MatthewToad43 / is on Nostr

Former and hopefully future climate and poverty activist. Covid cautious. Autistic grey-ace/wtf-ro geek, software developer. Interested in green transition, green tech, activism, intersectionality, etc. I try to boost other marginalised voices while recognising my own privilege. Yorkshire (UK), Remainer. Climate hawk on the pro-tech end: We need *appropriate* technology. Recently re-created this account after leaving for a while during an anxious period of unemployment.

Location: Scarborough (Yorkshire, UK)
Pronouns: he, him, (accept they, them)

Last Notes

2024-06-10 20:27:27

- reply

IMHO this works differently in countries with first past the post (UK, US) vs those with more proportional systems (most of the rest of the world). But even the latter still elect fascists.
For example, in the UK, Labour are almost certain to win in the UK in 2024. While the Conservatives will likely field a Trump-alike in 2029.
That didn't work for them in 2001 (they did nearly as badly as in Labour's 1997 landslide), but New Labour were lucky on the economy. As it turns out that was a mirage.
It took a long time for them to find somebody electable; David Cameron started off as a genuine centrist, but as soon as the financial crisis hit, he became a slash-and-burn austeritarian. Which at the time sold well, but caused many of today's problems, including in purely economic terms (e.g. economic disengagement resulting directly from NHS waiting lists).
If Starmer is unlucky, or incompetent, or deliberately supports austerity for reasons best known to himself, there's a real possibility the UK could join the numerous European countries to have elected far right governments in 2029.
The "ratchet mechanism", where the right go further right and the left calibrate their "centrism" slightly to the left of the current right, and slightly more competent, inevitably leads to more fascism and more climate catastrophe. In most constituencies, at most voting slows this down a little, but it doesn't stop it.
While it is possible to bootstrap a third party, it will take at least another decade for the Greens to be significant, while the Liberal Democrats messed up their last attempt to get proportional representation, and may finally recover this election from the extended punishment for their breaking promises in coalition.
So of course I'll vote Labour, tactically, to get the tory out. Were I in another constituency I might vote differently.
But my bottom line is that the only way to really change anything is a broad campaign including non-violent direct action. There is ample evidence that it can change public *priorities*. According to polling, mostly the public agree on the actual facts on e.g. climate change policy. But they're easily distracted.
The art of politics is seemingly in distracting people from the real causes of problems (almost always either climate change or right wing governments) while inventing fake solutions to imaginary problems (e.g. the so-called refugee crisis, ridiculous claims that the way to cut cost of living is yet more fossil fuels, etc) in order to take more power. That is true for mainstream politics but it's even more true for the authoritarian fascist playbook politics that we see lately.
Neither party will deliver the radical action necessary to solve our various major crises, most of which are closely connected to the climate and biodiversity crisis (the most obvious example is the cost of living crisis, fueled by fossil fuel prices, fossil fuel funded wars, and climate affected food prices).
Only one party is an imminent threat to democracy, but it's bound to get back in sooner or later in a first-past-the-post system where the choices available are dictated by arbitrary economic dogma that the public don't even believe in. But still, PR won't solve our problems either, it'll just make it easier to use the electoral system for real change ... eventually.
So no, I don't personally see more engagement with the *party machinery* as the key next step. More engagement with politics more generally, yes.

2024-05-23 03:22:00

- reply

What do you mean by ABC?
If the Greens have a real chance, vote Green. If the tories can't get in, vote Liberal or Green. If the tories have a reasonable chance of getting in, or are the incumbent, vote for whoever has the best chance of beating them.
That's my algorithm, for England.
Whichever way you go you're gambling on not just the outcome of this election but of all future elections, influenced by the outcome of this one.
So clearly I could be wrong.
But a divided progressive vote letting the right in is sadly a real problem in many elections. Unless these new green voters come from previous non-voters, they risk the tories getting back in.
And if the tories get back in in 2029, then the election in 2034 will not be free and fair. Think Hungary, Turkey, Russia, Poland, many other "electoral autocracies".

2024-05-23 03:05:43

- reply

Maybe. Last time they paid for their crimes quite spectacularly. From 57 MPs down to 8 in a single parliament.
It will be extremely difficult to get even the grudging support of Labour for proportional representation, in spite of conference motions. And they'll jettison it as not a priority, unless their coalition partner ensures that it *is*. Even if somehow public pressure ensures that it's actually in their manifesto in future - it won't be in this election.
Without PR, there is no hope for genuine democracy. We'll be stuck with the two party system forever.
It therefore makes sense to increase the number of Liberal Democrat MPs, at the expense of both tories and Labour, to increase the chances of PR eventually happening.
But as with everything other than the tory/labour duopoly, this is long term.
We can't afford to wait several more parliaments. We need action on many vital issues *now*. And that will only happen with mass protest.

2024-05-23 02:54:06

- reply

The overall popular vote numbers do help, yes.
But building capacity and credibility at a local level is the only way to actually achieve power.
The Greens did well in all recent local elections. Hopefully they will be a credible second in more seats after the election.
As Labour moves to the right, more left leaning seats may move to more left leaning parties. For now, Labour has enough support from further right that it probably doesn't matter to them.
The broader worry is simply that centre right policies cannot actually solve the country's immediate and increasingly urgent problems.
Having said that, a landslide would make the fascists getting in in 2029 less likely. Except it's not "a landslide" that is the issue: it's the *number of tory seats*, regardless of the number of Labour seats. If they lose to the Liberals or the Greens that's just as good for me (and there are one or two seats that look like becoming Green/Tory marginals).
What I said in the previous message about Lib/Lab marginals wasn't quite honest. In a seat like Cambridge, for me, it'd be a toss-up between Green and Liberal. Because the Liberals support proportional representation, and might be part of a coalition in 2029. Tricky - my choice might go either way.

2024-05-23 02:39:19

- reply

There is a real chance the Greens could win in their four target seats. Brighton Pavilion (which they already have, but a new MP), Bristol Central (good chance of a gain), and two more.
But if there's a chance of a tory winning, the calculation is different. There is *zero* chance of enough Greens winning in this election to be part of the governing coalition (if there is one). Even the Greens don't believe that; they only have four target seats.
Four seats would be a breakthrough for them. Even two seats would be a breakthrough.
Nor are the Greens flawless. There are reasonable accusations of TERFism, for instance, in the Green Party of England and Wales (not Scotland).
The bottom line is that voting won't get us out of this mess. In most constituencies, voting is a holding action at most. It keeps the near-overt fascists out. In a few it means genuine progress.
If voting is all we do, we're doomed.
That's why we also need protest.
For instance, the Restore Nature Now march on June 22nd.
https://www.restorenaturenow.com/

2024-05-15 20:33:07

- reply

A slim hope beats no hope. We have the power to change an ecocidal and genocidal system. We've done it before.
But we can't do it just by consumer choices, or voting.
Join Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil today!

2024-05-06 00:10:18

- reply

So you want to sacrifice my family then?
Modern medicine is needed, period.
That means we need to find some way to transition to a sustainable but not entirely anti-technology future.
Furthermore, there are so many people that it's unlikely we could feed everyone without some form of technology, even with more sustainable diets and stopping using biofuels.
I am loyal to people and ecosystems. The two are inseparable. We are part of the ecosystem. But we also need to look after the most vulnerable.
I have no time for those who say we - the west/north, but also the huge cities of the developing world - can go back to hunting and gathering. We can't, not without a rapid and extremely unpleasant reduction in the size of the population.
The transition to a sustainable future necessarily involves some costs to people and ecosystems in the short term. However in the medium term it is far preferable to the status quo, and will result in a more or less sustainable future. Assuming we go down the route of degrowth as well as *appropriate* technology.
In any case, if your objective is to shut down industrial civilisation, and exterminate most of humanity, all you have to do is wait. However short term that will make the situation even worse, due to wars, desperate attempts at techno-fixes, more biofuels when things get really bad, and so on.
I am unashamedly pro-people. To save the people we need to save the ecosystems.

2024-05-03 18:49:54

- reply

It follows that voting on its own is necessary but insufficient to make any real progress. Voting for the least worst outcome is a defensive action, which still results in losses (and I mean this literally, because the political consensus kills people). To make any forward progress, we need something else as well.
Direct action, alternative media, building coalitions, mass marches, are at least as important.

2024-05-01 14:45:12

- reply

Except when the fascist counter-protesters turn up. 😢

2024-04-27 20:17:09

- reply

Unfortunately there are young fascists too. Something between 10 and 30% follow or at least agree with fascist influencers such as Andrew Tate (polls vary), so there will be a ready supply of brownshirts even once what currently appears to be the tory gerontocracy die off.
The default assumption in the UK is that politics is all about age. It *looks* at first glance, especially in e.g. post-election opinion polls, like a gerontocracy: the old people turn out, and vote tory. The young are less likely to turn out and much less likely to vote tory. The age at which more people vote tory than Labour was 47, has been rising, and is now 70 (since they are 20 points behind in the polls).
But that's not what's really going on.
The fact that millennials (including people in their early 40s and younger) are not getting more right wing as they age is interesting and useful. But it's mainly due to the fact that the ongoing collapse of civilisation is hitting them more visibly. Home ownership is never going to happen, kids are unaffordable, even if they have kids their kids will have to deal with the increasingly visible and direct impacts of the climate and biodiversity crisis, and so on. Having kids makes it harder to deal with that, but that's another discussion. 😀
And while there are many relatively well off home owning pensioners, many of whom identified as working class when they were younger, there are also many pensioners whose lives are precarious and dependent on landlords and shrinking government benefits (other than the state pension itself).
The tories, the GOP, the fascists, are a threat to everyone, and "pensioners" are not a homogenous group; women tend not to get a full state pension, disability and race also affect both lived experience and politics.
Many voluntary organisations, including spicy ones like XR, rely on retired volunteers. Pensioners in training, organising, and sometimes even arrestible roles, hunger strikes, etc, are not uncommon.
Speaking as a middle aged disabled white millennial. Not young enough to be "the young people", not old enough to be "retired tories". 😀

2024-03-31 18:29:49

- reply

To be fair, we can't always predict the consequences of our actions.
And that can be a real bitch.
Did the campaign against TTIP help the left wing of the pro-Brexit campaign? Definitely. But it was still necessary.
Are the tories' attempts to make non-violent protest part of their Culture War agenda, and escalating crackdown, our fault for protesting?
Ultimately you have to ask 1) does your decision have a chance of working and 2) is it kind.

2024-03-31 18:03:33

- reply

Story of my life. 😀

2024-03-31 17:57:15

- reply

I dunno. We have to assume that the system is chaotic. The reason the parallel timeline episodes from Star Trek are silly is that in a parallel world different people would be born; pretty much everything, but most especially *where* you are and who you work with, affects your reproductive decisions.
So there are times when one small change might change everything. And we can't necessarily identify those at the time.
For instance, had Adolf Hitler not survived WWI, that might have changed history. And that would be a minor change really, because so many other people did not survive it. Sure, some other fascist would have taken his place, but sometimes life really does rest on a delicate chain of circumstances; the outcome would not have been identical.
Everything with time travel is silly though. Even if it's possible, that probably means you just end up on a different timeline when you come back; does it affect everyone else, such as the large number of people involved in sending you back? You get into philosophical silliness pretty fast.
But as regards today ... What changes things is, *mostly*, not one small decision, but *lots* of small decisions. And usually also some big decisions.
Consumer choices won't save us from climate change. They can help, and make a real impact, but they're not enough to change the big picture, because they exclude so much of the population.
Whereas a small group of determined people can start an avalanche.