The Politics Thread 2019

[Andicis]

14 minutes ago, Norman said:

Keep posting. Not many your age posting in here. And I don't know ny that understand enough about politics to debate with. 

I was the same, though. Too busy chasing skirt. 

I'm 31 and most of my mates and work colleagues will be voting Conservative. Not really much choice. 

I suppose you're surrounded by Labour voters on campus? 

Less so than you'd think. The vocals ones all are, of course, but there are many that are the other way, they'd never admit it though because you get openly slated if you do. Of my house of 5, 3 of us are voting Conservative, 1 lib dem and 1 labour. My course is similar, but probably skewed a bit since it's a finance course.

[Norman]

1 minute ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Pal!

Ok mate.

There's no contradiction except in your head in voting for a party who will protect the welfare state. It's not rocket science. Your entire argument is based on a presupposition you're clearly unwilling or unable to back up, that is that a vote for Labour is a vote for rack and ruin. Project fear alive and well I see.

I see you have no answer to all the reports on Labour's policies, then? 

Seems crazy to vote for something so radical, when the supposed outcome looks so dire. Especially when it will be the most vulnerable that pays. 

Ah, sounds like all those Brexit arguments lolz. 

[Comrade 86]

2 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Less so than you'd think. The vocals ones all are, of course, but there are many that are the other way, they'd never admit it though because you get openly slated if you do. Of my house of 5, 3 of us are voting Conservative, 1 lib dem and 1 labour. My course is similar, but probably skewed a bit since it's a finance course.

Apologies for biting your head off @Andicis I've seen your posts here over the last few weeks and for some reason they've disappointed me a lot but that's my problem not yours. 

[A Ram for All Seasons]

1 minute ago, Andicis said:

My course is similar, but probably skewed a bit since it's a finance course.

Ah, so your all learning how to get money out of hard-working people?

[Andicis]

Just now, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Apologies for biting your head off @Andicis I've seen your posts here over the last few weeks and for some reason they've disappointed me a lot but that's my problem not yours. 

No harm done, I'm still relatively new to getting involved in politics, I'm honestly not trying to be inflammatory, I'm very much a centrist and can't claim to be a supporter of any party, it's a shame that it's disappointed you. 

[Comrade 86]

3 minutes ago, Norman said:

I see you have no answer to all the reports on Labour's policies, then? 

Seems crazy to vote for something so radical, when the supposed outcome looks so dire. Especially when it will be the most vulnerable that pays. 

Ah, sounds like all those Brexit arguments lolz. 

And what are you offering apart from glib lolz? Yep, just like Brexit.

As you were then.

[Comrade 86]

2 minutes ago, Andicis said:

No harm done, I'm still relatively new to getting involved in politics, I'm honestly not trying to be inflammatory, I'm very much a centrist and can't claim to be a supporter of any party, it's a shame that it's disappointed you. 

You weren't being inflammatory, I was being a Bamford. My disappointment stems from a naive belief that the younger generations have seen through the all the BS. It's not your problem.

[Norman]

3 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

And what are you offering apart from glib lolz? Yep, just like Brexit.

As you were then.

No answers, then? 

As you were, pal. 

[Comrade 86]

1 minute ago, Norman said:

No answers, then? 

As you were, pal. 

Still demanding answers to questions you haven't even asked? Still offering none yourself though. How typical.

Enjoy your evening pal.

[Wolfie]

Copied from elsewhere. WTF!

Labour has announced a plan to plant 2 billion trees over the next 20 years. The BBC describes this as “ambitious”. Guido has been doing some sums.

This would mean more than 270,000 trees being planted every day for 20 years.
Assuming a 7-hour working day that is over 600 trees a minute.
That would require 20,000 people planting trees.
If each tree requires a planting density of say 10 square metres per tree, that is 10,000 trees per square kilometre, so 27 square kilometres-a-day, that is foresting an area the size of Exeter every day for 20 years.
After 20 years some 9.5% of the UK land surface would have to been forested.
The surface area of Britain is 209,331,000,00m², given 13% of Britain is already forest, that means Labour’s tree planting would result in nearly 23% of Britain being forest. Roughly 70% of Britain is currently agricultural land and the remaining 7% of the country is urbanised for human habitation.

[Norman]

4 minutes ago, Van Wolfie said:

Copied from elsewhere. WTF!

Labour has announced a plan to plant 2 billion trees over the next 20 years. The BBC describes this as “ambitious”. Guido has been doing some sums.

This would mean more than 270,000 trees being planted every day for 20 years.
Assuming a 7-hour working day that is over 600 trees a minute.
That would require 20,000 people planting trees.
If each tree requires a planting density of say 10 square metres per tree, that is 10,000 trees per square kilometre, so 27 square kilometres-a-day, that is foresting an area the size of Exeter every day for 20 years.
After 20 years some 9.5% of the UK land surface would have to been forested.
The surface area of Britain is 209,331,000,00m², given 13% of Britain is already forest, that means Labour’s tree planting would result in nearly 23% of Britain being forest. Roughly 70% of Britain is currently agricultural land and the remaining 7% of the country is urbanised for human habitation.

It's so ducking frustrating that we have so many pathetic people dreaming up policies that can't be kept, haven't been worked out properly, and are impossible to achieve. 

I include all parties in that. 

[sonofmidnight]

Just been on the Who should  you vote for website.  It aks questions about policies and you choose an answer. At the end it asks who you think you should vote for and then tells you what your answers suggest. One problem in my case- there isn't a candidate for that party in my constituency! It is pretty simplistic though.

[i-Ram]

26 minutes ago, Dappled Ram said:

Just been on the Who should  you vote for website.  It aks questions about policies and you choose an answer. At the end it asks who you think you should vote for and then tells you what your answers suggest. One problem in my case- there isn't a candidate for that party in my constituency! 

Don’t worry buddy, many on here would be similarly affected as the Monster Raving Loony Party are not represented in very many constituencies this time round.

[Gritstone Ram]

36 minutes ago, Van Wolfie said:

Copied from elsewhere. WTF!

Labour has announced a plan to plant 2 billion trees over the next 20 years. The BBC describes this as “ambitious”. Guido has been doing some sums.

This would mean more than 270,000 trees being planted every day for 20 years.
Assuming a 7-hour working day that is over 600 trees a minute.
That would require 20,000 people planting trees.
If each tree requires a planting density of say 10 square metres per tree, that is 10,000 trees per square kilometre, so 27 square kilometres-a-day, that is foresting an area the size of Exeter every day for 20 years.
After 20 years some 9.5% of the UK land surface would have to been forested.
The surface area of Britain is 209,331,000,00m², given 13% of Britain is already forest, that means Labour’s tree planting would result in nearly 23% of Britain being forest. Roughly 70% of Britain is currently agricultural land and the remaining 7% of the country is urbanised for human habitation.

Is this one of Abbott’s ideas? 

[A Ram for All Seasons]

29 minutes ago, Norman said:

Labour’s tree planting would result in nearly 23% of Britain being forest.

Forest with a small "f", of course.

What we need to do is to get back to the spirit of Robin Hood, redistributing wealth by stealing from the rich to give to the poor, and for that we need trees.

I think somebody with bad arithmetic must have added a few noughts somewhere along the line.

[i-Ram]

45 minutes ago, Andicis said:

No harm done, I'm still relatively new to getting involved in politics, I'm honestly not trying to be inflammatory, I'm very much a centrist and can't claim to be a supporter of any party, it's a shame that it's disappointed you. 

I urge you to stick around, but you will find views on here mostly partisan. Always a thread though that makes me smile.

[Ghost of Clough]

Labour: 2 BILLION trees to be planted

Timescale: 20(ish) years
Trees per year: 100,000,000
Trees per year per household: 3.62

Doesn't sound too unreasonable to be honest.

 

Then you look at the possible cost and it no longer sounds as reasonable...

[Rev]

1 hour ago, Van Gritters said:

On 13th December there could be a new company formed:-

Van Gritters tree planting company.

If you need help with the seed funding, just ask.

[TimRam]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Labour: 2 BILLION trees to be planted

Timescale: 20(ish) years
Trees per year: 100,000,000
Trees per year per household: 3.62

Doesn't sound too unreasonable to be honest.

 

Then you look at the possible cost and it no longer sounds as reasonable...

Don't worry it will added to everyones income tax bill.

 

[uttoxram75]

1 hour ago, Norman said:

And what would voting Labour look like. Because that is the only alternative. 

Wonder how the poorest would fair when the whole economy collapses?

Why would the economy collapse? Corporation Tax would be lower than in 2010 and lower than France and Germany.

A lot of economists believe the economy would grow from the bottom up.