Current Affairs The General Election

Voting Intentions

  • Labour

    Votes: 209 61.1%
  • Tories

    Votes: 30 8.8%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 20 5.8%
  • Brexit Gubbins

    Votes: 8 2.3%
  • Greens

    Votes: 8 2.3%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Change UK, if that's their current moniker

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • SNP

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • DUP

    Votes: 3 0.9%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 9 2.6%
  • Alliance

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • SDLP

    Votes: 2 0.6%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • Some fringe party with a catchy name

    Votes: 7 2.0%
  • A plague on all your houses

    Votes: 32 9.4%

  • Total voters
    342
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
You read me wrong. What I meant is that on a party political basis, its pointless. They all want to do green stuff, which is great, and yeah, a leading economic power leading the way is mega sound.

So instead of rowing about tiny details surely its better to support every initiative each party suggests?

By the Party leaders who have attended, however, Johnson and Farage? Johnson has played down their manifesto as loose ideas, so who knows what Johnson actually believes, probably waiting for Trump tell him what he thinks.
 
Dunno mate. Corbyn just said he wants to plant 100 million trees a year, on farms. And make peat bogs. Its an utter nonsense.

Swinson wants to see more hedgehogs, and there is a shortage of sparrows.

Like I said, in the real world, its all pretty meaningless.

Oh, the Plaid fellow is now going to cycle to work and tell his missus to use reusable nappies.

 
Didn´t realise he said millions of trees were going to be planted on farms. Thought it was just planting trees in general.

He did. He was asked where 100 million trees a year, (his target) would be planted. He said farms, our new national parks, and open spaces. Sommet like that, and the 100 million might be wrong.

Point I am making is that in an election, Green Stuff isnt really a vote decider. If it really floats your boat above everything, Greens it is. For the other 98% of folk, knowing your party is arsed about it should slake your appetite.
 
He did. He was asked where 100 million trees a year, (his target) would be planted. He said farms, our new national parks, and open spaces. Sommet like that, and the 100 million might be wrong.

Point I am making is that in an election, Green Stuff isnt really a vote decider. If it really floats your boat above everything, Greens it is. For the other 98% of folk, knowing your party is arsed about it should slake your appetite.

Think Monbiot would quite like all 100 million in the Lake District.
 
He did. He was asked where 100 million trees a year, (his target) would be planted. He said farms, our new national parks, and open spaces. Sommet like that, and the 100 million might be wrong.

Point I am making is that in an election, Green Stuff isnt really a vote decider. If it really floats your boat above everything, Greens it is. For the other 98% of folk, knowing your party is arsed about it should slake your appetite.

The problem with that is that the 98% of folk really should be arsed about it, if not to prevent an apocalypse then because we know what we are doing now has a ruinous effect on the health of thousands / hundreds of thousands of people.
 
You can restore them, though - the Scots have started to do this.

You can. But ask why they need to be restored. They can get drained I guess, dug up for fuel, but cant be built on, cant be exported, and again, the tiny acreage they constitute, it just seems a pointless political issue.
 
You can. But ask why they need to be restored. They can get drained I guess, dug up for fuel, but cant be built on, cant be exported, and again, the tiny acreage they constitute, it just seems a pointless political issue.

an edited version of this article appeared in the Guardian yesterday - I'd encourage everyone to read it because it explains it better than I could:

 
The problem with that is that the 98% of folk really should be arsed about it, if not to prevent an apocalypse then because we know what we are doing now has a ruinous effect on the health of thousands / hundreds of thousands of people.

Thats exactly what I am saying. Only a fool would say better green stuff is bad. But for most people, paying bills, work, life in general kinda trumps it as the main issue.

So if you support the SNP cos you want independence, AND the SNP does green stuff, than thats great.
 
You can. But ask why they need to be restored. They can get drained I guess, dug up for fuel, but cant be built on, cant be exported, and again, the tiny acreage they constitute, it just seems a pointless political issue.
Lets all head forward to oblivion then....why is it "pointless?" "Life in general" cannot be separated from what we are doing to the planet.
 
Thats exactly what I am saying. Only a fool would say better green stuff is bad. But for most people, paying bills, work, life in general kinda trumps it as the main issue.

So if you support the SNP cos you want independence, AND the SNP does green stuff, than thats great.

That is the thing though; people separate "green stuff" out from "life in general" and then wonder why their kid has asthma.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top