There's an easy solution, revoke article 50. If Parliament hasn't the balls for that then a 3rd referendum on whatever solution, if there is one it doesn't seem likely. No deal brexit not an option. "It was a democratic vote" is the brexit bleating mantra. Demonstrably not:- NB All links to verifiable sources. It was a fraudulently won referendum, with 17.4 million people or 26% of the population as a whole, 37% of the electorate in an advisory referendum (as are all referenda) to be described as democratic. 16.1 million voted stay, majority 1.3 million 3.8%. Far to small for such a momentous decision. Leave drop fraud appeal. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47755611 This has some relevance re Arron Banks especially. https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/...ind-eye-to-leave-side-s-lawbreaking-1.3568256 The voters were mislead by Barclay brothers, Rothermere and Murdoch propaganda https://thebrexitsyndicate.com/2018/07/04/the-barclay-brothers/ https://thebrexitsyndicate.com/2018/07/04/daily-mail/ https://thebrexitsyndicate.com/2018/07/04/the-rupert-murdoch-empire/ Compare the brexit leaders (AKA bleaders) 2016 campaign statements with today's reality. https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys That's all for now folks, off to the beach for a bucket of mussels with Mrs Jab. Ah toot.
Seeing as everybody seems a little down I thought I would cheer you up seeing as the Tory BigWigs are having to consider changing the 12 month rule for leadership challenges. This is the result of several (10) run offs on ConservativeHome. These are the 2 most popular contenders with the membership after run offs with Gove, Javid and Hunt (Gove was 3rd.) Of course these might not (probably won't) make the final 2 that the MPs put through to the membership. I would suggest at least one of them will and if they hate Boris so much on the MP benches (they do) then Raab will be your (our) man: please log in to view this image
Just having a very strange discussion with a fellow greenie on one platform who is arguing with lots of anti greens and deniers (along with me) who is under the impression that CO2 is a useless pollutant. To which the antis replied that CO2 is the building block of life and without it plants would not grow. To which the greenie sneered "I think you guys are confusing CO2 with carbon." Very strange reply indeed. Where does this chap/chapess think plants get their carbon from? And how does he/she think we came into being if not for plants using CO2 to get their carbon and provide us with the O we need to breathe?
Er no. You’re wrong on the bags, the boards, sheets, the lot. Sadly a lack of education on plastic all round. (Council, greenies, recycling collectors, not just you). Don’t believe the greenies... ask a plastic industry person @ImpSaint
If Corbyn is facing either of these two, he will be creaming himself. I feel the Tories will go for the androgynous.candidate, one who cannot be specificallly pinned down on Brexit. Javid springs to mind, and to a lesser extent Mordaunt. I know she is pro-Brexit but has conducted herself well.
They have a long history of choosing the worst possible candidate (remember Ian Duncan-Thing? Michael Howard?), so they’ll probably go for Gove. Surely no sane person would ever vote for Gove? So the Tories will select him.
But Gove is pro-Brexit, so that discounts him on being androgynous. As for Duncan-Smith? . And perhaps the Tories chose the wrong Howard. It should have been Frankie leading them.
I don’t know enough about the mechanics of the process to know whether Gove has much chance of getting on the final ballot; but the grass roots of the party (two old Ladies and a retired colonel in Penge, plus @ImpSaint ) are definitely pro Brexit. So if he did, he’d probably win, especially if he could bring himself to drop in some thinly veiled appeals to the xenophobia of his audience.
Gove would only win a vote with the membership IF he ended up being the only option of "pro-Brexit." He is well thought of by members but polarises because of his actions in the last leadership process as well as him backing the deal, then making public he would only take the DexEU job if he could renegotiate, then backing the deal again. No-one knows where he stands. Of course he also puts off the small (yes it is small) amount of anti-greens. He is seen as too green by them but they are quite a small bunch no matter how much the stereotype of Conservative nationalistic climate deniers is pushed. Gove is thought of well by lots of MPs however he is also not trusted by lots of them because he is quite a powerplayer and not particularly loyal. The liklihood of him getting to the final 2 would only be possible if there was a concerted effort by the MPs to keep other Brexiters away from the final 2 and that would mean a numberrs game, possibly not being able to get their chosen remain candidate there. It's an attack or defend conundrum there. Do they push for their favoured remain candidates or run in behind Gove to keep Boris or Raab out of that final 2? Raab or Johnson (or key Brexiter other than Gove) WILL make it into the final 2. The MPs will not be able to counter the numbers because they will be determined to get a remainer in there. Brexiters will in the end fall in behind one candidate and I doubt that will be Gove. All the talk of Mogg by anti-Tories was all a bit silly when he has never had a chance of getting in there. He (if anything) was a stalking horse to push things along, keeping others noses as clean as possible. Gove is actually quite liked by MPs in the opposition parties as well. The public shows are not what they think inside. We constantly hear how Gove is hated by the public, how he is hated by his own MPs and other MPs. It isn't the reality. He is quite well liked and well thought of across the board. Norman Lamb like Jeremy Hunt!! Dawn Butler gives the cliched "anyone but Boris": This all of course depends on how long May holds on for. Long standing Tory members (not this UKIP entryism that non Tories want to present) are "leaving" in droves. When I say leaving I mean no renewing and most pay annually. Thus if there were a leadership challenge next month then it would have a much different membership voting than if she holds on for another year. Mine runs out on 23rd September so I get to vote until then. Which means that most of the opposition supporters / voters / remainers should really be hoping and praying that she holds on for as long as possible. The reality on Boris is that he is up and down in support within the grassroots. If those who don;t like him didn't continually keep him in the headlines and continually use the "anyone but Boris" then he wouldn't be so popular. A bit like the Trump phenomenon. By continually focusing attacks on him they give him air, keep him in the public eye and give him constant boosts. He actually goes down in support when he comes out with his ^^^^(Archers) xenophobic lines etc. He gets boosted up when he says nothing but a flurry of opponents (Tory and non Tory) make him the day's story because they can't resist an attack on him. My money is on a Raab v Hunt last 2. MPs would pick Hunt. Members will pick Raab.
Surely these big bad oil companies are only producing a product that everyone craves, its not like oil companies are making countries buy their products. Companies respond to public demand, so the public have to drive this because governments and big business like status quo
It's a thing, you know. Or just cut out the middleman and contribute to the politician of your choice: Oil and Gas contributions. Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01 So it's not just demand from we nasty consumers. Vin
Originally, the electric vehicle was more successful than the petrol derivative. Mainly due to the fact that they were quieter, smoother, more powerful, cleaner, and required far less maintenance. Their only problem was the power density of the battery and the recharge time. Petrol has a huge power density in comparison, and can 'recharge' the vehicle in a fraction of the time. But it is dirty and polluting. And if the electric vehicle was charged overnight or at every opportunity that it was stopped at home [private cars sit around for 90% of their operating life] then there was barely ever a situation where it was a problem. But oil companies realised that they could produce a fuel in quantity for these 4 cycle engines. However, they were noisy, dirty and required continued maintenance. And the infrastructure and power to produce the fuel was enormous too, and was terrible for the environment. But the infrastructure for electric vehicle charging was limited too, and there was potentially huge money to be made from 'black gold'. So, even though fuel had to be bought in containers, petrol vehicles gained a foothold. Pretty soon it occurred to the new car and oil companies that if they bought up or squeezed out these electric vehicles they would have the business to themselves, despite the fact that electric vehicles sold rather well in cities. And that's what happened. They bought up electric transport companies and closed them down. And they gave gifts to politicians to shower subsidy upon them. To this day, the oil industry is the most heavily subsidised at 6.7% of Global Domestic Product. For that subsidy governments have increasingly asked, then demanded, for better, safer vehicles, as the mounting evidence grew. Both the car and oil companies have cajoled, lobbied, kicked, screamed, injured and killed people while opposing improvement standards in their vehicles. Which results in situations like Dieselgate where they actually end up openly cheating, and in getting presidents like Trump to overturn Obama's fairly easy rate of rising standards in emissions from fossil fuel vehicles to something they can manage cheaply. Makes you wonder what we could do with that subsidy seeing as they are getting something for nothing? Build a sustainable future by pointing in the direction of renewables perhaps? In the public's perception, the clean energy brigade get a huge subsidy, whereas the truth is that they get a tiny fraction of what oil companies receive, and there has been talk in the recent past of cutting even that down. So, in fact, the public wants what the public are told what they want, and society is geared around the FFV, so what else are they to do? That's why it is rather hard to break that oil company stranglehold. But electric vehicles are finally going to do it simply because their impressive efficiency just overwhelms everything in the end. They themselves are cleaner, quieter, more powerful, faster and non-polluting. And renewable power/battery storage is going to succeed because it is cheaper than traditional energy production. Plus, when you feed their power to an EV the result is practically zero pollution. In that kind of world, oil companies can't exist. And many iof them aren't trying either. They're diversifying like mad and selling out. For example, Shell has bought the largest EV recharging network in Europe, and BP has the largest one in the UK. In the end, we'll adopt EVs and New Eco power generation worldwide, not because we've suddenly gone all conservationist, but because it is simply cheaper to do so.
Very strange that in this "climate" (no pun, he, he.) We should ask the plastic industry but most definitely not the oil industry!!! Why is that? Surely we can't ask the plastic industry? they aren't likely to state (if the opposite to what you say) "You are right, our product shouldn't be used anymore." It would be like asking Theresa May which party she thinks we should vote for!!! Is it one rule for the oil but not for the plastic? Has anyone told Chris Packham, Prince William and David Attenboro'?
Of course - we all need to change our behaviour; businesses will change too, if their customers demand it. But in the meantime, these powerful economic interests will continue to put pressure on governments - and consumers, who are also electors, have to make sure politicians will not be forgiven if they cave to pressure from businesses who are willing to trash the environment in the interests of their shareholders.
No, but yo can ask them about what can and can’t be recycled or re-used. You can also blame those things called humans that don’t dispose of plastic properly and you can blame the politicians who don’t set proper regulations that insist on proper recycling (although they are getting there, slowly). So let’s use alternatives and warm the planet quicker - good one. As for Attenborough (a child hood hero of mine) and Packham, I wish they’d be more open and listen rather than just point and blame. Their lack of understanding and education on plastic is frightening. These are the guys telling us to ban plastic yet also warning us that global warming is killing the planet. The alternatives to plastic generate more environmental damage through their production, but let’s not worry about that. They ignore that and leap to bans. There is a lot that can be done in that huge grey area between where we are now and banning it. To follow your theory, why would you listen to what Packham says about plastic? What knowledge does he have of it? By the way, my mate is a plumber. So if your electrics play up, I’ll send him round.
I am agreeing with you on Packham and Attenborough (and many of the other vocalizers of the green message and other messages.) However you better watch out because you dared not to agree and clap like a seal so you;re now a denier and will be subject to an orchestrated "pile on." Playing devil's advocate in the last post I was merely pointing out that within the same page and within a few posts there are conflicting ideas here. Posters talking about Oil/Petro money lobbying. If someone in the oil industry popped up and said "you shouldn't ask the greenies, we are the experts ask us" I think we know how that suggestion would be taken, so how come we shouldn't do it in their case but we should in the plastic industries case? Should we also ignore the politicos and campaigners on Smoking and ask the tobacco industry to give us the facts? Or is the Plastic Industry the only industry that can be trusted? Oh and I do my plumbing and electrics myself. I have the internet and search engines BZZZZZZZZZT
I believe a whistle blower did ask a few questions of the tobacco industry... didn’t do him much good. Great movie though. I get your point on the asking the industry question.
FLT. Just my thoughts as I haven't dug into the latest evidence, so I'm ok with being flamed. Historically, we've used consumer plastic without real responsibility. There is a problem though. Unless we make the system of recycling/disposing of it without the environment suffering, it becomes the next big environmental hazard on the the growing list of big environmental hazards. The present system, where the plastic ends up with the private consumer to deal with, is too complicated by far. Triangles with a number in the centre don't really cut it with the vast majority of people. I have to constantly remind myself what is ok and not ok, and I consider myself moderately more informed than the average person. Suddenly expecting some little old lady or gent to take responsibility and to know exactly what to do with their milk cartons, and remember it, all without best practice infrastructure in place, is asking almost the impossible. The consumer has a range of responses to this stuff, from being 'informed concerned', through 'trusting the seller', to 'not giving a toss'. All these consumers have to be covered in one policy, if the product is going to end up in their hands. And of course, the new biggie is plastic microbeads. How long have we been ingesting plastic through the food chain and how can we avoid it? It has been estimated that upto 90% of people in the developed world have ingested plastic in their systems, including their bloodstreams. Now, I've no idea of the validity of that estimate, but whatever, it ain't good. There is too much plastic around, straight up. Yes, I can hear the counter argument that there is enough plastic around and no more, even on the most presented of products. The main problem with plastic is our attitude to it. We take it for granted. It's a miracle product with major/minor adverse side effects that upto now we haven't dealt with. The plastics industry has to take some responsibilty for an attitude change, as have politicians, regulators and finally us. And I think ordinary people will do their bit if the infrastructure is put properly in place. Like it hasn't been so far.