Mr Woppit - Member... in 5 years time, do we think?
Probably ... more populated?
Birth rate decrease for some but increase for others.
More diverse in views and more extreme in views too.
Certain communities exerting / demanding more "equality" and certain communities relinquishing some.
Clashes of thoughts. 🙄 No, ideologies, ideologies and ideologies ...
The question of ownership of god remains dominant in god fearing communities and will be forever so long as the indulgence remains.
🙄
I did not mean ideology in a pejorative sense. I agree most politics is driven by ideaology.
ernie_lynch - Member
Although I don't agree that all politicians are driven by ideology.......Tony Blair being an excellent example.
Well.....his ideology was "get Blair rich"
TandemJeremy - Member
I did not mean ideology in a pejorative sense. I agree most politics is driven by ideaology.
Decrying the actions of the Tories because it's "all idealogicially driven" is just sloppy debating then?
Yep......."let's mix 'n' match" whatever ideology we need for the Blair Rich Project.
That is not what I wrote.
. its clear the Conservatives are driven by an ideological hatred of public ownership - what other reason for...........
I dislike their ideaology . Not that they are ideologically driven. AS you say most politics is ideologically driven - just the selling off of state assets for no good reason is abhorrent to me.
Aye - but you've done it loads of times in the past, and you're not alone.
Bashing past politicians/govts while never consider the contribution of Dear Leaders. 😆
Decrying the actions of the Tories because it's "all idealogicially driven" is just sloppy debating then?
No not at all. It's just exposing the Tories as liars.
They are claiming that they are only doing what they are doing because it's the best thing for the economy - that's bollox.
They are doing it because they are ideologically motivated.
They couldn't give a toss about the economy - as long as they are doing alright.
I think you misunderstand me. II dont use "ideology" in the way you suggest at all.
Limitations of text based debate perhaps
I understand your point, I think you are wrong. I believe the whole focus of their policy is driven by a idealogical hatred of public ownership.
TJ I understand yours, but think you are wrong.
Made a diary note for Feb 2016 so I can let you know you are wrong
LOL! Politicians are not muppets as they are who they are for standing up to what they believe so none are perfect but motivated by the moment in time of self. Live with it as the moment will pass. 🙄
cbrsyd -
Made a diary note for Feb 2016 so I can let you know you are wrong
I believe I already have a hat eating bet on for this. 🙂
I fully expect to be reminded.
do you understand why the forest sell of? I really can see no logic in this at all. No money in it, upset middle england - to waht end?
Ah, now I understand......the Islamic extremist terrorist groups are taking over the country. Why didn't you say that in the first place ffs ? So........what do you think we should do about it ? .....apart from reading the Dai
ly Mail.Ah, now I understand......the Islamic extremist terrorist groups are taking over the country. Why didn't you say that in the first place ffs ? So........what do you think we should do about it ? .....apart from reading the Daily Mail.
So do you not think that Islamic extremist terrorists will be more prevalent in 5,10,50 years time? I don't see anyone else commiting such acts of violence as blowing hundreds of people up and actively seeking to cause terror, or did the daily mail make up 9/11 and the London bombings too? I can't see where I've objected to anything else, other than you twisting my posts to suit your own agenda.
Made a diary note for Feb 2016 so I can let you know you are wrong
Make a note to also tell the National Institute for Economic and Social Research. Because their economists, who have no political axe to grind, have said (along with many other economists) the same as TJ.
The National Institute for Economic and Social Research, quote :
[b][i]"The reason why there is a bias towards a spending-based consolidation in the UK ... is not because it's optimal in some sense, but because some politicians have a desire for a smaller state" [/i][/b]
In fact they said it only a couple of days ago :
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/01/uk-britain-economy-niesr-idUKTRE71001D20110201?pageNumber=2
So there you have it - the Tories economic policies are motivated by ideology, not any concern for the economy.
But Cameron has already admitted that anyway - he has made it clear that the spending levels will remain in place [u]even if[/u] the deficit is cleared. Same goes for VAT at 20%.
They are doing it because they want to - it has nothing to do with the budget deficit.
EDIT : Some bashturd has edited that Reuters article, here's an unedited version :
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Government-delay-some-public-reuters_molt-3494649453.html?x=0
There's your sloppy debating again
I can't see where I've objected to anything else, other than you twisting my posts to suit your own agenda.
Twisting your posts to suit my own agenda ? 😕
I only asked what your problem was and what you wanted to do about it.
.....I'm not any clearer mind.
The country is near broke so the present govt is trying to salvage it. Why not give them a chance since the last govt was given nearly 4 terms of opportunity?
If they don't, say in 3 terms, you may vote them out but no govt will give you the magic pill if that's what you are looking for.
Give me a muezzin wailing at 5am over church bells any day. Used to quite enjoy it on early morning staggers home at uni.
Flaperon - MemberGive me a muezzin wailing at 5am over church bells any day. Used to quite enjoy it on early morning staggers home at uni.
But wait until it goes on constant 5 times a day ... with stadium speakers. That will learn you for craving the "exotic" ... 🙄
I would rather listen to little birds twittering away and the howling wind anytime.
p/s: selling off the forest ... yes, every govt has some muppets.
do you understand why the forest sell of? I really can see no logic in this at all. No money in it, upset middle england - to waht end?
No I can't understand it either. Unless it's to placate the slavering right wing rottweilers you believe all conservatives to be
cbrsyd
Ta.
Are you really that much of a bigot str? Did some brown chap steal your sweets when you were a kid?
😆 It wasn't me!
[img] 
[/img]
And apparently, it wasn't him either.
Who was it, STR?
TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTR:
"So do you not think that Islamic extremist terrorists will be more prevalent in 5,10,50 years time? I don't see anyone else commiting such acts of violence as blowing hundreds of people up and actively seeking to cause terror, or did the daily mail make up 9/11 and the London bombings too?"
Whether they'll be more or less prevalent depends on too many factors, I don't think anyone claims to know. But as for this being some sort of islamic exclusive, memories are short, 3500 people were killed in the "Troubles" and not many of those doing the killings were muslims. People murder each other for all sorts of reasons.
The point about the use of the word 'ideological' is that the Tories repeatedly claim there is no other option than to do what they are doing now. Which is clearly not true, and many leading economic figures are warning the Tory dogma could cost the country dearly.
Whether they'll be more or less prevalent depends on too many factors I don't think anyone claims to know.
Remember the question wasn't what would be different in 5 years time, but "what will the U.K. look like". That's why I had assumed the Artist was worried about more mosques - something he castigated me for. Apparently he believes Britain will be a some sort of battlefield in the Global War Against Terror.
Which really rather worrying, I hope he's wrong........it could add significantly to my journey to work 😐
Which is clearly not true
How so? Please explain to me in simple terms how we pay back 159.8 billion without selling a few things and cutting our costs down?
I think the debate has been how quickly we might want to pay that off.
I believe I already have a hat eating bet on for this
no you don't, you refused the bet when I wanted to clarify the period and the measure to be used to calculate the net loss of 1 million jobs which you were claiming will be the results of the current governments policies
I dislike their ideaology . Not that they are ideologically driven. AS you say most politics is ideologically driven - just the selling off of state assets for no good reason is abhorrent to me.
don't mention the gold then, or any other of the labour privatisations
personnally if there is no good financial reason for the sale then due to the wider stakeholder concerns you have to question the logic. However the opening up of the debate may bring in the opportunity for some forests to be separated from FC and owned in a form of social ownership to maintain them into perpetuity with the aims of conservation and access. This then future proofs them against sale for development
TandemJeremy - Member....You sad little envious man. Your life must be so unpleasant living with that much envy, hatred and bile. I really rather pity you....
.....Did some brown chap steal your sweets when you were a kid?
Nice work 🙄
TandemJeremy - Member
Limitations of text based debate perhaps....
.....Or something
Tory dogma could cost the country dearly
and Labour profligacy has already done so, and Tories before them and so on and so on ad nauseum. I really struggle to understand why the old guard are so loyal to Labour after they abandoned their socialist ideology and became Tories-lite.
The fact of it is, the cuts do not even come close to stopping the UK borrowing billions each and every month. We can't go on like this. In fighting won't fix that.
julianwilson - Member
Your local FC woods will look like this in 5 years:
[img][/img]
Well my local AONB largely looks like this already.
TandemJeremy - Member
Realist Torminalis. Its the clear and obvious outcome of the ConDem policiesYou will see
Pessimism from TJ 😯 , surely by then the civil unrest will have overthrown the ConDem govt and we'll be returned to the good old days of war mongering labour taking us to the financial brink again?
and Labour profligacy has already done so, and Tories before them and so on and so on ad nauseum. I really struggle to understand why the old guard are so loyal to Labour after they abandoned their socialist ideology and became Tories-lite.
You keep talking about loyalty to Labour - I've said many times I detest New Labour for continuing largely Thatcherite polcies (among other things) and didn't vote for them.
Yes you can slag off New Labour profligacy, but what the Tories are doing RIGHT NOW is damaging the country and wrecking people's lives, and they could take a different tack. I don't think anyone is arguing that there shouldn't be some cuts and real efficiency savings - but what they are doing now is deliberately wrecking public services. A well considered and measured programme of cuts would surely be preferable to the chaotic fire-sale which is currently taking place.
See the Forestry sell-off for a good example of the bogus arguments being used - first it was about saving money, now they are forced to admit it will actually cost money.
The government also has no mandate for what they are doing - both Liberal and Tories have completely abandoned many things they promised before the election, eg both said they wouldn't scrap the EMA - now it turns out we will end up paying Capita £40m to cancel their contract.
The fact of it is, the cuts do not even come close to stopping the UK borrowing billions each and every month.
As has been pointed out many times - isn't the best way to pay off the deficit is to get the economy going again, which these cuts are very likely to massively hinder.
We can't go on like this. In fighting won't fix that.
'We can't go on like this' 😆 - straight out of the Daily Mail. Actually we can - Britain still has one of the best credit ratings in the world.
Or are you suggesting we need get to the point where we are borrowing no money at all?
what the Tories are doing RIGHT NOW is damaging the country and wrecking people's lives
To be perfectly honest, I don't see it as wrecking peoples lives any more than borrowing huge amounts of cash and promising the earth when it is wildly unsustainable. I think we are on the same side, I could not agree more with Tony Benn's statement quoted by Ernie earlier, the corporate takeover of the UK is all but complete and Labour did nothing to stop it. The only way they could ensure votes was to throw borrowed money at public services, all repayable with interest to the scumbags that are syphoning all of the wealth out of the system in the first place.
deliberately wrecking public services
I simply do not believe that any party would intentionally ruin public services. They may do it by accident in pursuing an ideology that is misguided but the jury is out on that one. Only yesterday the IFS were lauding the condems approach to fiscal belt tightening. New Labour were putting us on a crash course to bankruptcy, condems are making us all take some of the resulting pain. None of it is good but peoples lives are always going to get wrecked when they are dependent on debt to sustain themselves.
See the Forestry sell-off for a good example of the bogus arguments being used - first it was about saving money, now they are forced to admit it will actually cost money
And I will bet that Cameron doesn't go through with it. As STW is my witness, if the condems sell off the forestry I will drive to wherever you are and buy you a pint! 😀
Or are you suggesting we need get to the point where we are borrowing no money at all?
What an outrageous thing for me to suggest! You have to bear in mind that I am the sort of bloke that will move into a tent to get his debts paid off quickly. We may have been indoctrinated to believe that debt is a good thing but I see it as no replacement for actual wealth.
Apparently Salford will look like this...
http://www.centralsalford.com/index.php?page=content&block=100
Nice of them to put an oval in for the crossers...
I've said many times I detest New Labour for continuing largely Thatcherite polcies (among other things) and didn't vote for them.
so who did you vote for? Just so we can see where you are coming from and whose policies matched you view of life
'We can't go on like this' - straight out of the Daily Mail. Actually we can - Britain still has one of the best credit ratings in the world
which of course is nothing to do with the present governments policies
big_n_daft - Memberso who did you vote for? Just so we can see where you are coming from.....
Don't you mean just so [u]you[/u] can see where he's coming from ?
I don't think you are in a position to claim that you speak on behalf of all STW users - I certainly didn't vote for you.
Torminalis - Member
And I will bet that Cameron doesn't go through with it. As STW is my witness, if the condems sell off the forestry I will drive to wherever you are and buy you a pint!
*Saves post securely*
I'll have a bit of that.
Pint of bitter and twisted for me please
[img] 
[/img]
so who did you vote for?
The Tories of course. We're all in this together.
Twisting your posts to suit my own agenda ?I only asked what your problem was and what you wanted to do about it.
.....I'm not any clearer mind.
Erm, I think both you and TJ went a bit further than asking what my problem was.
It's all black and white with you pair of saints aint it? If I show a concern about Islamic extremists, I'm a racist and a bigot - bang to rights, no further question m'lud.
What would I do about it? I'd kick people, with the attitude depicted in my first post, out of this country, but unfortunately due to the limp wristed approach to human rights in this country, we can't even get rid of folk like Abu Hamza. Co-incidentally today, the BBC were reporting on just such an issue.
Unfortunately we can't deport d***heads such as EDL members, as they were here to start with. If they are found to be inciting racial hatred though, they should be dealt with in the justice system.
I've stated many times before, I have no issues with any race, colour, or religion being in the UK, but their very being here has either got to be in a positive sense, or at least a neutral one. The country would be a poorer place were it an arian state - and I honestly stand by that.
Anyone coming here with a negative effect, be that sponging off the system, diagreeing with our own culture, or inciting their own form of racial hatred towards ourselves isn't welcomed at all by me. Simple.
This would extend to Europeans, as well as anyone with 'Brown skin', as seems to be the preffered term of the week, including my own country of ancestry. Fortunately my grandfather made a stand against Hitler, came here and lectured in English & German at Sheffield Polytechnic
I can't believe anyone would think any different, or are most people afraid to speak their minds on matters such as this in a public forum?
Gosh, you sound rattled.
Copy and paste the bit where I called you a [i]"racist and a bigot"[/i] ........since you are accusing me of having done that.
Yeah, it does rattle me, when you can't make a point without having assumptions made.
My apologies regarding the accusation, but still, why accuse me of not liking mosques and you do twist what I say and have also been ready to climb on my back previously.
What would I do about it? I'd kick people, with the attitude depicted in my first post, out of this country
I've stated many times before, I have no issues with any race, colour, or religion being in the UK, but their very being here has either got to be in a positive sense
If anyone is calling you a racist or bigot, it is because of the sort of nonsense that you are quoted with here.
Why on earth should you presume that the people in the picture are anything but British nationals ? In which case, where exactly are you going to deport them to ? If you want to trace their ancestory back through x number of generations to find a point of origin then.............
Unfortunately we can't deport d***heads such as EDL members
You'll find that you can deport them back to Saxony or Norway or Normandy or somewhere.
That should keep you happy.
Fair point trailmonkey, but there will still be a fair percentage that come here, then kick off like that. Why does an ill thought out post make me a racist and a bigot though?