We all ready fora General Election then? | Page 40 | Vital Football

We all ready fora General Election then?

Boris looks like an idiot everywhere he goes, disclaimer here, he is an intelligent man, he doesn't need Andrew Neil to proove it, not unlike others, it has to be said, who the Feck if fit to lead this country...... really ?

How far, have we, as a country fallen, when we have to vote for the least unlikeable to lead us ?
As I've said before RAB, I believe people vote against what they don't want as opposed to for what they do want.

The cult of personality was really exploited by Bliar originally in the UK, very successfully I might add, because behind the facade was a vacuous shell whereas today we see even more the effects of dumbing down, the rush to the bottom, the fact that, in 90% of cases we have career politicians' isolated from reality by whichever cocoon they have been shrouded in, be it luvvie lefty , with the security of a very comfortable( financially) existence or a right winger with, basically , the same background and a different view point.

Narrow minded none have vision, statesmanship , charisma or even a scintilla of earned respect.

It's a changed world when , I see today, that McDonnell has been uncovered as a former pupil of a fee paying school, a fact he has not mentioned before. That sort of economy with the truth, from both sides, is less than edifying
 
Isn't the politicians job half done when people argue between themselves, to decide who we dislike the most ? I mean, Jesus wept.

(part of your point TT ?)
 
Isn't the politicians job half done when people argue between themselves, to decide who we dislike the most ? I mean, Jesus wept.

(part of your point TT ?)
Exactly that RAB.
I felt Theresa may was at least honourable in her approach to hard work, civil courtesy and trying to do the best for the country as shesaw it. She was put in the' David Moyes position' by Cameron's abdication and her abiity or reluctnce to manipulate cost her.

What are we left with today. 2 Prime Manipulators ( maybe that should be the new job title) both looking to enhance their own situation and prepared to say or do anything to scale the slippery slope.

I have always tended to vote for the general direction of travel I see best for the country, for my personal situation, for what I think I would do in the same situation. and am influenced greatly by keeping the books in order, prosperity, wealth creation , people working hard to be in charge of their own destiny not, as some do, relying on others ( the State) and, from that you will see that points me in one direction.

Not everything that comes with it fits exactly with the way I see it, or would do it, but then you have to make a decision and , on balance , I support one party above the other and I know what I don't want, what i don't see as right, what I wouldn't do, what i don't believe in and what I don't want to happen.

That's a convoluted way to support my 'theory' that you vate against what you don't want as much as, if not more than, for you do for what you do want.
 
Even if the numbers are exagerated,say only a tenth of that number are planted it is better than none,did you watch Chris Packham on CH5 last nite, ? if you can watch its about Tree's. (y)
I’ve downloaded it mate 👍 I’ll have a look. I’m all for planting as many trees as is possible, big fan of them myself. We moved into our current house 20 years ago and the whole area was surrounded by protected trees. We have 3 in our back garden plus a protected medieval hedgerow thats always full of wildlife.

The problem has been houses changing hands and the new owners finding excuses to fell them. We must have lost half of them in the past 10 years due to some manufactured disease or other, and you can bet your life that a new extension will appear when they’ve gone.

That said as for saving the planet, it’s what’s going on in the Amazon rainforest that should be our main concern. Whatever we do in this little island won’t even scratch the surface.
 
Last edited:
As I've said before RAB, I believe people vote against what they don't want as opposed to for what they do want.

The cult of personality was really exploited by Bliar originally in the UK, very successfully I might add, because behind the facade was a vacuous shell whereas today we see even more the effects of dumbing down, the rush to the bottom, the fact that, in 90% of cases we have career politicians' isolated from reality by whichever cocoon they have been shrouded in, be it luvvie lefty , with the security of a very comfortable( financially) existence or a right winger with, basically , the same background and a different view point.

Narrow minded none have vision, statesmanship , charisma or even a scintilla of earned respect.

It's a changed world when , I see today, that McDonnell has been uncovered as a former pupil of a fee paying school, a fact he has not mentioned before. That sort of economy with the truth, from both sides, is less than edifying
They certainly didn’t want this.
 

Attachments

  • 205BDF5B-C0BC-4529-AFDC-477663ACB68A.jpeg
    205BDF5B-C0BC-4529-AFDC-477663ACB68A.jpeg
    181.1 KB · Views: 4
I don’t think anyone is saying the Tories have done a wonderful job. They haven’t. The problem is Labours spending plans look like a family buying a bumper Christmas on a payday loan. After the turkey and wine someone has to pay the bill, and that will be all of us, like last time we were left with the financial hangover. We can’t just borrow hundreds of billions and give it over to seemingly worthy but stupid projects. It’s a new level of madness. I make no secret that I don’t like or trust the Tory’s either but I can’t sanction such financial folly as Labour are proposing.
 
A little long winded but a good explanation of how the tax system works and how 'punishing'the rich is totally counter productive. Hard to argue with when displayed in this logical example

"
For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
."


https://www.facebook.com/ufi/reacti...s6MTAxNTY1ODI3NDgxOTU3MDM=&av=100011546613266
 
Anyone voting for Boris Johnson after his Marr interview this morning needs to give ther head a shake.

#Noncoeherent
#wordinedgewaays..


CBB Whoever they are speaking to the media want to ask questions but NEVER allow a complete answer.It's all sound bites for TV and, the sooner the BBC stops getting funding the better..

A bloated, overpaid organisation that soes not fulfil it's brief anymore, to serve the public.

Remember when they were crying about needing to pay the exorbitant wages they do because they were the market rates? If those presenters were so good why not let them go and compete in that market an?
d see how much they commanded there.

Some year s ago I heard that Alan Hansen was being aid 40k for MOTD and I thought that wasn't abad annual salary for a Sturday job.

Turns out it was 40k per appearance, circa 1.2m per year.
 
Its a primal instinct, and one which women have too, to reproduce. We put a veneer of civilisation over the whole thing, but there wouldn't be 6bn of us on the planet if we all had to fill out the forms in triplicate first.
 
I am showing you a MACHINE that plants trees.

There are quite a few countries that are planting tree's.Ireland have commited to planting 440,000.

I have already shown in this thread how Pakistan planted over a billion tree's in 3 years.

Have a look here for FACTS

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/ireland-reforestation-environment-trees?fbclid=IwAR1XgwmNA5NDZug3JEtl7WAjMJBKrGfEVBf3p8pCdnENhllwFW7PquId72g

The machine you showed, (watch the video), is a small platform on the back of a tractor. And on that platform is a seat for the planter to sit. A knife opens the ground in front of him, a box of tricks 'beeps' and he sticks a christmas tree in the ground before it closes up. Its not the answer to all our prayers. Its for planing small amounts of christmas trees.

I've taken a look at the Pakistan project. Info is a bit thin, but it appears that what they are doing is to re-forest areas that have been cut down over the years for fuel etc. A typical area shown below from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). You'll notice this isn't good arable or grazing land, but upland scrub, like where a forest used to be.

1575264666267.png

So far they have reforrested 1300sq miles which is impressive for a cost of around £100m which is no doubt helped by Pakistan having four times the population we have, all of whom are able to work for a pittance in western terms. Despite that it is a really impressive achievement by the Pakistanis to do this.

So, back to the UK. We don't have large areas of scrub land that we de-forested. When we cut down forest hundreds of year ago, we turned the land into productive arable and grazing land. So the questions still remain. Where is all the land we need to do this, who owns it, are we nationalising the land or compensating the owners for loss of food production. If its food production do we then have to import more food, and what is the environmental impact of that. What kind of trees are we planting or are we just panic planting acres of conifers regardless of the prevailing eco-systems etc etc etc.

As a policy it sounds great, and just the sort of thing we ought to be doing, but its like the Greta kid, lecturing us all on saving the planet, yet taking transatlantic plane journeys to do it. It is just another promise that will either never happen, or cost two or three or ten times what we expect (e.g. like what is happening with HS2) because the promise was given before the problem and the solution were properly understood.
 
Anyone voting for Boris Johnson after his Marr interview this morning needs to give ther head a shake.

#Noncoeherent
I've sent in my postal vote for my Tory MP Chippy.

If an interview takes place I expect to hear the answer without interuption. We are going the American way I'm sorry to say.