of Europe - and is in fact highly unusual - is that it's scarcely represented in the media.
As a result, the *public* intellectual is an endangered species in the UK. We have a prevailing media culture of extreme anti-intellectualism. Intellectuals are derided as a pointy-headed elite. Elsewhere in Europe, they are cherished.
It's one of the reasons why so many of the heated debates here are vacuous and irrelevant. Huge, crucial issues go undebated, while we beat out each other's brains over trivia.
Why should wealth translate into greater legal and political rights over the fabric of the planet? It's a question I explore here:
The notion that we are "equal before the law" is a complete joke, when so much of the law concerns property rights. Those with property have far greater legal rights than those without. These rights include, in many cases, the right to trash what other people see as precious.
We need a whole new relationship with our blue planet. This means abandoning micro-consumerist bollocks and confronting the powerful interests trashing it.
My column: theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
It’s not just malpractice Seaspiracy exposes, but an entire worldview.
A worldview that describes any fish population not caught to the max as "underfished" or "underexploited".
We need to learn respect and wonder for the ecosystems we currently treat as nothing but seafood.
I've just discovered, via @Unpop_Science, that I made a mistake in this column: #Seaspiracy's figure for illegally caught fish is in fact supported in the scientific literature: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
I confused this paper for another, that has been retracted.