Jump to content

The Politics Thread 2019


Day

Recommended Posts

Don't see the issue with the pledge to plant all those trees. 

For someone who can walk on water, turn water into wine then planting a few trees should be easy work for Jezza.

Probably just a few minutes work really.

Wonder if they will all be magic money trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

My disappointment stems from a naive belief that the younger generations have seen through the all the BS.

The younger generation haven't seen anything, have no experience of life and should not have a vote until at least 25. This reducing the age to 16 is pure nonsense. Would you let a teenage child tell you how to do your job? Which car to buy etc.

Kids make the poorest drivers, highest divorce rates, all because they have no experience to draw on. That's why they tend to vote Labour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

The younger generation haven't seen anything, have no experience of life and should not have a vote until at least 25. This reducing the age to 16 is pure nonsense. Would you let a teenage child tell you how to do your job? Which car to buy etc.

Kids make the poorest drivers, highest divorce rates, all because they have no experience to draw on. That's why they tend to vote Labour.

At 16 you can work,  pay taxes,  get married,  have sex.

Surely anyone who can potentially live independently should be able to vote.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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 that 7 hours a day four days a week? or would they need 24000 people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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”. 

Blah blah numbers numbers...

Done your own research into tree planting speeds have you? Or just read summat on the internet and immediately accepted it as fact because it ticks the right boxes?

The 2 billion is ambitious but doable according to the 5 mins of research I just did while waiting for me chips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

Which uni do you go to mate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pastinaak said:

Done your own research into tree planting speeds have you? Or just read summat on the internet and immediately accepted it as fact because it ticks the right boxes?

The 2 billion is ambitious but doable according to the 5 mins of research I just did while waiting for me chips.

Sounds like you might have a role in the Labour Party. Hope they don’t ask you to order the trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

The younger generation haven't seen anything, have no experience of life and should not have a vote until at least 25. This reducing the age to 16 is pure nonsense. Would you let a teenage child tell you how to do your job? Which car to buy etc.

Kids make the poorest drivers, highest divorce rates, all because they have no experience to draw on. That's why they tend to vote Labour.

Interesting idea raising the age to 25. 

Using this precedent you could also apply it to the over 65's, maybe they should not have the vote as that's the age where the risk of different forms of Dementia rises dramatically!

We don't want people with cognitive impairments accidentally voting the wrong way, do we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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...

Sturgeon is on the climate change debate now saying Scotland have planted 22m trees last year?

So if they're not noticeably busy, allow for some more ambition in England and the number might not be as outlandish as it appears. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

The younger generation haven't seen anything, have no experience of life and should not have a vote until at least 25. This reducing the age to 16 is pure nonsense. Would you let a teenage child tell you how to do your job? Which car to buy etc.

Kids make the poorest drivers, highest divorce rates, all because they have no experience to draw on. That's why they tend to vote Labour.

Anyone old enough to kill and die for their country is old enough to put a cross in a box for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Sturgeon is on the climate change debate now saying Scotland have planted 22m trees last year?

So if they're not noticeably busy, allow for some more ambition in England and the number might not be as outlandish as it appears. 

She said it on tv so must be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

The younger generation haven't seen anything, have no experience of life and should not have a vote until at least 25. This reducing the age to 16 is pure nonsense. Would you let a teenage child tell you how to do your job? Which car to buy etc.

Kids make the poorest drivers, highest divorce rates, all because they have no experience to draw on. That's why they tend to vote Labour.

Nope, can't agree with either the logic or conclusion in that one - 16 year olds potentially have 60 years or so to live with the impact of who they vote for. Brexit is being implemented based on the majority of the dead, that should be all we need to know on that one.

If drving ability is the measure let's just make Lewis Hamilton the Prime Minister and be done with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...