Protest are they for Change or just Unnecessary Disruption:
The protests:
In the news we have seen an increase in protestors taking direct action on the M25 with the aim to disrupt drivers to garner media attention to influence change. With the aim to improve insulation of Britains instead of warming hearts the disruption caused has left protestors out in the cold.
Now I am not against protest or the power of the individual as many of our key moments have come from a small number but many methods are flawed. The 3.5% rule as an example is a principle that so long as 3.5% of the population agree with an action engaging this can influence government decisions. Now to put this into a context the insulate britain protests are headed by a small minority numbering at most a hundred from evidence. Extinction rebellion was in the 1000s and in Leicester BLM had 4000 individuals.
Now 3.5% of UKs population is 2391190 so many of these protests are a long way off of the influential minority.
So how can you have an impact?
You must take the population with you or offer a sensible alternative. Many individuals of these groups often scoff when people question their actions or intentions telling people to do their own research but this does nothing but forces people away from their cause. Campaigners that share research provide resources and are able to work with other groups are often more anecdotally more successful with their campaigns. Looking at campaigns such as Anatonias Law for care home reform, the moves made my the Pet Theft Reform team, Finns law, Tuks Law as well as larger organisations to influence changes. These campaigns however have benefited from the benefit of research they then add in the emotional component which brings people with them.
Take some of Insulate Britains own points:
Their targets of getting central government to change insulation when planning is a district or unitary council issue. A points they are raising is about new homes being built to a standard, yet they do not focus on shoddy developers with documented evidence of cut corners on their builds. They have no strategy to inform house buyers of their rights so they can challenge developers or to work with communities to block inadequate development taking place. This however is also difficult to achieve when they have no firm targets to influence house building targets. So why are they not targeting councils to adopt a higher standard of housing or working with HORNET to influence changes to house building’s standards tackling property developers as they did with leaseholds and as they are still working on with Fleecehold properties.
Issues such as fleecehold properties are an issue that planners (civil servants) do not want to tackle pressure on elected officials in the right way would help to lobby for change. Or better yet get involved to influence the change on the doorstep. The second point they are campaigning for is for government to pay for insulation of old homes to be levelled up to a standard, but without a clear standard this will always be difficult. The green grant scheme had this option but wasn’t well adopted and if the government bring it back in as an incentive businesses or suppliers up the cost or it becomes another tax burden.
The other reason why many have little sympathy for this particular cause however is strategies are already in place to tackle it. There are green grants households can apply for on existing dwellings particularly for the less well off in society. However rather than promote this change and encourage people to take up the scheme by going to the following link: Simple Energy Advice check your eligibility and see if you can get help.
https://carrcenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/cchr/files/CCDP_005.pdf
https://www.ncvo.org.uk/policy-and-research/campaigning-policy
https://www.gov.uk/improve-energy-efficiency
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-cavity-loft-insulation/
