Do you want to discuss boring politics? (21 Viewers)

SkyBlueCharlie9

Well-Known Member
I have only respect for our farmers.
Our countryside is a picture because of their input never mind the food production.
Bit of balance needed.... do you like the poly tunnels, housing, solar farms, hedgerow and habitat removal, pesticides, mahoosive agricutural store buildings. All land owned or sold by farmers. Don't blame them as economics but take your rose tinted glasses off and stop pretending all farmers give a sh!t about the landscape.
The most beautiful landscapes in UK National Parks are heavily protected and restricted and are not allowed to be intensively farmed and AONB are protected heavily by dedicated organisations too. Aestically all our landscapes are a result of human activity as was all densely wooded at one time.
 

SkyBlueCharlie9

Well-Known Member
Good point Malc.
Houses or Chinese manufactured solar panels on "England's green & pleasant Land".
Dispersed with wind turbines.
Ugly days ahead whilst UK energy bills remain the highest on the planet.
& vast remaining natural resources will remain untapped.
Bet you would have been the NIMBY types who moaned about 'green' windmills, watermills, cottonmills, tannerys, barns, cattle sheds, oasthouses, country estates/homes, steamtrains, vineyards, farmhouses and farm/rail workers cottages when they were first introduced. Love the consistency of the right - bang on about reduce controls and bureaucracy to allow growth and land owning mates ... just not where its near their 'view' or little piece of England. As rife today as ever.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
What is the primary issue driving housing shortages? It’s not planning reform, it’s not corporate greed. The primary and most fundamental issue is that as a country, our population is growing too rapidly to keep up with the necessary infrastructure demands.



Most of the country backs reducing immigration sharply probably in around 100k that Cameron promised. There just hasn’t been the political will to actually make the difficult choices and electorate no longer believed the Tories could be trusted on the issue.

I hope Labour gets a handle on things because if they fail, how long would it take for us to have our own ‘National Front’ movement. That’s something I’m desperate to avoid.
Maybe most of the country does back reducing immigration sharply. I would also say most of the country doesn't understand the intricate web around it and how much would be affected if it were, not to mention the legal issues. I almost certainly don't. And maybe that's why the political will isn't there despite it being such an obvious vote winner.

The social care system would collapse as it's already under enormous strain and understaffed despite a huge number of immigrant workers. And that's because the natives don't want to do it. Speeding up processing would help, but again the way to do that is employ people, but people don't want to take the jobs.

I doubt there's many people at all that don't want to see the borders and entry being enforced rigourously but fairly. Neither would there be much opposition to migrants/refugees/asylum seekers that break the law either severely or repeatedly being removed from the country.

But if it a huge, swift reduction in immigration were to happen it would be like Brexit II - after the fact everyone would slowly realise the massive side effects it would have and be "we didn't realise it meant that!"
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
Why because lads can't betrusted to behave and respect others? Quite normal in most civilised, chilled countries..... not the USA!
I'm guessing you don't have daughters? One incident will be one too many and if you think there wont be any, even in 'banter' then I'm afraid you've a much nicer view of the world than the reality. A sad indictment it may be, but we can't ignore it and hope.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Consent manufacturing starts in earnest for defence spending



If the British Army now perceives that it doesn't have sufficient tanks and artillery to defend itself, what on earth did it give them to Ukraine for?
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
The UK doesn't really need many tanks (and didn't give 'huge numbers' to Ukraine like he says).

The rest of what he says is fair though, it's been massively cut and underfunded for years and is in a pretty sorry state by all accounts.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Consent manufacturing starts in earnest for defence spending



If the British Army now perceives that it doesn't have sufficient tanks and artillery to defend itself, what on earth did it give them to Ukraine for?


The Ukrainian war has proven that conventional capabilities is still the most important means of defence.

A lot of defence reviews post-Cold War that the MoD undertakes emphasised the need to combat unconventional warfare. Things like cyber attacks, attacks on key energy infrastructure and fighting unconventional forces i.e. unorganised military.

A lot of European countries dumped their old kit in military aid to Ukraine who themselves had military tech from the Soviet-era.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
The UK doesn't really need many tanks (and didn't give 'huge numbers' to Ukraine like he says).

The rest of what he says is fair though, it's been massively cut and underfunded for years and is in a pretty sorry state by all accounts.
It's funny how easily you have been manipulated to jump to Trump's tune
 

Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon

Well-Known Member
Consent manufacturing starts in earnest for defence spending



If the British Army now perceives that it doesn't have sufficient tanks and artillery to defend itself, what on earth did it give them to Ukraine for?

Ukraine was seen as the front line and the place that sort of hardware would be most needed and useful. For decades now the armed forces have been pared back and there's been a steady move away from being able to field the kind of force that would be able to fight a large-scale 'conventional' war. Looks to me like we have to either increase spending to rebuild that sort of capability or we hope that another way is found to keep Europe secure.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Consent manufacturing starts in earnest for defence spending



If the British Army now perceives that it doesn't have sufficient tanks and artillery to defend itself, what on earth did it give them to Ukraine for?

We gave them 14, we have about 150 left and in part thanks to the 14 we gave to Ukraine A) we know our tanks are way way superior to Russian tanks even before the upgrade program is completed (we gave them challenger 2, we’re upgrading our entire fleet to challenger 3 spec) and B) The UK to Russian tank ratio has swung massively as Russia has lost over half their tank fleet. Donating those 14 tanks was the equivalent of doubling our tank fleet.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top