Jump to content

grrclark

Members
  • Content Count

    4,819
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About grrclark

  • Rank

  • Birthday 06/06/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • From
    Fife, Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

1,133 profile views
  1. It is an interesting question, although I think the results would depend on the discipline being shot. If we are just to consider say the last 5 years the most successful DTL shooters (i.e World and European Champions) have all been using Hull, but a mix of cartridge types. Is that because the cart's are the best? Dunno, but Hull have the best shots on contract. In fitasc and sporting, I know the Gamebore, Hull, Bornaghi, Fiocchi, Eley and B&P all have world champions, but don't know which brands has the most. A fairly broad mix. In the Olympic disciplines I suspect it is Fiocchi that is leading the show.
  2. Sadly the level of gang rape and serious sexual abuse in India is incredibly high and the rate of conviction, or even investigation, incredibly low. If only Indian police did have the answer.
  3. It was only the end that I actually caught. I’ve not seen any of the interviews so far, just read snippets about them afterwards. I am by any measure an enthusiastic current affairs and politics follower, but there is simply nothing new being discussed on any of these shows and so i’ve not bothered watching any of them. Not even seeing Sturgeon and Corbyn squirm is worth it. I am also entirely unconvinced that it makes a difference. I suspect that we are going to see a particularly poor turnout for this election as there is so much political fatigue, i also think there is a general fear that we will remain politically deadlocked so folk are resigned to that and not bothering also. I hope i’m wrong.
  4. I did like Andrew Neil’s not so subtle goading after tonights interview with Farage.
  5. I can’t remember the name of the Labour MP that was talking to Nick Ferrari about this on LBC, but the replies were comical to being challenged on what their proposals will actually cost. The stock response “companies like Amazon and Asda...can afford to pay...” The Amazons and Asdas represent 0.1% of the UK business population. SMEs employ approx 60% of the UK workforce and represent about 50% of private sector turnover in the UK, yet are totally dismissed by the idealists. Utterly mental..
  6. People don’t choose to look beyond the initial headlines though and understand what that means. As an example, there are some people who think that increasing the minimum wage means that the government pick up the tab, they don’t appreciate that it is the business who has to cover that. Further to that, in the idealist world of McDonnell and his ilk that just means less profits for the money hungry company owners, but the truth is that it is simply going to increase the costs of goods and services to everyone so any increase in wage is lost; worse than that really as goods and services typically incur VAT then the increase in cost of goods will actually outstrip the increase in wages, so reducing the spending power of the individual despite being paid more. It also means that we will strive to import even more from low cost economies so in fact the policy is undermining British goods and services.
  7. The SNP are very unified in their approach so are always on message. They also do grievance very well. I think in the scale of British politics it is also pretty easy for them as they can certainly talk being balanced and measured because they don’t actually have to pony up and enact what they say. The picture in Scotland is changing with the SNP, they talk on the left of centre about fairness, equality and social justice which is why they trumped Labour at their own game, but have really been middle ground and sometimes even slightly right of centre. They are moving more towards the left however with the increase in taxation, growing of the centralised state, increasing rhetoric around land ownership and even a dalliance with nationalisation. They are also starting to fail on some of their big ticket items and initiatives and as a consequence the anti tory and pro indy noise is increasing massively to keep the faithful in the fold and to divert from the reality. The performances against Westminster politicians are part of that theatre, make the Westminster parliament and politicians look absurd (which is a sad reflection of reality sometimes) as it stokes the passions and reinforces the belief of the indy supporters. Agree that in Westminster it is as polarised as it has ever been for decades, maybe Thatcher and Michael Foot would be a similar juxtaposition.
  8. I agree in the main. I think that Sturgeon is an impressive politician, although her and her parties obsession with trying to engineer a second indy ref for Scotland and talking down the Tories at every opportunity is incredibly divisive in Scotland. Boris is a force of personality, no denying that and that can get things done, but he is a busker. He is also like a cork on top of the water and will float in the direction of the prevailing winds, he is a man of little principle and conviction, but one of absolute calculation when it comes to his own ambitions. The way I see it is this election is very much about Brexit and thereafter voting for the least worst option on offer. I know pro-union Scottish voters who are voting for SNP due to their anti-brexit stance as Labour and Lib Dems are effectively a busted flush, but when it comes to Scottish Elections or another Indy Ref they will vote against the SNP. I know died in the wool Labour and SNP supporters who are voting Tory as they are pro Brexit, but the next election they will vote anything but. The Lib Dem voters always seem to vote for the Lib Dems regardless. I am pro Brexit (i’m ideologically opposed to a big governmental state) and traditionally a conservative voter and it galls me to vote for BoJo as PM. All a bit moot as SNP are likely to win with a big majority in my ward despite where my X is.
  9. That's what coming at us regrettably, but an entirely different subject. My issue with the could have, should have type posts in this thread is that it is very easy to come up with the "it should have been like this" scenario after the event, if only we had the prescience to understand what comes next and to be able to forecast it perfectly. Likewise with the "we should just pay it" posts, but when trying to work through the practicalities of what that actually means, i.e. what doesn't get paid in order to pay the WASPI women the argument goes back to emotional rhetoric and nothing else. Politicians or civil servants are not imbued with magic and an ability to produce money from nowhere, they have to grapple with the same arithmetic as highlighted above. So very easy to throw the "should have, could have" rocks when you don't have to find a solution. The politics of protest are so very simple and easy.
  10. You’re right it doesn’t have to come from the budgets I suggested, it was just to give an indication of scale. We are still running a small deficit so all the tax income available to the government is already spent. So what dont they spend the equivalent of one years defence, or 60% of education or 30% of healthcare on? The UK foreign aid budget is £14bn, so you’re just over a quarter of the way there. What else does the government not spend money on next year?
  11. I do get where you are coming from, but the blunt truth of the matter is that there is not a contract as such between citizen and the government. We may have a charter, in the form of statute, but that is variable and can and does change according to the priorities of the government of the day and the governmental priorities are largely reactive to the sentiment of the electorate. The government of the day could say that they are prepared to pay the difference the WASPI women claim which I think Labour have stated would be £58bn. I don't actually know if that number is right or wrong, but let's assume it is broadly correct. Let's also assume that the contract argument holds true, there is an implied contract between state and individual that could/should be considered as such. If that amount is to be paid in one go that means no defence budget for the year, or 60% of education is cut or 30% of healthcare is cut. What does that mean for the implied contract between state and individual for defence or education or healthcare? Should we ask every member of our armed forces and all those employed in the direct supply chain to them to take a year out on no pay so we can fulfil our implied contract to the WASPI women? What about their contracts with the government? I appreciate that is a ridiculous argument, but it does illustrate the point that whilst it is easy to say the government should do this or that, the practicalities are far from easy. The answer for the WASPI women is of course they get paid what they feel they have been cheated out of, but that in effect means that the circa 31million tax payers would need to front that bill as their tax is the fundamental source of government income, so in practical terms that means an individual cost to those taxpayers of £1,800 each, assuming of course that they all pay tax at the same rate. Might those 31,000,000 tax payers ask about their implied tax contract with the government?
  12. I'm not sure that would help, many of them don't appear to know the law on firearms licensing and choose to interpret to suit their own agenda, why would we expect them to know about trespass.
  13. If we assume that we have 45,000,000 able bodied people in the uk that can use a spade, we all only have to plant 45 trees each to get to 2bn trees. Although where do we get the saplings to plant? Actually come to think of it, to get the seeds to germinate at a rate to support that volume of planting how much carbon will be released through the intensive all year round process in heated and artificially lit greenhouses, production of the planting medium, how much water will it need, how do we transport those saplings to all those involved in the process, ....... 🤔
  14. That Guido article made me chuckle. As an aside it's remarkable about how easily we talk about billions without actually considering just how big a number that is. In the context of national policy or economy we now consider millions to be the loose change and we carry that looseness of language into other areas, so planting 2 billion trees sounds like a suitably impressive big number, but folk will accept it as just that without considering what does 2billion actually mean. I always like to refer it back to people in the context of something they can visualise. So a million seconds is around 11.5 days, so to be a millionaire means someone handing you a pound coin every second for the next 11.5 days. A billion seconds is around 11,500 days or 31.5 years. 2 Billion trees is planting a tree every second for 63 years.
×
×
  • Create New...