Brexit Wars 3



I expect such an answer would go on for several hours…

I’ll probably be voting for her party, by the way.


The way to stop Brexit is to form close political alliances. That takes compromise on all sides, including from both Labour & Lib Dems. - GL

JW Hi I agree with JD on this
I support Liverpool (beat city 3-1 today) but when Everton are playing other teams I get behind them (often disappointed)

I have really been hoping for a Lib / Lab pact to fight TORY BREXIT which most sensible people can see is a RW fraud…
I have been disappointed in labour when we could have had a VONC if they had agreed to a neutral leader as other parties did.
When they didn’t come out for Remain but some kind of LEXIT
now I wish they would agree to some kind of tactical agreement lie other parties are doing, imagine the message if labour stood aside and redwood / Moggy etc lost their seats…

As I have said I will never vote Tory again but could get behind labour if they change a little…

I seen this showing the effect of tactical voting and if the Tories keep going the way they are with trying to hide things like the Russian enquiry could be even better…


I’m not the one pretending the Green’s unicorn policy is anything but utter hogwash.

Let’s hear from both of you how we have a zero carbon economy by 2030 and I’ll point out to you why it isn’t going to happen and what sacrifices you both have to make and why it wont ‘save the planet’ if we attempt to go it alone anyway.

Or keep your petty sniping to yourselves.


Getting touchy Eadwig? I wasn’t attacking you. All I was doing with flights to Poland was putting that up against your boast that you gave up your car years ago.

Regarding becoming carbon neutral in 30 years, there are plans as to how this could be done. Generating carbon free energy is the easy bit the difficult bits are energy storage at scale and technologies for carbon capture and removal from the atmosphere.

Whether we manage to actually become carbon neutral or not in 30 years is debatable but what is not debatable is that there does need to be a massive reduction in the production of greenhouse gasses.

I am sure that you don’t think that we should not even try?


Frog in a tree


I’m not sure what that means, but I am certain that we shouldn’t try the Green’s plan of attempting Carbon ZERO in ten years, (which you have somehow morphed into Carbon neutral within 30 years), unless some truly phenomenal new invention comes to light between now and election day.

This was a promise to spend 1 trillion pounds, £100Bn per year, to remove all traces of carbon from our economy (presumably including all mammals). To 'de-carbonize it.

Nothing to do with carbon neutral, which is the net state we’ve signed up to under the Paris accords to achieve within 30 years, along with almost every other country on the planet; except USA have since withdrawn. (Which just goes to show, taking the lead isn’t going to sway some people at all).

That’s a sensible start and reflects that a global approach is necessary. I have my doubts about Paris, more needs to be done. E.g. The target goal relies on certain technologies, such as atmospheric global carbon capture and storage that don’t exist and no one I’m aware of is seriously working on outside a research lab (I.e. many, many years from implementation if ever invented).

As I said, the Greens know their policies will never be implemented and they are just a pressure group essentially within the UK, but i don’t think this policy announcement helped the overall cause.

I am touchy about suggestions from people who should know better that we should be limited to one return flight every 2 or even 5 years. Talk about playing into the ultra-rich’s hands!

I do speak with people who would indeed happily ban my air travel, electricity usage (not their own very often, it seems, and I suspect you are one of those Frog) not to mention my evil habit of breathing.

Up to them to decide, surely? Or do we know better?

[quote=“frog_in_a_tree, post:24518, topic:1145436”]
I suspect that there will need to be a focus on reducing the world population and changing attitudes about perpetual economic growth

Reducing global population by scales that would make WWII look like a pin-prick and the 1918 flu pandemic little more than a mild cold would be required. I do wish people would think before opening their mouths. Say it like it is. You’re either talking genocide on a vastly unprecedented scale or some kind of enforced sterilization. The latter policy is already too late to achieve our goals, as set out in the Paris accord, by the way.

The way you’re going on you sound like one of those people in the west who is all for the re-introduction of smallpox into an unvaccinated population (except for yourself and some mates of course), should cease the battle against malaria and HIV in the under-developed world. I see such suggestions on Facebook every time I log on.

You’ve got the first part right. Second part wrong, I never rubbished any green activists. I did rubbish a policy which was so bad (at least in the way it was announced) it could be rubbished even by the likes of Johnson without too much thought.

There are solutions to be found and I believe will be found. While we should all think about the environment, there’s no need to put on a hair shirt about it all as far too many activists that manage to get a say in the media would appear to want us to do.

E.g. Cutting back on air travel (unless you can afford a yacht. Thanks for that Emma Thompson) just when the chance of global travel is becoming available to the world population seems likely to do more damage to global education than anything I can immediately think of.

Of course we could be hit by a few comet fragments in a day or two and in a nuclear winter by this time next year. Which party do I vote for to spend a trillion pounds over that in the next 10 years? There isn’t one, but I bet you many climate change protesters would like to see research ceased on projects that could avert a very real threat to the planet and its whole ecology. Perhaps more real than the greenhouse gas scenario they are painting.


Carbon neutrality means having a net zero carbon footprint ie. achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions by balancing carbon emissions with carbon removal (often through carbon offsetting) or simply eliminating carbon emissions altogether.

The Green Party policy is to move the target for reaching net-zero carbon emissions from 2050 to 2030.
Same thing as was voted for at Labour Party Conference… and same thing as Tories proposed with May but setting the target 20 yrs earlier.


That isn’t what they announced. They announced ceasing using any fossil fuels by 2030. To be crystal clear, NOT a NET balance of zero. No fossil fuel use by 2030. At all. None in the UK.

That rules out air travel and cargo ships and planes as things stand so I fully expect a climb down if they haven’t already because it is unworkable.

In fact I just looked and I’ve already seen revised versions. The speech was given on 6th November and all versions I can find have now been heavily edited. The goal isn’t even in most of them. If I get time tomorrow I’ll dig out the internet archive.

Labour’s plans are Net zero carbon emissions by 2030. Something entirely different, but also probably not achievable, sadly. Same as the Paris accords of net zero by 2050 - see my previous comments about reliance on non-existent technology.


I don’t know what you’ve read but the Green Party’s pledge is to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030.
That is what they announced… and incidentally it was already their policy.

Berry also said the words: “… ambitions to make Britain fossil free by 2030”.

So despite what you’ve said about the Green Party policy and what may or may not have been altered on the Internet… that is a fact.

The Lib Dem’s plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.
Labour also pledged at Conference to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030… but we’ve yet to see their Manifesto.
Tories under May pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 but it never became law as she said it would… and since then I haven’t heard it repeated. They have suspended fracking… but of course that will get started again after the Election is won.


I heard it live and that is what they said, I do assure you. Maybe she misspoke in terms of their later published policy? It seems not though because you say yourself …

I assume she meant “fossil fuel free” and not a raid on the museums of the UK.

If so, that rules out air and sea transport. Just possibly there could be a change in technology on ferries before then, but it isn’t going to happen with fleets of aircraft.

Could be time to invest in the Channel Tunnel! Are they still listed?


Sounds like a bit of imprecise language Eadwig. As you say, for aviation and shipping replacement energy sources are not currently available in quantity. Perhaps what was meant was simply that power generation would be entirely fossil-free. This is possible as nuclear could be available to fill the gaps when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining. Also battery storage could help but we are a long way from that as yet. Like you I think it is unlikely that we could be fossil fuel free within the next decade or so but I do think that we might make substantial noves in that direction.




Yep, I believe you. Wouldn’t surprise me if people made unguarded statements on this subject.

Yes… “…Britain fossil free by 2030” could mean a few things.

We all know that fossils fuels are still going to be developed and used around the world for decades to come no matter what is pledged (and later dropped) at some UK Election.


Then they should have been clearer.

No we’re not. Indeed a large breakthrough (still requires a year’s testing) has been announced this morning in a company I have been following for years which would allow power to be stored in a hydrogen fuel cell, effectively.

Could be coincidence, but a software group involved with scrubbing gases for various (mostly defence) applications, have just announced a system that produces 99.9% hydrogen, curiously, if you don’t get the picture, for use on wind and solar farms.

Its impossible. Period. I’m sure we will make substantial moves in that direction.

I’m a big optimist when it comes to human kinds ability to adapt. I’m also not blind to how stupid we are as a species building many of the world’s fastest growing cities in deserts, for example, with massive power and clean water needs.

In reality, the Greens could probably spend their Trillion pounds more productively by paying to convert Indian power stations to gas fired, thus reducing their CO2 emission by 50% at a stroke, rather than spending it in the UK - if you are just talking having a global impact.

Why we didn’t do this across the globe over the last 10 years or so, since we’ve had more cheap gas than we can cope with, is a frustration to me.

One of the very biggest reasons is Green activists saying NO to any fossil fuel and deaf to the arguments and the sense they make short term. It pisses me off. They’ll be saying fracking causes earthquakes next.


Except it was then re-iterated by a male person shortly after the announcement, I remembered when reading the last 2 or 3 posts. Probably a media secretary of whatever,

So, I dunno if they were off topic or what, but it was a silly gift to opponents.

I haven’t particularly got a problem with the £1Tn spending over 10 years, by the way, if channeled in the right way. The Co-leader was up front enough to confirm that less than 10% of that would come from a rise in corporation tax, and the rest from borrowing, but then immediately carried on throughout the interview rounding off the borrowing to £1Tn, which was refreshing… or … perhaps she was allowing for other borrowing that was/is still to be announced in the rest of their manifesto policies when announced.

So far the Lib-Dems are off message and missed a trick with a measly £50Bn extra borrowing. I bet they’re re-writing their manifesto as I type.


As we know, the Greens are not going to be a government. They are a small party with limited resources and person power no doubt largely reliant on enthusiasts and a few academics. Their inexperience in presenting policy is forgivable I think. At this stage in their political development their focus has to be in getting ideas out there in order to gee up the major parties. In this respect they are being moderately successful.


Frog in a tree


missed a few post on climate change but they say offshore wind power is the cheapest form of energy now, and a good start would be Govs committing to that rather then trying to make money looking for oil and gas…
I would be quite happy to see many more windmills offshore…


Bojo hid the Russian enquiry…
cant see why this is not all over the BBC etc


The paid hacks are in full voice.
What has Lloyds discussion group done to deserve this constant garbage?
(And now for the loud mouths.)


lost me no idea what you replied to because you didn’t click reply…


Does anyone know if its true that the BEEB played footage of Boris Johnson laying a wreath in 2016 on this morning’s news bulletin instead of footage from yesterday’s service? where he laid the wreath upside down??


And among the discussions, Mr Dingbat, your contributions are the biggest load of garbage of all. If you don’t like this discussion why do you join it at all.


Frog in a tree