Should I vote Labour Mark 11

Do you what, chewbacca?

I don't care.

I want to say something sbout Rosesesrered. . . We do not share the same political views and I don't 'do' sucking up if views are shared anyway ?

She defends anyone being bullied, has a great sense of humour , doesn't live for political threads but joins in many threads ,and she can laugh at herself , what more could we ask of a member of this forum,

I'm too much of a lady to say what I think of you.
I am a lady.
^They're too much up their own backsides^
Well, you've me a bit there daphnedill, I didn't think 'ladies' used terms like that

They don't Jalima!

Oh, well, chewbacca, you've read the whole of this thread, all 130 posts, so you must know everything that's been said.

I don't know any six year olds who know anything about bacca. How old I feel depends on how much wine I've had.

She defends anyone being bullied, has a great sense of humour , doesn't live for political threads but joins in many threads ,and she can laugh at herself , what more could we ask of a member of this forum,

I agree with that description anniebach

I'm being kind.
No, actually, you're not daphnedill

Your post is obsessively demanding that someone talks sense because they do not comply with your demands and answer your questions.
That is not kind and it is not even polite.
And definitely not the behaviour of a 'lady' whatever that definition means.

How old is feel depends on how much wine I've had

I'm guessing quite a few!

I am sure most six year olds would know who Chewbacca is


But you're doing extremely well for a person of about 237 years old Chewbacca.

Thanks anniebach and Jalima. And Chewbacca

There have certainly been some odd posts tonight from some quarters.



We should all be allowed to have different views on politics without all this kind of 'malice aforethought'

Thanks Jalima! Didn't know I was that old!
The silly, meaningless insults and sniping on these threads are really wearying, aren't they? What could be an involved discussion, always descends into fish wife spats and demands for people to explain themselves, especially if an opinion differs from the mainstream. Hurling insults like bratish children and then feigning innocence. It is a type of bullying and is, most definitely, not ladylike!

Planting one million native trees is a good idea but just a drop in the ocean compared to the 64 million over 10 years which is the aim of the Woodland Trust:

www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blogs/woodland-trust/2016/09/our-goal/

Don't worry, Diane will be counting each one of the million as they are planted to make sure we get the right number.

I had already mentioned that, Jalima, because a million was thought too many by someone.

It's better than selling off the national forest, which is what the tories want to do.

This is why Maybot called the election.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/05/09/brexit-is-starting-to-bite-that-s-why-they-want-you-to-shut

So Sainsburys and Ikea have already planted 3.5 million trees already Jalima? That's impressive. And makes the 1 million promised by the Labour party look a bit feeble, in comparison. Thanks for the link.

So are you going to join the Woodland Trust and do your bit for the trees, Chewbacca?

Don't think anyone was questioning that 1 million trees was "too many" Durham, just puzzled where they would fit in with the 5 million houses also promised!

Wouldn't tell you Durham!

Like I said previously, woodland only covers 3.9% of the land anyway. There's easily enough land for woods and houses.

Why not tell me, as you think it's a good idea?
I am a member, and have 'bought' hundreds of trees as presents over time.
We have half an acre of woodland in my husband's name,in a wood where we went quite often when he was alive.

Very nice too. Pleased for you Durham.

www.facebook.com/saveirenenel

Labour would have more compassion for this woman. If she is returned to South Africa, she will die, as there is no treatment for her there, and she has no family living there.
She was been checked out by a Home Office doctor yesterday to see if she is fit to fly.

Forestry Commission Statistics, main findings are:

The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2016 is 3.16 million hectares. This represents 13% of the total land area in the UK, 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 18% in Scotland and 8% in Northern Ireland.

17 Mar 2017

actually going back to the original post ,the leaked manifesto has a lot of things the SNP are already doing here and no one in their right mind would call them "far left" they are (slightly) left leaning and as far as I can see thats exactly what the Labour manifesto is too.Renationalising the railways ,instead of letting them be run at huge profits which are then taken abroad ,makes perfect sense surely.We've all seen the buy local ads and this is just taking it to a different level.My disappointment with Corbyn is his support of Trident..now with a price tag of 205 BILLION ,as someone said to me recently if the only reason we're keeping it is jobs then lets give each worker £1 million and we'll STILL save hundreds of millions AND give these workers money to spend in the local economy.Those who thing Corbyn is bordering on communist need to go do some reading/research ...he's hardly even a socialist these days .

Oh? Not 3.9% then Anya? That's interesting to know.

Forestry Commission and Woodland Trust are different.
The Forestry Commission includes all the trees that you regularly see logged when driving through forestry plantations.
That's okay for the environment, but not for the ancient trees, the Northern Forest, etc.
The Woodland Trust grows native species to last for longer than us and our grandchildren, unless killed off by disease, obviously.

At the beginning of this thread Maizie commented that "There was also something about the validity of 'personal opinion'." and added a comment about opinion without fact.

I think it was me who brought this up on the other thread but I was too tired to continue yesterday. However, I do think it is important. This quote sums it up:

"Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts."

Many on here get cross and feel others are being rude because their opinion is challenged. They are also very rude and personal to people who do offer links to facts and to other peoples writing. They do not challenge the facts they challenge the person.

We hear the "I have a right to my opinion" brigade all over the internet and elsewhere and, of course, in as much as no one can stop them holding any particular opinion, they do have that "right". However, in an argument/discussion just offering you opinion without backing it with fact is a logical fallacy; it is not the other side of the argument.

Those who do this imply an equal right to be heard on a matter in which only one of the two parties has the acquired the relevant information are just part of the world of 'entitlement' we now live in and that 'entitlement can mean that false views have to be considered equal to factual ones.

Yes, we must be kind to those who are unable to research and find the facts but I would suggest that there are those on here and elsewhere who are quite capable of doing the research but are so arrogant they don't see why their side of the argument isn't equal to the side who have given facts. Of course there are two sides to every argument but meeting fact with prejudice is treating others in as contemptuously disrespectful a way as anything they are on the receiving end of.

Sorry if this is off thread but I do think it has needed saying for a long time. The arrogant among us are not those offering to back their argument.

Hi everyone! I am a newbie but as I did read Politics at Uni many moons ago I am always sceptical of the ways that our news media choose to present such important issues... I take a practical view. This election is fairly easy I think because, if May's calculations are correct (and they probably are!) the Conservatives will win the election comfortably.
The reality of our government is that PMs have to deal with 'Events dear boy events' and do so mainly with the guidance of senior civil servants who provide the information on which they base their decisions. That being so we need to judge the person - potential PM in that role. The Manifesto however gives an indication pf what policies/legislation the PM will put through during their tenure - though it is a wish list and most will not get done!
Re this election however I will be voting to limit the size of the majority as then Parliament is less effective (and Conservative back benchers are not exactly know for standing up to their PM/front bench!) So in my constituency I vote Lib Dem on the basis of the party most likely to be runner-up or a threat to the Conservative candidate...it used to be Lib Dem.
I see this as the 'democratic' approach to voting!