Agreed completely. I'm all for this personally, I often run around the forests round me. Its great and a shame not more people in the country have access to it tbh.
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
Agreed completely. I'm all for this personally, I often run around the forests round me. Its great and a shame not more people in the country have access to it tbh.
If that planted 350m trees, then you'd only need to have some mass event like that 5-6 times over 20 years, or more likely you'd have permanent staff doing it all the time, and a few big national events now and again to give the project a big boost.
Not sure there will be a priority waiting room. My guess is that American firms will build private hospitals here and those that can will increasingly take out insurance whilst those that can't have to put up with the remains of the NHS.
What have they costed in for this tree planting
regardless of the plant and machinery / tranport required extimates are 20,000 would need to be working full time
presumably labout wants to employ these people at a good rate lets guess at £20,000 per year (plus pension contributions, employer ni contributions etc lets call it £22k per person for simplicity
there will of course be a management structure, buildings and other overheads to account for but simply in wages alone its 20,000 * £22,000 = £440,000,000 a year ... but of course there will be inflation etc as well and allowing for inflation over the 20 years thats more than £11bn
can somebody show me where these people are costed (as well as the plant, management structure, and buildings that are needed) in the grey book as apparently all policies are fully costed
regardless of the plant and machinery / tranport required extimates are 20,000 would need to be working full time
presumably labout wants to employ these people at a good rate lets guess at £20,000 per year (plus pension contributions, employer ni contributions etc lets call it £22k per person for simplicity
there will of course be a management structure, buildings and other overheads to account for but simply in wages alone its 20,000 * £22,000 = £440,000,000 a year ... but of course there will be inflation etc as well and allowing for inflation over the 20 years thats more than £11bn
can somebody show me where these people are costed (as well as the plant, management structure, and buildings that are needed) in the grey book as apparently all policies are fully costed
We need to get our balance of payments under control, and this has proved very difficult within the EU.
We now predominantly export services, and it is much easier to export a service to a country that speaks your own language. Will a German Mittelstand use a freelance British graphic designer? Probably not because of the language barrier. However that freelance graphic designer could easily work with similar sized firms in English speaking countries.
nb. If we were better at languages this would be less of an issue, but we're not and there's no sign of that improving.
How many people already have BUPA - i know I do (and all my staff) - I can see this becoming more and more common but with the burden probably falling more on employers than individuals as people seek it as part of their remuneration package.
To be fair, can you do the same with any of the parties?
It's not an opinion. It's a fact which is stated by YouGov. The caveat on the poll is "if the election was to be held tomorrow".
Labour candidate sacked over 'antisemitic social media posts'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-antisemitism-safia-ali-falkirk-a9221446.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-antisemitism-safia-ali-falkirk-a9221446.html
The EU are not stopping the UK leaving. Whether the Tories or Labour are in government, the UK has to leave first before a FTA negotiations start.
No-one can guarantee there will be a FTA at the end of the negotiations even if it would be in the interests of both the EU and the UK to have one.
What is for certain is that the EU will not compromise on the 4 freedoms and the GFA - May and even Johnson finally understood that, don't think Corbyn has yet.
Both Tories and Labour are lying to the electorate regarding timeframes.
I do not see how the UK will be successful outside the EU and no other country in the EU is even contemplating leaving, even the populist movements in various European countries now realise that would be economic suicide.
At the end of the day the UK and EU will have a FTA but it will never make up for being in the EU and the Uk have still got to negotiate with the rest of the world to get other FTA's which will be a lot harder than negotiating with the EU.
Nothing Id like to see more, unfortunately we are still a nation of servile cap doffing serfs who bow down to "our betters".
I have it too but by and large use the NHS currently, as I think most people with BUPA do. A declining NHS would grow the market for more comprehensively used private healthcare system.
Apologies, I got my arguments slightly mixed up. We now predominantly produce services (80.2% of our economy) so in order to get the balance of payments under control we need to export these more.
Actually the figures you quoted highlight this, despite services dominating our economy we don't export enough of them. Manufacturing is never coming back, so we need to focus on how we can push our service economy to the world.
wouldn't be surprised at all.See, if you do some math and adjust it as follows:
If you say 2.5% of the trees planted are on farmers land (by farmers themselves) then it would be:
Government:
97,500,000 a year
267,123 a day
186 a minute
Farmers:
2,500,000 a year
6,849 a day
5 a minute
It's actually really not that unthinkable. As I said before, it's all issue with space and where you do it.
They're not stopping the UK signing the WA treaty, that is true.
No way could that be construed as "leaving" though, outside of the Tory press office
.Actually "leaving" requires the negotiation of an FTA.
Which as far as I can see, the EU has no incentive to offer anything reasonable once said WA treaty is signed. They know the UK won't walk away. So no reason to compromise anything, 4 freedoms or anything else.
My best guess is the FTA negotiations will drag on for a couple of years, then the UK rejoins and it'll be like the GE never happened...
Actually I think that is probably the plan on both sides.
What we're witnessing is just a charade to make it look like the referendum has been honoured...
I don't see how leaving the EU reduces our need to import stuff - top 4 imports below:
- Machinery including computers: US$85.9 billion (12.8% of total imports)
- Vehicles: $74.7 billion (11.2%)
- Mineral fuels including oil: $66.9 billion (10%)
- Electrical machinery, equipment: $63.5 billion (9.5%)
All Boris does is lie. Thats his shtick. You even tried to downplay it by saying he's not the only UK leader or MP to do so.
It just seems funny to me anyway(And somehow worst) that you don't read the Daily Mail and have still come to the same conclusion as them.
Yep. This will be needed anyway if we want to have a hope of fighting climate change. Sanders is the only candidate in western politics that has the right(And of course very american) take on this which is treating climate change as a war.
''The Labour Party are bunch of liars! I've read the manifesto and bloody Commie Corbyn says he's going to come around my estate and steal my dam rose bushes. Working class business owners like myself, paid Aleksander a pretty penny to plant those bushes and The Labour Party isn't getting near them''
This is why I still post on here.
Last edited:
You don't need heavy transport or machinery, don't tell me you are one of those who thinks mature trees will be transplanted?
No, not making an argument about reducing imports at all. As I said above, selling services often has a large discursive element to it, so it is easier to sell services to developed economies that already speak our language.
The English language is probably the most valuable asset this country has at the moment for selling services, and we are not maximising that by having our key FTA with a bloc with multiple languages.
Do you know what? feck it. We're too far down the road now and I'm too weary to have this argument again.
On the language point however: I work all around Europe and can speak few foreign languages well. This is not an issue as the international language of business is English.
I don't care about immigration really and I can't be bothered debating the point anymore as the mindset that does is so alien to me that I've just given up.
In what sense we're not sovereign I have no idea and the abstract nature of this ideal is almost meaningless to me. I have yet to encounter any leaver able to cite a law that the EU had "imposed" we'll be free from or any examples that aren't either bollocks (Boris and the bicycles for instance) or a good (Theresa May vs The Human Rights Act). I do have concerns about large federalist unions and the dilution of democracy it brings but given the utter voter apathy we saw in EU elections and the absolute shit show that the post fact and slogan driven politics of Britain have been reduced to since Brexit I'm not sure what there is to protect.
I have much less concern about the EU than I do this media controlling, alternately ideologically driven or self serving Conservative party which the south of England will vote in again and again and again no matter what they do.
So @Fiskey, good luck and I hope it all works out splendidly and that you're right against all the evidence.
I'm going to go back to watching @sun_tzu 's zen inducing robotic production of the same phrase patterns generally including the words "Anti-semite", "EHRC" and fecking "Unicorns". Sorry for wasting your time.
This might be funnier than your attempt to calculate top-rate tax.
Shit, I identify with 86 year-old Molly from Hampshire
Well, logisitically you'd need to do the following:
1. Buy new growth trees.
2. Buy the netting and support for the trees.
3. Plant them.
That is fairly cheap.
Given the quantity we're talking about, it would also require new forests, therefore new tracks to be installed capable of withstanding forestry commission vehicles.
1. Rubble for path foundations.
2. Sand/dirt mixture to put ontop.
3. Install new tracks with road builder machine (this thing is epic, it's a very long vehicle like 20meters long they use it round my area when the rallies have gone through and torn up the tracks).
Employ more staff to maintain forests and help installs.
But these don't require heavy machinery or large scale vehicles as he was implying. Plus it would spread throughout the country.
Installing new roads would require those huge machines but they're already owned by the councils anyway but would require transport. Further down the road however when those 2 billion trees have matured and require chopping down it would probably require more staff and forestry commission vehicles to help chop down the forests. Likewise for thinning.
So that wouldn't be an initial cost, it would be a projected need in say 15 years time when the new growth would start to require thinning out.
I get that. But it would still be political suicide - no ifs no buts or coconuts. It you think Boris proroguing parliament caused an uproar that's nothing to what would happen if he started to truly sell off bits. It's also worth bearing in mind, among all this anti-American talk, that the US manufactures some of the best pharmaceuticals in the world. You can argue on price but the other side is that you would not want to deny a patient the opportunity of getting the best medication available just because you think it's selling the NHS down the river. American manufactured medication is already widely used here.
But that wouldn't be for every site, I would assume a lot of the planting would be on smaller scale all around the country. Also spread over 20 years. It's not like the will be planted all at the same time.
Yet proroguing Parliament appears not to have weakened the Conservative's standing.
The NHS is a socialist construct that would stand no chance of being created now if it did not already exist. It will be chipped away at. It already has been and requires no bold statements of intent for this process to continue in the current political climate.
All Boris does is lie. Thats his shtick. You even tried to downplay it by saying he's not the only UK leader or MP to do so.
It just seems funny to me anyway(And somehow worst) that you don't read the Daily Mail and have still come to the same conclusion as them.
Yep. This will be needed anyway if we want to have a hope of fighting climate change. Sanders is the only candidate in western politics that has the right(And of course very american) take on this which is treating climate change as a war.
''The Labour Party are bunch of liars! I've read the manifesto and bloody Commie Corbyn says he's going to come around my estate and steal my dam rose bushes. Working class business owners like myself, paid Aleksander a pretty penny to plant those bushes and The Labour Party isn't getting near them''
This is why I still post on here.
People like that guy in the QT audience are so extremely frustrating. Misinformed and lying arseholes. Don't understand how you can be annoyed at earning over £80k a year and being asked to pay slightly more in tax to fund a better society. Baffles the brain. (admittedly, it doesn't take much).
Thread
Well you have to look at it this way:
1. Some local councils have more forests than others and will therefore be more prepared for an increase in tree population.
2. Land will need to be purchased to create new forests as that will be the quickest way of putting down trees.
3. Although the planting will be spread out over 20 years, it still requires a substantial amount of planting a day.
4. Ontop of planting, the forest commission would be required to continue their current workload.
Ultimately, it would require an increase in land, staff and machinery. With some strategy you could limit the initial problems by targetting specific counties that already have the infrastructure in place as the early sites for regrowth but you'd soon hit problems.
My local area is one of the national parks in the UK and we have forests everywhere, I'm 10minutes away from 8 seperate sites. But i'd say only one of those sites has any space for new growth (they did a substantial amount of tree felling at this site during the summer and it's a baron wasteland right now with debris everywhere).
It's not simply a case of saying "Ok, we'll plant 1,000 trees at this forest and 2,000 at this forest". It would require buying land from nearby farmers to extend the forests in the first place.
I'm not saying its impossible. But it'd be very tricky.
I'd probably target Wales and Scotland initially and hope to invest massively in forests there by promising the local population jobs as forest rangers/forestry commission. It would help greatly if the Government included tourism as part of the infrastructure and installed a few holiday parks in those areas. But that in itself causes issues.
I'd probably target Wales and Scotland initially and hope to invest massively in forests there by promising the local population jobs as forest rangers/forestry commission. It would help greatly if the Government included tourism as part of the infrastructure and installed a few holiday parks in those areas. But that in itself causes issues.
But all of these things are feasible, it's not like unicorns as was described. Just because it isn't easy doesn't mean it can't be done like sun was assuming.
Oh yeah, it's entirely achievable but would cost a lot of money to do and a big change in the industry.
I think its great, myself. Not saying it's impossible, just sharing my knowledge on how it could be done and what issues theyd have.
In terms of holiday parks, there was one being planned fairly near me but the local population decided to vote it down and it got scrapped. Not saying that would happen in every area and the Government might not even want to link Forests with Tourism. But those are the type of hurdles they could face.
Buying land off farmers won't be easy either, because forests bring foxes and other predators near to their land.
Agree completely.
I mean if we're comparing policies right now. I'm far more on board with this idea of tree replanting over free boardband. Trying to sell this idea to the general public will be harder though because not everyone will benefit from it.
This is my simple view but I am not saying it is right, just opinion:
The party that wins is usually the party that compromises and wins the middle ground and rightly so (both parties have their extremists)
In recent times that has been Blair/Cameron different parties but both believe in a mixed economy where market forces are allowed to manage demand and supply with a certain/varying amount of government intervention where needed/to make things fair and protect the vulnerable.
The conservatives are usually better at managing money which protects UK credit rating, pensions, savings and inflation which can be good for private investment but impact of this can be a lack of government investment whereas labour tend to overspend which can be good for public services, investment if spent correctly but in longer term can damage the economy and lead to inflation that damages savings and pensions etc.
In recent times the cycle of Labour overspend (but needed investment in public services) followed by Conservative cutting the purse strings (but suffering public services seems to balance things out (you have maxed out the credit card time to pay it off before it becomes un-manageable).
However, this election is different because of the obvious Brexit issue but also Labour have swung worryingly far to the left. My worry is that a JC government will borrow so much money that in the short term it may seem like the good times have arrived but in the longer term it will damage the UK credit rating, lead to inability to raise funds without printing money and raising general taxes, which will lead to inflation which will devalue savings and pensions and ironically will damage ultimately damage the public services that JC wants to throw money at to improve.
The Corbyn ideology of Nationalising everything combined with increasing national debt significantly, risks sending us back to the 1970s when the UK was the poor economy of Europe (a modern day Greece). The government won't be able to borrow money to pay for things like the NHS and so will have to increase taxes. Add to this the fact that large industries will have been nationalised and running at a loss and so the only way to pay for it will be increase in general tax for all (the top 5% won't pay more taxes they never do - they find a way around it or just move their business elsewhere).
I do sympathise with idea that certain industries can be run by the public sector but I fear Corbyn, fuelled by ideology rather than practicality, will rush to re-nationalise everything as soon as possible and they will run at huge losses. In the 1970s, the losses of nationalised industries were paid for by the tax payer - the basic rate of income tax was 33%.
I wouldn't like to see a far right or far left government and so for me voting is deciding which one will be the least bad. I fear that a Corbyn labour is more extreme left than a Boris conservative would be right.
So I am not that excited about either party to be honest but I believe you should always use your vote to decide the least bad if you can not think of it as the best choice. Of course I could vote for a smaller party if I can find a good candidate that will be beneficial to my local area and not want to go in coalition with Corbyn.
The party that wins is usually the party that compromises and wins the middle ground and rightly so (both parties have their extremists)
In recent times that has been Blair/Cameron different parties but both believe in a mixed economy where market forces are allowed to manage demand and supply with a certain/varying amount of government intervention where needed/to make things fair and protect the vulnerable.
The conservatives are usually better at managing money which protects UK credit rating, pensions, savings and inflation which can be good for private investment but impact of this can be a lack of government investment whereas labour tend to overspend which can be good for public services, investment if spent correctly but in longer term can damage the economy and lead to inflation that damages savings and pensions etc.
In recent times the cycle of Labour overspend (but needed investment in public services) followed by Conservative cutting the purse strings (but suffering public services seems to balance things out (you have maxed out the credit card time to pay it off before it becomes un-manageable).
However, this election is different because of the obvious Brexit issue but also Labour have swung worryingly far to the left. My worry is that a JC government will borrow so much money that in the short term it may seem like the good times have arrived but in the longer term it will damage the UK credit rating, lead to inability to raise funds without printing money and raising general taxes, which will lead to inflation which will devalue savings and pensions and ironically will damage ultimately damage the public services that JC wants to throw money at to improve.
The Corbyn ideology of Nationalising everything combined with increasing national debt significantly, risks sending us back to the 1970s when the UK was the poor economy of Europe (a modern day Greece). The government won't be able to borrow money to pay for things like the NHS and so will have to increase taxes. Add to this the fact that large industries will have been nationalised and running at a loss and so the only way to pay for it will be increase in general tax for all (the top 5% won't pay more taxes they never do - they find a way around it or just move their business elsewhere).
I do sympathise with idea that certain industries can be run by the public sector but I fear Corbyn, fuelled by ideology rather than practicality, will rush to re-nationalise everything as soon as possible and they will run at huge losses. In the 1970s, the losses of nationalised industries were paid for by the tax payer - the basic rate of income tax was 33%.
I wouldn't like to see a far right or far left government and so for me voting is deciding which one will be the least bad. I fear that a Corbyn labour is more extreme left than a Boris conservative would be right.
So I am not that excited about either party to be honest but I believe you should always use your vote to decide the least bad if you can not think of it as the best choice. Of course I could vote for a smaller party if I can find a good candidate that will be beneficial to my local area and not want to go in coalition with Corbyn.
- Status