Tam Dalyell, who served as Labour MP in West Lothian for 43 years, agrees that the document could have led to independence. "In my view it might have done," he said. "It could have tipped the balance it a number of seats including mine. Oil was very much a totemic issue. It was new and it was dramatic. Politics at that time was very different. In 1974 my majority went from around 6,000 in February to around 2,000 after the October general election.
There is nothing in the report that a competent economics A Level student could not have written in 1974.
"Within days of its receipt at Westminster in 1974, Professor McCrone's document was judged as incendiary and classified as secret. It would be sat upon for the next thirty years.
The mandarins demanded that Professor McCrone's 19-page analysis be given "only a most restricted circulation in the Scottish Office because of the extreme sensitivity of the subject." The subject was sensitive alright."
Keep trying to spin to the contrary by all means. It's totally unconvincing but very amusing.
I see where you are coming from, but I would put it the other way around. If UKIP do manage to win a seat - then having a large proportion of voters that were previously DNV may have been to their advantage, as I would argue that they are less able to be squeezed. (Vote Tory not UKIP to avoid Lab has much less potency on someone who would otherwise not vote)
But that's just equivalent to saying the DNV is UKIP's core vote so resistant to squeezing. It may help them in 2020, but not likely to be particularly important in 2015, surely?
Depends on your perspective... For the 1-4 potential UKIP MP's it is very important... For the 50 or so Tory MP's worrying about the impact of UKIP on their majority less so.
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?
I wholeheartedly agree - when you live virtually below sea level and get a 3 month sustained deluge you're gonna get flooded - s** all to do with Chris Smith or anyone else - it's just another bit of the 'entitlement culture' - " I've been an idiot and gimme gimme gimme!"
Flooding isn't a certainty.
Dredging and installing additional pumping earlier may well have stopped it happening.
The scale of dredging and pumping required to have stopped any flooding would be wholly impractical but a greater effort would have had some impact at the margins, and would presumably have helped some properties, businesses and so on. It would also have made it easier for those in charge to have blamed the elements if they had more meaningful action to back that claim up with.
DH. When the levels were dredged each year a few fields would flood regularly and were treated as water meadows. But with this degree and frequency of rain, more would have flooded but not the extent we are witnessing.
At school we were taught that the early Britons who lived in that area lived in Lake Villages which were on "stilts" and lived mainly from the fish and the eels. Later the area was drained in order to use the rich land.
I accept that second order effects are influenced (I flagged momentum, but obviously there are others as well).
The point is, though, that the squeeze job the Tories have to do is from 7% -> 5% not from 10% -> 5% and presumably this will be easier to achieve (this may also address RN's confusion re the disconnect between UKIP's apparent share and the narrowness of Labour's lead)
Under 5% and far closer to their 2010 3.1% Of which I see no sign whatsoever yet. Sure, we have proof that the tory kipper vote is to an extent mirroring each other. There are soft tory kipper waverers who can come back to the fold which is why the kipper vote can indeed fall markedly after a set of elections like last May. That's not the question. The question is by how much it needs to fall after May going in to an actual election campaign.
If it rises for May and then falls back to where it is now by next Feb then there will be panic on a scale from some tory MPs that makes all that has gone before seem trivial.
8-10% is not an unreasonable estimate. If we don't see a HARD kipper crash after May ( I mean a real and very substantial drop) I'd be more inclined to put it at the upper 10% level.
My guess is more like 7-8%: I tend to be doubtful as to whether DNV's will vote. But probably only 5-6% of that will come from previous voters, of which half will be from UKIP10 and some from other minor parties. So let's say there is a total of 3% from the big 2(and perhaps, for the sake of argument, 2% from the Tories and 1% from Labour)
How many additional seats would Labour win if there was a relatively 1% shift in their favour?
That's an awful lot of supposition to get down to that 1%.
You do remember even the 3.1% kipper vote in 2010 caused more than a few tories to blame that for them not winning a majority and start making very ominous noises? (till the coalition deal shut them up) They almost certainly overstated it but it was a factor.
I see where you are coming from, but I would put it the other way around. If UKIP do manage to win a seat - then having a large proportion of voters that were previously DNV may have been to their advantage, as I would argue that they are less able to be squeezed. (Vote Tory not UKIP to avoid Lab has much less potency on someone who would otherwise not vote)
But that's just equivalent to saying the DNV is UKIP's core vote so resistant to squeezing. It may help them in 2020, but not likely to be particularly important in 2015, surely?
I have already established downthread that only around 13% of UKIPs current vote is from 2010 others/DNV
Other people that don't agree with my politics have backed this up without any recognition.
I guess the next stage is to look at 2010 Tory/Lab or Tory/LD marginals with a low turnout and a decent combined UKIP/BNP vote
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?
I wholeheartedly agree - when you live virtually below sea level and get a 3 month sustained deluge you're gonna get flooded - s** all to do with Chris Smith or anyone else - it's just another bit of the 'entitlement culture' - " I've been an idiot and gimme gimme gimme!"
Flooding isn't a certainty.
Dredging and installing additional pumping earlier may well have stopped it happening.
It may have made a small difference, but the way this is being spun on the TV is that these are huge conurbations that have been flooded, in fact these are tiny villages and the numbers of houses that have been flooded is tiny (less than a 100). I think that the lack of flooding in other areas is a great tribute to the infrastructure of this country, we should be celebrating this as this rainfall is a once in a hundred year event and a just a few homes are flooded. I think its remarkable.
I was listening to 5 live earlier and the interviewer was trying to blame the transport secretary for the damage at Dawlish. Its just nuts.
Tam Dalyell, who served as Labour MP in West Lothian for 43 years, agrees that the document could have led to independence. "In my view it might have done," he said. "It could have tipped the balance it a number of seats including mine. Oil was very much a totemic issue. It was new and it was dramatic. Politics at that time was very different. In 1974 my majority went from around 6,000 in February to around 2,000 after the October general election.
But what would "West Lothian" (there's your clue) MP Tam Dalyell know about scottish politics compared to some random right-winger on PB?
Oh, is West Lothian in Scotland? I never understood what that WLQ stuff was all about.
There is nothing in the report that a competent economics A Level student could not have written in 1974. Executive summary of report: "SNP miss open goal a mile wide". Dalyell may be right that had they not done so things might have been different, but so what? If my aunt was a wagon she'd have wheels. I just don't see any interest this has in 2014.
The point was that the document was suppressed, and not published, at the time ... so it is not so much that the goalposts were missed as the SNP and the public didn't even know they existed.
No, that precisely is not the point, because all the information on which the report is based was in the public domain. "Suppressing" it didn't amount to hoodwinking the SNP, just not doing their job for them. And it wasn't "suppressed", it was classified as "secret" - it's not a document which would have been published, except under the 30 year rule, anyway. This is all very mildly interesting, but it didn't set the Thames on fire when it came ti light in 2005 and certainly isn't going to do so now.
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?
I wholeheartedly agree - when you live virtually below sea level and get a 3 month sustained deluge you're gonna get flooded - s** all to do with Chris Smith or anyone else - it's just another bit of the 'entitlement culture' - " I've been an idiot and gimme gimme gimme!"
Flooding isn't a certainty.
Dredging and installing additional pumping earlier may well have stopped it happening.
The scale of dredging and pumping required to have stopped any flooding would be wholly impractical but a greater effort would have had some impact at the margins, and would presumably have helped some properties, businesses and so on. It would also have made it easier for those in charge to have blamed the elements if they had more meaningful action to back that claim up with.
If the EA had thought to rent the quarry dewatering pumps now lined up along the river banks at North Moor earlier, the picture would be much different.
The hardline tory Eurosceptics could end up being very disappointed. They should be well used to that by now though.Hannan would be the most entertaining choice:
"...Having made these changes within six months, I shall abolish my job, and return to the United Kingdom."
I accept that second order effects are influenced (I flagged momentum, but obviously there are others as well).
The point is, though, that the squeeze job the Tories have to do is from 7% -> 5% not from 10% -> 5% and presumably this will be easier to achieve (this may also address RN's confusion re the disconnect between UKIP's apparent share and the narrowness of Labour's lead)
Under 5% and far closer to their 2010 3.1% Of which I see no sign whatsoever yet. Sure, we have proof that the tory kipper vote is to an extent mirroring each other. There are soft tory kipper waverers who can come back to the fold which is why the kipper vote can indeed fall markedly after a set of elections like last May. That's not the question. The question is by how much it needs to fall after May going in to an actual election campaign.
If it rises for May and then falls back to where it is now by next Feb then there will be panic on a scale from some tory MPs that makes all that has gone before seem trivial.
8-10% is not an unreasonable estimate. If we don't see a HARD kipper crash after May ( I mean a real and very substantial drop) I'd be more inclined to put it at the upper 10% level.
My guess is more like 7-8%: I tend to be doubtful as to whether DNV's will vote. But probably only 5-6% of that will come from previous voters, of which half will be from UKIP10 and some from other minor parties. So let's say there is a total of 3% from the big 2(and perhaps, for the sake of argument, 2% from the Tories and 1% from Labour)
How many additional seats would Labour win if there was a relatively 1% shift in their favour?
That's an awful lot of supposition to get down to that 1%.
You do remember even the 3.1% kipper vote in 2010 caused more than a few tories to blame that for them not winning a majority and start making very ominous noises? (till the coalition deal shut them up) They almost certainly overstated it but it was a factor.
Sure, a lot of supposition, so I'm not stuck on the overall numbers - more the point was I don't think that the impact is going to be at all significant.
And although I take your point about the whining from some Tories about how UKIP cost them 20 seats, didn't someone credible (Curtice?) do a proper analysis and conclude that they only had a marginal impact on the result.
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?
I wholeheartedly agree - when you live virtually below sea level and get a 3 month sustained deluge you're gonna get flooded - s** all to do with Chris Smith or anyone else - it's just another bit of the 'entitlement culture' - " I've been an idiot and gimme gimme gimme!"
Flooding isn't a certainty.
Dredging and installing additional pumping earlier may well have stopped it happening.
It may have made a small difference, but the way this is being spun on the TV is that these are huge conurbations that have been flooded, in fact these are tiny villages and the numbers of houses that have been flooded is tiny (less than a 100). I think that the lack of flooding in other areas is a great tribute to the infrastructure of this country, we should be celebrating this as this rainfall is a once in a hundred year event and a just a few homes are flooded. I think its remarkable.
I was listening to 5 live earlier and the interviewer was trying to blame the transport secretary for the damage at Dawlish. Its just nuts.
Indeed - 100 feet of railway line has fed it's ballast to the sea. You'd think the entire Great Western Railway had slid under the waves. Network Rail have dealt with larger landslips in Southern England in the last month. The local MP talking about 'tens of £ millions being lost every week' was having a laugh. How many passengers does the line carry FFS?
Poor old Daniel Hannan. All that support from tory members and not much chance at all. 33/1
Still, Hardline Euroseceptics are famous for taking rejection well.
I skimmed his article, and he's quite right that he would also have to be approved by the MEPs, whose salary he wants to take away. ;-)
I see what you've done there. You've injected a more pragmatic approach into a discussion involving hardline Eurosceptics and tory members. When we see any sign of them being amenable to that then things will indeed have taken a very strange turn. Not one I see happening any time soon either.
No, that precisely is not the point, because all the information on which the report is based was in the public domain. "Suppressing" it didn't amount to hoodwinking the SNP, just not doing their job for them. And it wasn't "suppressed", it was classified as "secret" - it's not a document which would have been published, except under the 30 year rule, anyway. This is all very mildly interesting, but it didn't set the Thames on fire when it came ti light in 2005 and certainly isn't going to do so now.
It was given currency more recently by Denis Healey, who presumably knows what he's talking about.
"Healey said the UK state's resistance to Scottish independence was heavily influenced by the scale of North Sea oil discoveries:
'I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of nationalism but that was mainly down to Thatcher. We didn't actually see the rewards from oil in my period in office because we were investing in the infrastructure rather than getting the returns and really, Thatcher wouldn't have been able to carry out any of her policies without that additional 5 per cent on GDP from oil. Incredible good luck she had from that. I think there are a lot of problems connected with it that haven't been faced up to, either by Salmond or by the British and they are mainly to do with oil and the income it provides and yes, I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.'"
Of course if all this stuff was unimportant, we wouldn't be hearing from Westminster how unpredictable, uncertain and de-stabilising the burden of oil is.
Indeed - 100 feet of railway line has fed it's ballast to the sea. You'd think the entire Great Western Railway had slid under the waves. Network Rail have dealt with larger landslips in Southern England in the last month. The local MP talking about 'tens of £ millions being lost every week' was having a laugh. How many passengers does the line carry FFS?
The difference is it is the sole link between Cornwall and the rest, whereas elsewhere it is possible to re-route trains.
It may have made a small difference, but the way this is being spun on the TV is that these are huge conurbations that have been flooded, in fact these are tiny villages and the numbers of houses that have been flooded is tiny (less than a 100). I think that the lack of flooding in other areas is a great tribute to the infrastructure of this country, we should be celebrating this as this rainfall is a once in a hundred year event and a just a few homes are flooded. I think its remarkable.
I was listening to 5 live earlier and the interviewer was trying to blame the transport secretary for the damage at Dawlish. Its just nuts.
Indeed - 100 feet of railway line has fed it's ballast to the sea. You'd think the entire Great Western Railway had slid under the waves. Network Rail have dealt with larger landslips in Southern England in the last month. The local MP talking about 'tens of £ millions being lost every week' was having a laugh. How many passengers does the line carry FFS?
You would guess that more people travel by the A38/A30/A380 than by the rail line.
I also think that, given the exceptional level of rainfall involved, we should really be celebrating the success of previous decades worth of work on flood prevention. In the 60s you would have had major towns and cities like Exeter, Bridgwater and Bristol severely flooded by this sort of rain. It doesn't happen now, so the news is full of a few dozen houses being flooded in rural Somerset. It's ridiculous.
And if you dredge around the Somerset Levels you'll end up testing the flood defences around Bridgwater. Where would you rather flood? Eighty houses in the Somerset Levels or a town of more than 30,000?
No, that precisely is not the point, because all the information on which the report is based was in the public domain. "Suppressing" it didn't amount to hoodwinking the SNP, just not doing their job for them. And it wasn't "suppressed", it was classified as "secret" - it's not a document which would have been published, except under the 30 year rule, anyway. This is all very mildly interesting, but it didn't set the Thames on fire when it came ti light in 2005 and certainly isn't going to do so now.
It was given currency more recently by Denis Healey, who presumably knows what he's talking about.
"Healey said the UK state's resistance to Scottish independence was heavily influenced by the scale of North Sea oil discoveries:
'I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of nationalism but that was mainly down to Thatcher. We didn't actually see the rewards from oil in my period in office because we were investing in the infrastructure rather than getting the returns and really, Thatcher wouldn't have been able to carry out any of her policies without that additional 5 per cent on GDP from oil. Incredible good luck she had from that. I think there are a lot of problems connected with it that haven't been faced up to, either by Salmond or by the British and they are mainly to do with oil and the income it provides and yes, I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.'"
Of course if all this stuff was unimportant, we wouldn't be hearing from Westminster how unpredictable, uncertain and de-stabilising the burden of oil is.
While we can't trust the SNP on Oil because they severely underestimated the benefits that accrue from it. Or so our right wing chum would have it.
Has there been any comment on how many trains FGW had down past Dawlish? I could easily imagine a situation where a significant number of the rolling stock were out of position and caught on the Eastward side.
Tam Dalyell, who served as Labour MP in West Lothian for 43 years, agrees that the document could have led to independence. "In my view it might have done," he said. "It could have tipped the balance it a number of seats including mine. Oil was very much a totemic issue. It was new and it was dramatic. Politics at that time was very different. In 1974 my majority went from around 6,000 in February to around 2,000 after the October general election.
There is nothing in the report that a competent economics A Level student could not have written in 1974.
"Within days of its receipt at Westminster in 1974, Professor McCrone's document was judged as incendiary and classified as secret. It would be sat upon for the next thirty years.
The mandarins demanded that Professor McCrone's 19-page analysis be given "only a most restricted circulation in the Scottish Office because of the extreme sensitivity of the subject." The subject was sensitive alright."
Keep trying to spin to the contrary by all means. It's totally unconvincing but very amusing.
So what? We can see the report now, so we can second-guess "the mandarins". What is in there which is not public domain information, or the obvious consequence of public domain information?
Do you remember the major constitutional crisis triggered in 2005 when all this came to light?
No, that precisely is not the point, because all the information on which the report is based was in the public domain. "Suppressing" it didn't amount to hoodwinking the SNP, just not doing their job for them. And it wasn't "suppressed", it was classified as "secret" - it's not a document which would have been published, except under the 30 year rule, anyway. This is all very mildly interesting, but it didn't set the Thames on fire when it came ti light in 2005 and certainly isn't going to do so now.
It was given currency more recently by Denis Healey, who presumably knows what he's talking about.
"Healey said the UK state's resistance to Scottish independence was heavily influenced by the scale of North Sea oil discoveries:
'I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of nationalism but that was mainly down to Thatcher. We didn't actually see the rewards from oil in my period in office because we were investing in the infrastructure rather than getting the returns and really, Thatcher wouldn't have been able to carry out any of her policies without that additional 5 per cent on GDP from oil. Incredible good luck she had from that. I think there are a lot of problems connected with it that haven't been faced up to, either by Salmond or by the British and they are mainly to do with oil and the income it provides and yes, I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.'"
Of course if all this stuff was unimportant, we wouldn't be hearing from Westminster how unpredictable, uncertain and de-stabilising the burden of oil is.
"The burden of oil" is not just a line. If an economy/government is dependent on the price of a commodity, it has an effect.
Indeed - 100 feet of railway line has fed it's ballast to the sea. You'd think the entire Great Western Railway had slid under the waves. Network Rail have dealt with larger landslips in Southern England in the last month. The local MP talking about 'tens of £ millions being lost every week' was having a laugh. How many passengers does the line carry FFS?
The difference is it is the sole link between Cornwall and the rest, whereas elsewhere it is possible to re-route trains.
It's early February so we can rule out large losses from tourism, and the A roads remain open.
At a glance, 16 trains leave Plymouth for London a day.
Outside of rush hour how packed are they - the last time I travelled on that line heading east from Plymouth on a week day, there were a handful of passengers per carriage until long after Dawlish.
How much freight moves along that line - quarry products I'd guess, and what else?
No, that precisely is not the point, because all the information on which the report is based was in the public domain. "Suppressing" it didn't amount to hoodwinking the SNP, just not doing their job for them. And it wasn't "suppressed", it was classified as "secret" - it's not a document which would have been published, except under the 30 year rule, anyway. This is all very mildly interesting, but it didn't set the Thames on fire when it came ti light in 2005 and certainly isn't going to do so now.
It was given currency more recently by Denis Healey, who presumably knows what he's talking about.
"Healey said the UK state's resistance to Scottish independence was heavily influenced by the scale of North Sea oil discoveries:
'I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of nationalism but that was mainly down to Thatcher. We didn't actually see the rewards from oil in my period in office because we were investing in the infrastructure rather than getting the returns and really, Thatcher wouldn't have been able to carry out any of her policies without that additional 5 per cent on GDP from oil. Incredible good luck she had from that. I think there are a lot of problems connected with it that haven't been faced up to, either by Salmond or by the British and they are mainly to do with oil and the income it provides and yes, I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.'"
Of course if all this stuff was unimportant, we wouldn't be hearing from Westminster how unpredictable, uncertain and de-stabilising the burden of oil is.
"The burden of oil" is not just a line. If an economy/government is dependent on the price of a commodity, it has an effect.
Any major dependency on a single sector of an economy can be a risk/burden, but afaik there's never been a case of an independent state giving away its burdensome oil reserves. It's probably too late to start a significant oil fund now, but 30 years of revenues would certainly be a decent support to diversifying an already reasonably diverse economy.
It's early February so we can rule out large losses from tourism, and the A roads remain open.
At a glance, 16 trains leave Plymouth for London a day.
Outside of rush hour how packed are they - the last time I travelled on that line heading east from Plymouth on a week day, there were a handful of passengers per carriage until long after Dawlish.
How much freight moves along that line - quarry products I'd guess, and what else?
Trains come from other places than London! Virgin operates the cross country service from Glasgow/Edinburgh all the way down to Penzance.
I can't comment on the freight, but the passenger trains are usually pretty busy, with finding a seat being difficult at times (at least the times I have been going down SW).
Has there been any comment on how many trains FGW had down past Dawlish? I could easily imagine a situation where a significant number of the rolling stock were out of position and caught on the Eastward side.
According to wikipedia just over one quarter of their HST class 43 power cars are based there, so I would suggest their biggest problem would likely be if they had too many to the west of Dawlish when the line was severed.
I've taken max on Mitchell at 7-2 (All of £14.91) reckon worth dutching Patterson ?
I've just gone with a tenner (surprised they gave me as much!) on Mitchell. Cant be bothered covering that as it's only a tenner. Though in itself 11/2 on Paterson seems reasonable too (just nowhere near as good as the initial odds on Mitchell were).
I've taken max on Mitchell at 7-2 (All of £14.91) reckon worth dutching Patterson ?
Are there any Badger moving goalposts on the horizon? I wouldn't classify him as a safe pair of hands but he's a right winger who speaks several languages. Which is why Brogan tipped him lest we forget.
I've taken max on Mitchell at 7-2 (All of £14.91) reckon worth dutching Patterson ?
I've just gone with a tenner (surprised they gave me as much!) on Mitchell. Cant be bothered covering that as it's only a tenner. Though in itself 11/2 on Paterson seems reasonable too (just nowhere near as good as the initial odds on Mitchell were).
Hmm I'll cover stakes with Patterson then.
I think Mitchell is a decent favourite - no obvious route back into the cabinet for him and the third most popular choice amongst the party after the pair I wouldn't take at 1000-1 (For the job) of Hannan and Redwood.
No doubt Mike will come up with some huge outsider tip tommorow !
The next European Commissioner market is one where I would rather be the bookie than the punter. Perhaps Betfair will open a market on this at some point.
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?
I wholeheartedly agree - when you live virtually below sea level and get a 3 month sustained deluge you're gonna get flooded - s** all to do with Chris Smith or anyone else - it's just another bit of the 'entitlement culture' - " I've been an idiot and gimme gimme gimme!"
Flooding isn't a certainty.
Dredging and installing additional pumping earlier may well have stopped it happening.
The scale of dredging and pumping required to have stopped any flooding would be wholly impractical but a greater effort would have had some impact at the margins, and would presumably have helped some properties, businesses and so on. It would also have made it easier for those in charge to have blamed the elements if they had more meaningful action to back that claim up with.
If the EA had thought to rent the quarry dewatering pumps now lined up along the river banks at North Moor earlier, the picture would be much different.
Really? What's the volume of the pumps, and how many are there, compared to the amount of rain that's fallen?
No, that precisely is not the point, because all the information on which the report is based was in the public domain. "Suppressing" it didn't amount to hoodwinking the SNP, just not doing their job for them. And it wasn't "suppressed", it was classified as "secret" - it's not a document which would have been published, except under the 30 year rule, anyway. This is all very mildly interesting, but it didn't set the Thames on fire when it came ti light in 2005 and certainly isn't going to do so now.
It was given currency more recently by Denis Healey, who presumably knows what he's talking about.
"Healey said the UK state's resistance to Scottish independence was heavily influenced by the scale of North Sea oil discoveries:
'I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of nationalism but that was mainly down to Thatcher. We didn't actually see the rewards from oil in my period in office because we were investing in the infrastructure rather than getting the returns and really, Thatcher wouldn't have been able to carry out any of her policies without that additional 5 per cent on GDP from oil. Incredible good luck she had from that. I think there are a lot of problems connected with it that haven't been faced up to, either by Salmond or by the British and they are mainly to do with oil and the income it provides and yes, I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.'"
Of course if all this stuff was unimportant, we wouldn't be hearing from Westminster how unpredictable, uncertain and de-stabilising the burden of oil is.
"The burden of oil" is not just a line. If an economy/government is dependent on the price of a commodity, it has an effect.
Any major dependency on a single sector of an economy can be a risk/burden, but afaik there's never been a case of an independent state giving away its burdensome oil reserves. It's probably too late to start a significant oil fund now, but 30 years of revenues would certainly be a decent support to diversifying an already reasonably diverse economy.
Scots blaming everyone else but themselves for their misfortunes, yet again.
And as for the vision of a Tartan Nirvana, if only those evil English hadn't stolen oor money, What a hoot. It would have been frittered away in social security payments long ago.
I've just noticed that Paddy has "David" Hannan at 11/2. If they are implying that almost any other Hannan besides the MEP called Daniel has a better shot at the job I'd be inclined to agree.
I've just noticed that Paddy has "David" Hannan at 11/2. If they are implying that almost any other Hannan besides the MEP called Daniel has a better shot at the job I'd be inclined to agree.
Completely O/T but Matt Taibbi has been the journalist of the economic crash by a million miles. Imagine if you can a Robert Peston who (a) knew what he was talking about and (b) wasn't frightened to tell it as it is even if that had political implications (hard to imagine I know).
He draws attention to the response of the bank to over $20bn of fines in one year was to fire a lot of low rankers and double the salary of the Chief Exec! He concludes, quite rightly, that regulation of banks etc will never work if the penalties fall on the firms rather than the guys (and they nearly always are) who take the risks and pocket the short term gains.
A major concern of mine is that we still have not learned this fundamental lesson. It is far more important that traders and supervisors of traders go to jail for LIBOR or the FX scandals or any other piece of rigging that is identified than the institutions they work for are fined. As Taibbi puts it these people just don't care about the institutions. It is all about themselves. Truly the unacceptable face of capitalism. Taibbi has shown it more clearly than anyone else.
Mr. Isam, I fear you're mistaking the 'turn around' cause. People are delighted to give UKIP the benefit of the doubt because they're something different, and all three parties are generally similar. More importantly, Farage sometimes seems eccentric, but he also appears unscripted.
I don't normally repeat things I tweet about (excepting F1 articles, of course) but I was doing some research for a new short story I'm writing, and was surprised and interested to learn that before the revolver as we know it came about there were some pistols that had multiple revolving barrels (pepperbox). These fired single shots at a time, unlike the Nock seven-barrelled gun made famous by Sharpe's Sergeant Harper, which blasted seven bullets all at once.
No, that precisely is not the point, because all the information on which the report is based was in the public domain. "Suppressing" it didn't amount to hoodwinking the SNP, just not doing their job for them. And it wasn't "suppressed", it was classified as "secret" - it's not a document which would have been published, except under the 30 year rule, anyway. This is all very mildly interesting, but it didn't set the Thames on fire when it came ti light in 2005 and certainly isn't going to do so now.
It was given currency more recently by Denis Healey, who presumably knows what he's talking about.
"Healey said the UK state's resistance to Scottish independence was heavily influenced by the taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.'"
Of course if all this stuff was unimportant, we wouldn't be hearing from Westminster how unpredictable, uncertain and de-stabilising the burden of oil is.
"The burden of oil" is not just a line. If an economy/government is dependent on the price of a commodity, it has an effect.
Any major dependency on a single sector of an economy can be a risk/burden, but afaik there's never been a case of an independent state giving away its burdensome oil reserves. It's probably too late to start a significant oil fund now, but 30 years of revenues would certainly be a decent support to diversifying an already reasonably diverse economy.
Scots blaming everyone else but themselves for their misfortunes, yet again.
And as for the vision of a Tartan Nirvana, if only those evil English hadn't stolen oor money, What a hoot. It would have been frittered away in social security payments long ago.
That's a bit unfair, I think you'll find it Nats blaming everyone in Southern England for their misfortunes.
Sky News reporting Cameron is visiting Somerset.........
Cue for the worst storm in living memory...
I'd say that's almost a given! Mind you, the residents can only be thankful that Gordon Brown isn't still in charge, the county would probably just fall into the sea.
Completely O/T but Matt Taibbi has been the journalist of the economic crash by a million miles. Imagine if you can a Robert Peston who (a) knew what he was talking about and (b) wasn't frightened to tell it as it is even if that had political implications (hard to imagine I know).
He draws attention to the response of the bank to over $20bn of fines in one year was to fire a lot of low rankers and double the salary of the Chief Exec! He concludes, quite rightly, that regulation of banks etc will never work if the penalties fall on the firms rather than the guys (and they nearly always are) who take the risks and pocket the short term gains.
A major concern of mine is that we still have not learned this fundamental lesson. It is far more important that traders and supervisors of traders go to jail for LIBOR or the FX scandals or any other piece of rigging that is identified than the institutions they work for are fined. As Taibbi puts it these people just don't care about the institutions. It is all about themselves. Truly the unacceptable face of capitalism. Taibbi has shown it more clearly than anyone else.
Wow, I didn't realise he was an economic historian as well as a great journalist (IIRc he came up with 'vampire squids').
JS Morgan disappeared over 100 years ago. It was renamed Morgan Grenfell, at the time that its US business was spun off as JP Morgan.
No, that precisely is not the point, because all the information on which the report is based was in the public domain. "Suppressing" it didn't amount to hoodwinking the SNP, just not doing their job for them. And it wasn't "suppressed", it was classified as "secret" - it's not a document which would have been published, except under the 30 year rule, anyway. This is all very mildly interesting, but it didn't set the Thames on fire when it came ti light in 2005 and certainly isn't going to do so now.
It was given currency more recently by Denis Healey, who presumably knows what he's talking about.
"Healey said the UK state's resistance to Scottish independence was heavily influenced by the scale of North Sea oil discoveries:
'I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of nationalism but that was mainly down to Thatcher. We didn't actually see the rewards from oil in my period in office because we were investing in the infrastructure rather than getting the returns and really, Thatcher wouldn't have been able to carry out any of her policies without that additional 5 per cent on GDP from oil. Incredible good luck she had from that. I think there are a lot of problems connected with it that haven't been faced up to, either by Salmond or by the British and they are mainly to do with oil and the income it provides and yes, I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.'"
Of course if all this stuff was unimportant, we wouldn't be hearing from Westminster how unpredictable, uncertain and de-stabilising the burden of oil is.
"The burden of oil" is not just a line. If an economy/government is dependent on the price of a commodity, it has an effect.
Scots blaming everyone else but themselves for their misfortunes, yet again.
And as for the vision of a Tartan Nirvana, if only those evil English hadn't stolen oor money, What a hoot. It would have been frittered away in social security payments long ago.
Hence the rush to keep the pound - they can continue to blame London.
Any major dependency on a single sector of an economy can be a risk/burden, but afaik there's never been a case of an independent state giving away its burdensome oil reserves. It's probably too late to start a significant oil fund now, but 30 years of revenues would certainly be a decent support to diversifying an already reasonably diverse economy.
Scots blaming everyone else but themselves for their misfortunes, yet again.
And as for the vision of a Tartan Nirvana, if only those evil English hadn't stolen oor money, What a hoot. It would have been frittered away in social security payments long ago.
I know you're not a very complicated individual, but surely you could trot out some tired old tropes thought up by someone else that actually relate to what you're responding to?
Thread header is rather daft. How can you say 32% is a high figure for other/DNV when that includes anyone who voted for the party last time. Deduct those voters and you're left with a similar level to the other parties.
#Floods show risk of ignoring #climate change, says Prince Charles | Telegraph: http://bit.ly/1ix753N
Thanks goodness that's something a tory PM would never dream of saying.
Cameron 'suspects' floods linked to climate change
The floods affecting large parts of the country are probably connected to climate change, David Cameron has said.
The prime minister told MPs that there were more "abnormal" weather events occurring and he "suspected" they were linked to global temperature changes.
Sky News reporting Cameron is visiting Somerset.........
Cue for the worst storm in living memory...
I'd say that's almost a given! Mind you, the residents can only be thankful that Gordon Brown isn't still in charge, the county would probably just fall into the sea.
Let's not forget that the Great Gordon Renaissance of 2007 was based entirely on Gord giving good flood while Cameron was ridiculed for going off to Rwanda.How soon can we start going on about the absence of ed from Somerset?
Thread header is rather daft. How can you say 32% is a high figure for other/DNV when that includes anyone who voted for the party last time. Deduct those voters and you're left with a similar level to the other parties.
Yes
Pointed that out at the very start of the thread... I take the stony silence from the gaggle of lefties in response as a big tick and a gold star next to my sums
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?
I wholeheartedly agree - when you live virtually below sea level and get a 3 month sustained deluge you're gonna get flooded - s** all to do with Chris Smith or anyone else - it's just another bit of the 'entitlement culture' - " I've been an idiot and gimme gimme gimme!"
Flooding isn't a certainty.
Dredging and installing additional pumping earlier may well have stopped it happening.
It may have made a small difference, but the way this is being spun on the TV is that these are huge conurbations that have been flooded, in fact these are tiny villages and the numbers of houses that have been flooded is tiny (less than a 100). I think that the lack of flooding in other areas is a great tribute to the infrastructure of this country, we should be celebrating this as this rainfall is a once in a hundred year event and a just a few homes are flooded. I think its remarkable.
I was listening to 5 live earlier and the interviewer was trying to blame the transport secretary for the damage at Dawlish. Its just nuts.
Haha RT @catherine_mayer: Wonder what gave Cameron the idea of visiting Somerset Levels? pic.twitter.com/6jjvh6QIXt
Surely Dave is now at the stage where Eck's word is his command (except when it comes to a debate).
'Mr Salmond also suggested the residents of the Somerset Levels were more likely to call Downing Street to tell the Prime Minister to “get his wellies on” and tackle the flooding crisis, than to call their friends in Scotland to tell them to vote against independence.'
"So I asked someone very senior at the Department of Health, who just smiled and said: "Ah yes. We wondered when someone would notice. The fact is there hasn't been a crisis." "
Completely O/T but Matt Taibbi has been the journalist of the economic crash by a million miles. Imagine if you can a Robert Peston who (a) knew what he was talking about and (b) wasn't frightened to tell it as it is even if that had political implications (hard to imagine I know).
He draws attention to the response of the bank to over $20bn of fines in one year was to fire a lot of low rankers and double the salary of the Chief Exec! He concludes, quite rightly, that regulation of banks etc will never work if the penalties fall on the firms rather than the guys (and they nearly always are) who take the risks and pocket the short term gains.
A major concern of mine is that we still have not learned this fundamental lesson. It is far more important that traders and supervisors of traders go to jail for LIBOR or the FX scandals or any other piece of rigging that is identified than the institutions they work for are fined. As Taibbi puts it these people just don't care about the institutions. It is all about themselves. Truly the unacceptable face of capitalism. Taibbi has shown it more clearly than anyone else.
Wow, I didn't realise he was an economic historian as well as a great journalist (IIRc he came up with 'vampire squids').
JS Morgan disappeared over 100 years ago. It was renamed Morgan Grenfell, at the time that its US business was spun off as JP Morgan.
I was astounded to hear a few days ago on ITV News that only 40 houses had been flooded. That's a very serious challenge for those people, and we should also consider the impact on farmers and the like, but the media coverage appears to be driven by getting nice shots and criticising the Government/EA. Some of that (latter) is fair (river dredging etc), but the land is lower than the rivers, and the weather can't be controlled.
MInd you, media coverage of floods is always dire. Yorkshire disappeared from newsreaders' minds once the south was struck in 2007 (not that Gloucestershire and Worcestershire shouldn't have had dominance of the news agenda, but Yorkshire was hit harder and barely mentioned again. I still remember that prick George Alagiah[sp] grinning when introducing a story about the flooding here).
I was astounded to hear a few days ago on ITV News that only 40 houses had been flooded. That's a very serious challenge for those people, and we should also consider the impact on farmers and the like, but the media coverage appears to be driven by getting nice shots and criticising the Government/EA. Some of that (latter) is fair (river dredging etc), but the land is lower than the rivers, and the weather can't be controlled.
MInd you, media coverage of floods is always dire. Yorkshire disappeared from newsreaders' minds once the south was struck in 2007 (not that Gloucestershire and Worcestershire shouldn't have had dominance of the news agenda, but Yorkshire was hit harder and barely mentioned again. I still remember that prick George Alagiah[sp] grinning when introducing a story about the flooding here).
The Speccy has a good article. "...the third flood disaster to hit the Somerset Levels in three years, the Environment Agency has been horribly caught out by a catastrophe largely of its own making.
They have always been accustomed to winter flooding of the vast area that is below sea level. But this is worse than anything in memory — not just more extensive but lasting for months rather than weeks.
The cost this year may be in excess of £100 million. Dredging the rivers would cost £4.5 million, which the Agency found to be excessive. (Although it cheerfully footed the £31 million bill for a bird sanctuary.)"
It was given currency more recently by Denis Healey, who presumably knows what he's talking about.
"Healey said the UK state's resistance to Scottish independence was heavily influenced by the scale of North Sea oil discoveries: http://tinyurl.com/p73b25n
Of course if all this stuff was unimportant, we wouldn't be hearing from Westminster how unpredictable, uncertain and de-stabilising the burden of oil is.
"The burden of oil" is not just a line. If an economy/government is dependent on the price of a commodity, it has an effect.
Hence the rush to keep the pound - they can continue to blame London.
Not going to happen.....
However, while the Scottish National Party wants to keep the pound, the authors conclude that Scotland might find it would be better to abandon a currency union – which would be subject to tight conditions dictated elsewhere – and instead establish its own currency.
Mr. Dave, I heard (could be wrong) that in some bit of East Anglia or other they fiercely resisted the Environment Agency's attempts to take over responsibility and insisted on doing it themselves, for fear that if it were left to the quango the rivers would end up not being dredged. Anecdotal, so not sure if it's right or not, but there we are.
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?
I wholeheartedly agree - when you live virtually below sea level and get a 3 month sustained deluge you're gonna get flooded - s** all to do with Chris Smith or anyone else - it's just another bit of the 'entitlement culture' - " I've been an idiot and gimme gimme gimme!"
Flooding isn't a certainty.
Dredging and installing additional pumping earlier may well have stopped it happening.
It may have made a small difference, but the way this is being spun on the TV is that these are huge conurbations that have been flooded, in fact these are tiny villages and the numbers of houses that have been flooded is tiny (less than a 100). I think that the lack of flooding in other areas is a great tribute to the infrastructure of this country, we should be celebrating this as this rainfall is a once in a hundred year event and a just a few homes are flooded. I think its remarkable.
I was listening to 5 live earlier and the interviewer was trying to blame the transport secretary for the damage at Dawlish. Its just nuts.
40 houses flooded in the Somerset Levels.
That just demonstrates the lunacy of the coverage and the blame game
Thread header is rather daft. How can you say 32% is a high figure for other/DNV when that includes anyone who voted for the party last time. Deduct those voters and you're left with a similar level to the other parties.
Yes
Pointed that out at the very start of the thread... I take the stony silence from the gaggle of lefties in response as a big tick and a gold star next to my sums
Mr. Dave, I heard (could be wrong) that in some bit of East Anglia or other they fiercely resisted the Environment Agency's attempts to take over responsibility and insisted on doing it themselves, for fear that if it were left to the quango the rivers would end up not being dredged. Anecdotal, so not sure if it's right or not, but there we are.
I think the Tories used to advocate returning the responsibility to local government before the 2010 election.
Given your earlier comments, when you sell your house for £200,000, only to see it on the market again a couple of months later for £350,000, you will no doubt consider yourself to have got a bargain. You will no doubt also think that the estate agent earned every penny of his hefty commission, and that it was fortunate that you accepted that offer from the friend of the agent who came around before it even went on the market even though you had to turn seven other viewers away the very next day.
Just bear in mind that your neighbours may not share that rosy view. And please don't lecture me on the success of the Royal Mail privatisation.
I find that those here who descend into name calling (in your case "economically illiterate" etc.) invariably do so in the absence of a coherent argument.
I'll do you the courtesy of one further reply.
Should I have sold my single property at approx £150K below market value I'd have thought :
1. Why did the agent forgo a larger commission than he might have. 2. Had I suddenly become a member of the Labour party a couple of months ago. 3. My earlier sale among the same 500 million houses in the street was spectacular poor timing.
I called your view "economically illiterate" as indeed it is. Your lack of knowledge on how vast share issues work in the market has been lain bare.
Please don't embarrass yourself further on the matter unless of course your responses are to be considered an open invitation to join the Labour party front bench treasury team. In which case "Carry On @Wulfrun_Phil"
Completely O/T but Matt Taibbi has been the journalist of the economic crash by a million miles. Imagine if you can a Robert Peston who (a) knew what he was talking about and (b) wasn't frightened to tell it as it is even if that had political implications (hard to imagine I know).
He draws attention to the response of the bank to over $20bn of fines in one year was to fire a lot of low rankers and double the salary of the Chief Exec! He concludes, quite rightly, that regulation of banks etc will never work if the penalties fall on the firms rather than the guys (and they nearly always are) who take the risks and pocket the short term gains.
A major concern of mine is that we still have not learned this fundamental lesson. It is far more important that traders and supervisors of traders go to jail for LIBOR or the FX scandals or any other piece of rigging that is identified than the institutions they work for are fined. As Taibbi puts it these people just don't care about the institutions. It is all about themselves. Truly the unacceptable face of capitalism. Taibbi has shown it more clearly than anyone else.
Wow, I didn't realise he was an economic historian as well as a great journalist (IIRc he came up with 'vampire squids').
JS Morgan disappeared over 100 years ago. It was renamed Morgan Grenfell, at the time that its US business was spun off as JP Morgan.
In fairness that was a typo by me. Not him.
I must have got the tone wrong... was aiming for gentle mockery rather than serious criticism ;-)
Thread header is rather daft. How can you say 32% is a high figure for other/DNV when that includes anyone who voted for the party last time. Deduct those voters and you're left with a similar level to the other parties.
Yes
Pointed that out at the very start of the thread... I take the stony silence from the gaggle of lefties in response as a big tick and a gold star next to my sums
A total of 3.1% voted for UKIP at GE2010.
And your point?
3.1% out of ~12% vote share would be 25% no, leaving less than 10% as true other/DNV.
So I would say his point is that your aspersions about UKIP's vote solidity are largely based on a willful abuse of the fact that UKIP voters are bundled together with non voters in your figures.
I think the Tories are unwise to scapegoat and badmouth the Environment Agency.
Once it becomes a political blame issue, it won't be long until fingers point elsewhere.
People had accepted that this has simply been freaky weather. The Tories should have left it at that, but as so often their attack dog instincts kicked in. And when that happens, they have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot.
And the idea that dredging would have stopped this is for the birds. The Tories were absolutely right to reject dredging.
Why were the 'Tories' right to reject dredging? And indeed, how much dredging went on in that area between 1997 and 2010?
It could well be that, in the balance between wildlife and flood protection, the EA have been concentrating too much on the wildlife. It may not have stopped these floods, but may well have helped as part of a strategy.
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?
I wholeheartedly agree - when you live virtually below sea level and get a 3 month sustained deluge you're gonna get flooded - s** all to do with Chris Smith or anyone else - it's just another bit of the 'entitlement culture' - " I've been an idiot and gimme gimme gimme!"
Flooding isn't a certainty.
Dredging and installing additional pumping earlier may well have stopped it happening.
It may have made a small difference, but the way this is being spun on the TV is that these are huge conurbations that have been flooded, in fact these are tiny villages and the numbers of houses that have been flooded is tiny (less than a 100). I think that the lack of flooding in other areas is a great tribute to the infrastructure of this country, we should be celebrating this as this rainfall is a once in a hundred year event and a just a few homes are flooded. I think its remarkable.
I was listening to 5 live earlier and the interviewer was trying to blame the transport secretary for the damage at Dawlish. Its just nuts.
40 houses flooded in the Somerset Levels.
That just demonstrates the lunacy of the coverage and the blame game
It isn't just the houses, though, is it? It's the farmland, roads, rail, businesses and just general disruption. Given the howls of despair if poor London gets a few snowflakes, I think the unfortunate people affected by this crisis deserve a bit of coverage.
You had better be prepared for the blame game too. This has happened on Cameron's watch, and even though it's hardly his fault, he might well be left standing when the music stops.
It was given currency more recently by Denis Healey, who presumably knows what he's talking about.
"Healey said the UK state's resistance to Scottish independence was heavily influenced by the scale of North Sea oil discoveries: http://tinyurl.com/p73b25n
Of course if all this stuff was unimportant, we wouldn't be hearing from Westminster how unpredictable, uncertain and de-stabilising the burden of oil is.
"The burden of oil" is not just a line. If an economy/government is dependent on the price of a commodity, it has an effect.
Hence the rush to keep the pound - they can continue to blame London.
Not going to happen.....
However, while the Scottish National Party wants to keep the pound, the authors conclude that Scotland might find it would be better to abandon a currency union – which would be subject to tight conditions dictated elsewhere – and instead establish its own currency.
This is what I have been saying for months. When the euro got as popular as excrement Salmond had a panic and jumped on the £ without thinking through any of the implications which would be deeply inimical to Scotland in even the medium term.
A transititional period would make sense so that an independent Scotland could start to establish some form of track record and get its budgets in order but really, an independent Scotland needs an independent currency if it is not to be broken on the wheel of English interest rate decisions and monetary policy which will be focussed on an even more dominant London/South east property inflation problem to the exclusion of all else.
The Speccy has a good article. "...the third flood disaster to hit the Somerset Levels in three years, the Environment Agency has been horribly caught out by a catastrophe largely of its own making.
They have always been accustomed to winter flooding of the vast area that is below sea level. But this is worse than anything in memory — not just more extensive but lasting for months rather than weeks.
The cost this year may be in excess of £100 million. Dredging the rivers would cost £4.5 million, which the Agency found to be excessive. (Although it cheerfully footed the £31 million bill for a bird sanctuary.)"
Well of course it is worse than anything in living memory - there has been more rain than at any time in living memory. Duh.
Dredging the rivers would not have prevented the flooding, and if it costs £4.5 million a year to avoid £100 million of damages once every hundred years then it would cost four and a half times as much to dredge then it would to compensate the people affected.
The staff costs of the Agency rose by £30m or 8% compared to the previous year, reaching a total of £395.3 million. The Agency employed 12,252 people including temps and contractor personnel. Pension contributions cost £56 m , with a loss on the fund recognised that year in the accounts bringing the total pension cost to £197.4 million.
The total cost of pensions was almost as high as the capital works, where they spent £219million during the year.
Within the capital works just £20.3 million was spent on improving or maintaining culverts and channels to ensure free flow of water.
Any major dependency on a single sector of an economy can be a risk/burden, but afaik there's never been a case of an independent state giving away its burdensome oil reserves. It's probably too late to start a significant oil fund now, but 30 years of revenues would certainly be a decent support to diversifying an already reasonably diverse economy.
Scots blaming everyone else but themselves for their misfortunes, yet again.
And as for the vision of a Tartan Nirvana, if only those evil English hadn't stolen oor money, What a hoot. It would have been frittered away in social security payments long ago.
That's an interesting thought, that the Scots should have voted in the SNP and got indy back in the 1970s - only way they can very well be 'blamed' for what was done.
Plus the money was indeed "frittered away" on the dole - but not just in Scotland but across the entire UK, as part of the social and economic restructuring by Mrs Thatcher and her successors. I'm not going to get involved in a discussion whether this last is true or not, partly because this is outwith my competence, but partly because there is enough factual truth in it (money in , money out) to make it a very strong perception with many people, who will have been reminded lately of all this by the exceptional state funeral for Lady Thatcher.
But in any case the money is gone. And we (as in any situation) have to try and set the resentments, such as they are, of history aside and work with what we have today and tomorrow while bearing in mind that events of recent decades can certainly affect trust and perception, and that attempts to exploit history in the deployment of current politics have to be challenged.
What I see in the indy debate, as regards key figures (indeed, Mr Cameron today) is a No side that is obsessed with history - and often irrelevant history - we should vote No just because Scottish regiments were in landing craft on D-day, urged Mr C a year ago - in almost complete contrast to the Yes side.
Comments
You surprise me. "Within days of its receipt at Westminster in 1974, Professor McCrone's document was judged as incendiary and classified as secret. It would be sat upon for the next thirty years.
The mandarins demanded that Professor McCrone's 19-page analysis be given "only a most restricted circulation in the Scottish Office because of the extreme sensitivity of the subject." The subject was sensitive alright."
Keep trying to spin to the contrary by all means. It's totally unconvincing but very amusing.
At school we were taught that the early Britons who lived in that area lived in Lake Villages which were on "stilts" and lived mainly from the fish and the eels. Later the area was drained in order to use the rich land.
I propose Nigel Farage (200/1) and Nadine Dorries (100/1) on a job-share basis.
You do remember even the 3.1% kipper vote in 2010 caused more than a few tories to blame that for them not winning a majority and start making very ominous noises? (till the coalition deal shut them up) They almost certainly overstated it but it was a factor.
Other people that don't agree with my politics have backed this up without any recognition.
I guess the next stage is to look at 2010 Tory/Lab or Tory/LD marginals with a low turnout and a decent combined UKIP/BNP vote
I was listening to 5 live earlier and the interviewer was trying to blame the transport secretary for the damage at Dawlish. Its just nuts.
No, that precisely is not the point, because all the information on which the report is based was in the public domain. "Suppressing" it didn't amount to hoodwinking the SNP, just not doing their job for them. And it wasn't "suppressed", it was classified as "secret" - it's not a document which would have been published, except under the 30 year rule, anyway. This is all very mildly interesting, but it didn't set the Thames on fire when it came ti light in 2005 and certainly isn't going to do so now.
They should be well used to that by now though.Hannan would be the most entertaining choice:
"...Having made these changes within six months, I shall abolish my job, and return to the United Kingdom."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100258069/the-first-thing-ill-do-as-britains-next-commissioner/
Do you have a list of 2010 constituencies and results filtered by turnout?
Still, Hardline Euroseceptics are famous for taking rejection well.
And although I take your point about the whining from some Tories about how UKIP cost them
20 seats, didn't someone credible (Curtice?) do a proper analysis and conclude that they only had a marginal impact on the result.
*removes PB Tory-tinted spectacles*
"Healey said the UK state's resistance to Scottish independence was heavily influenced by the scale of North Sea oil discoveries:
'I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of nationalism but that was mainly down to Thatcher. We didn't actually see the rewards from oil in my period in office because we were investing in the infrastructure rather than getting the returns and really, Thatcher wouldn't have been able to carry out any of her policies without that additional 5 per cent on GDP from oil. Incredible good luck she had from that.
I think there are a lot of problems connected with it that haven't been faced up to, either by Salmond or by the British and they are mainly to do with oil and the income it provides and yes, I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.'"
http://tinyurl.com/p73b25n
Of course if all this stuff was unimportant, we wouldn't be hearing from Westminster how unpredictable, uncertain and de-stabilising the burden of oil is.
I also think that, given the exceptional level of rainfall involved, we should really be celebrating the success of previous decades worth of work on flood prevention. In the 60s you would have had major towns and cities like Exeter, Bridgwater and Bristol severely flooded by this sort of rain. It doesn't happen now, so the news is full of a few dozen houses being flooded in rural Somerset. It's ridiculous.
And if you dredge around the Somerset Levels you'll end up testing the flood defences around Bridgwater. Where would you rather flood? Eighty houses in the Somerset Levels or a town of more than 30,000?
While we can't trust the SNP on Oil because they severely underestimated the benefits that accrue from it. Or so our right wing chum would have it.
The mandarins demanded that Professor McCrone's 19-page analysis be given "only a most restricted circulation in the Scottish Office because of the extreme sensitivity of the subject." The subject was sensitive alright."
Keep trying to spin to the contrary by all means. It's totally unconvincing but very amusing.
So what? We can see the report now, so we can second-guess "the mandarins". What is in there which is not public domain information, or the obvious consequence of public domain information?
Do you remember the major constitutional crisis triggered in 2005 when all this came to light?
Me neither.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
http://www.aei.org/issue/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/europe/the-soviet-collapse/
Me neither.
Rest assured it had and will continue to have an impact in scotland regardless of what those who are unfamiliar with scottish politics may think.
At a glance, 16 trains leave Plymouth for London a day.
Outside of rush hour how packed are they - the last time I travelled on that line heading east from Plymouth on a week day, there were a handful of passengers per carriage until long after Dawlish.
How much freight moves along that line - quarry products I'd guess, and what else?
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/european-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1616833
It's probably too late to start a significant oil fund now, but 30 years of revenues would certainly be a decent support to diversifying an already reasonably diverse economy.
I can't comment on the freight, but the passenger trains are usually pretty busy, with finding a seat being difficult at times (at least the times I have been going down SW).
According to wikipedia just over one quarter of their HST class 43 power cars are based there, so I would suggest their biggest problem would likely be if they had too many to the west of Dawlish when the line was severed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25901814
Teflon UKIP, the countries favourite political party
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-tops-independent-on-sunday-poll-as-the-nations-favourite-party-9069625.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100255880/there-will-be-tory-trouble-on-europe-unless-david-cameron-sends-a-right-winger-to-brussels/
This would seem to be all about pacifying the angry tory backbenches. As usual.
I think Mitchell is a decent favourite - no obvious route back into the cabinet for him and the third most popular choice amongst the party after the pair I wouldn't take at 1000-1 (For the job) of Hannan and Redwood.
No doubt Mike will come up with some huge outsider tip tommorow !
On that note, quite a funny story if true: were pumps not on due to noise?
http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/bridgwater_news/10970510.Northmoor_family_harassed_over_non_existent____noise_abatement_order___/
This has been exceptional rainfill linked with high tides. But the EA seem to have been caught totally unprepared for this sort of thing.
And as for the vision of a Tartan Nirvana, if only those evil English hadn't stolen oor money, What a hoot. It would have been frittered away in social security payments long ago.
Mr. Isam, slightly old link but thanks for posting it. I hadn't seen the Farage forecast.
And, in defence of the Labour politician referred to, some aliens can be quite tasty (cf Seven of Nine).
Was the most popular link on the bbc site for a couple of days. UKIP turned that story around brilliantly
I have just caught up with another outstanding piece in Rolling Stone magazine about the fines imposed on J S Morgan which demonstrates the inability of our new, supposedly vigorous regulators on both sides of the pond: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/jamie-dimons-raise-proves-u-s-regulatory-strategy-is-a-joke-20140130
He draws attention to the response of the bank to over $20bn of fines in one year was to fire a lot of low rankers and double the salary of the Chief Exec! He concludes, quite rightly, that regulation of banks etc will never work if the penalties fall on the firms rather than the guys (and they nearly always are) who take the risks and pocket the short term gains.
A major concern of mine is that we still have not learned this fundamental lesson. It is far more important that traders and supervisors of traders go to jail for LIBOR or the FX scandals or any other piece of rigging that is identified than the institutions they work for are fined. As Taibbi puts it these people just don't care about the institutions. It is all about themselves. Truly the unacceptable face of capitalism. Taibbi has shown it more clearly than anyone else.
"PM has arrived in Somerset to examine the floods, and bring back the remains of Lord Smith."
Mind you, the residents can only be thankful that Gordon Brown isn't still in charge, the county would probably just fall into the sea.
JS Morgan disappeared over 100 years ago. It was renamed Morgan Grenfell, at the time that its US business was spun off as JP Morgan.
Haha RT @catherine_mayer: Wonder what gave Cameron the idea of visiting Somerset Levels? pic.twitter.com/6jjvh6QIXt
Cameron says UK is "a brand and a powerful brand". Anyone would think he used to be a marketing man...
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4716164.Interview_with_Scottish_First_minister_Alex_Salmond_about_the_floods_in_Huntly__Aberdeenshire_/
Pointed that out at the very start of the thread... I take the stony silence from the gaggle of lefties in response as a big tick and a gold star next to my sums
'Mr Salmond also suggested the residents of the Somerset Levels were more likely to call Downing Street to tell the Prime Minister to “get his wellies on” and tackle the flooding crisis, than to call their friends in Scotland to tell them to vote against independence.'
http://tinyurl.com/ppozy3c
How do chickens fare in flooded areas?
Not well I would think.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100258704/whisper-it-labours-ae-winter-crisis-hasnt-happened-thats-big-news/
"So I asked someone very senior at the Department of Health, who just smiled and said: "Ah yes. We wondered when someone would notice. The fact is there hasn't been a crisis." "
MInd you, media coverage of floods is always dire. Yorkshire disappeared from newsreaders' minds once the south was struck in 2007 (not that Gloucestershire and Worcestershire shouldn't have had dominance of the news agenda, but Yorkshire was hit harder and barely mentioned again. I still remember that prick George Alagiah[sp] grinning when introducing a story about the flooding here).
"...the third flood disaster to hit the Somerset Levels in three years, the Environment Agency has been horribly caught out by a catastrophe largely of its own making.
They have always been accustomed to winter flooding of the vast area that is below sea level. But this is worse than anything in memory — not just more extensive but lasting for months rather than weeks.
The cost this year may be in excess of £100 million. Dredging the rivers would cost £4.5 million, which the Agency found to be excessive. (Although it cheerfully footed the £31 million bill for a bird sanctuary.)"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9131442/floods-of-incompetence/
However, while the Scottish National Party wants to keep the pound, the authors conclude that Scotland might find it would be better to abandon a currency union – which would be subject to tight conditions dictated elsewhere – and instead establish its own currency.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/07/scottish-independence-economic-implications-niesr
And your point?
As for the blame game, you might want to look at the media.
Should I have sold my single property at approx £150K below market value I'd have thought :
1. Why did the agent forgo a larger commission than he might have.
2. Had I suddenly become a member of the Labour party a couple of months ago.
3. My earlier sale among the same 500 million houses in the street was spectacular poor timing.
I called your view "economically illiterate" as indeed it is. Your lack of knowledge on how vast share issues work in the market has been lain bare.
Please don't embarrass yourself further on the matter unless of course your responses are to be considered an open invitation to join the Labour party front bench treasury team. In which case "Carry On @Wulfrun_Phil"
So I would say his point is that your aspersions about UKIP's vote solidity are largely based on a willful abuse of the fact that UKIP voters are bundled together with non voters in your figures.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-01-30/labour-owen-paterson-failed-to-take-flooding-seriously/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/05/environment-secretary-blind-flood-risks-labour
Why were the 'Tories' right to reject dredging? And indeed, how much dredging went on in that area between 1997 and 2010?
It could well be that, in the balance between wildlife and flood protection, the EA have been concentrating too much on the wildlife. It may not have stopped these floods, but may well have helped as part of a strategy.
You had better be prepared for the blame game too. This has happened on Cameron's watch, and even though it's hardly his fault, he might well be left standing when the music stops.
A transititional period would make sense so that an independent Scotland could start to establish some form of track record and get its budgets in order but really, an independent Scotland needs an independent currency if it is not to be broken on the wheel of English interest rate decisions and monetary policy which will be focussed on an even more dominant London/South east property inflation problem to the exclusion of all else.
Dredging the rivers would not have prevented the flooding, and if it costs £4.5 million a year to avoid £100 million of damages once every hundred years then it would cost four and a half times as much to dredge then it would to compensate the people affected.
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2014/02/02/the-environment-agency-where-does-all-the-money-go/
The staff costs of the Agency rose by £30m or 8% compared to the previous year, reaching a total of £395.3 million. The Agency employed 12,252 people including temps and contractor personnel. Pension contributions cost £56 m , with a loss on the fund recognised that year in the accounts bringing the total pension cost to £197.4 million.
The total cost of pensions was almost as high as the capital works, where they spent £219million during the year.
Within the capital works just £20.3 million was spent on improving or maintaining culverts and channels to ensure free flow of water.
Plus the money was indeed "frittered away" on the dole - but not just in Scotland but across the entire UK, as part of the social and economic restructuring by Mrs Thatcher and her successors. I'm not going to get involved in a discussion whether this last is true or not, partly because this is outwith my competence, but partly because there is enough factual truth in it (money in , money out) to make it a very strong perception with many people, who will have been reminded lately of all this by the exceptional state funeral for Lady Thatcher.
But in any case the money is gone. And we (as in any situation) have to try and set the resentments, such as they are, of history aside and work with what we have today and tomorrow while bearing in mind that events of recent decades can certainly affect trust and perception, and that attempts to exploit history in the deployment of current politics have to be challenged.
What I see in the indy debate, as regards key figures (indeed, Mr Cameron today) is a No side that is obsessed with history - and often irrelevant history - we should vote No just because Scottish regiments were in landing craft on D-day, urged Mr C a year ago - in almost complete contrast to the Yes side.