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.
What I don't understand is the reticence - since we are tirelessly reminded how well an independent Scotland would do, and how badly rUK would do deprived of 'Scotland's oil and Whisky' (much owned by foreigners, as the NIESR point out, but we'll let that slide) - surely the Scottish currency would appreciate against sterling, thus diminishing the cost of paying back Scotland's share of the UK sterling denominated debt. What's not to like?
Unless of course, the Nats don't believe all the lines they keep feeding us on how well they'll do and how badly rUK will do......
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.
Strikes me the Nats are as obsessed with history as anyone else, and like anyone else they're only interested in their version of it.
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.
Strikes me the Nats are as obsessed with history as anyone else, and like anyone else they're only interested in their version of it.
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?
My point is that those 3.1% of voters represent 60% of the "Others and Did not votes" part of the graphic in the thread header
The remaining 40% of others and did not vote = 13% of the UKIP score of 15 in the poll
So unless you are the kind of person that can pour three halves of lager into a pint glass without spilling any, you have got the maths wildly wrong
I think the Tories are unwise to scapegoat and badmouth the Environment Agency.
Who should take the blame - the sports minister ?
Hillary Benn could be a good candidate for some of it, as a former Secretary of State for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs.
If Lord Smith is to go then I'd approach Paddy Ashdown - Widely known and respected in the West Country and he's a man to cut through the red tape, bang heads together and get things done.
"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." "
What? No Winter A&E Crisis? You'll be telling me there was no 'Triple Dip' next!
The clear policy of the SNP is to make independence as innocuous as possible so as much as possible is not going to change. The line they have taken with the currency has been guided by that rather than any kind of assessment of the implications for the Scottish economy.
Whether the Scottish £ appreciates or depreciates will depend a great deal on the price of oil. This may make the manufacturing of other goods or the provision of services internationally a little more problematic but it is far from an insuperable problem.
They just don't want to scare the horses or have anyone suggest their pensions are going to be paid in some funny money. A bit ironic really given the use of QE over the last few years.
The total cost of pensions was almost as high as the capital works, where they spent £219million during the year.
Redwood proving he's a bit of a dumbass.
Oooh don't mention the public sector pensions costs - Neil will get the vapours - just 2% of GDP - nothing big...
Feel free to mention them, just dont think a comparison between annual expenditure on the one hand and an accounting measure of actuarial gains / losses in a pension fund on the other is in any way meaningful. Redwood appears to have as good a grasp of the subject as you do.
Even if the change is just methodological, the narrowing gap between Labour and the Conservatives will do nothing to make Labour supporters feel any happier.
That's been the thing about the polling up till now imo. The low Ukip score was masking the real Lab-Con situation.
I think the Tories are unwise to scapegoat and badmouth the Environment Agency.
Who should take the blame - the sports minister ?
Hillary Benn could be a good candidate for some of it, as a former Secretary of State for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs.
Ah, you mean the Benn whose family home magically got some flood protection built in front of it?
It was a double success for the then environment secretary - he gets flood defences repaired whilst others do not, and to keep walkers out, even as he proposed coastal access around the whole of England!
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.
Strikes me the Nats are as obsessed with history as anyone else, and like anyone else they're only interested in their version of it.
You mean the scottish public will have to choose who they trust most? That is surprising. Well it's a good thing Cammie is on the case along with the PB tories, isn't it?
If the reports that the Environment Agency stopped dredging the levels are correct was it for "save the ducks" type reasons? Also if the reports are correct can all the flooded people sue?
If you look at the drop in turnout levels since 92/97 there's lots of ex-voters not just non-voters.
I'd be really interested in an attempt to quantify that, but it is possible that the ex-voters are late voters and the next generation that has replaced them simply does not engage with the political process, or wider civic society, as much as previous generations.
It will be 23 years since 1992 in 2015. At some point the people who cling to Major's missing voters as the answer to all their problems will have to accept that the poor dears are all dead. [With apologies to those older contributors to the thread who were eligible to vote in the 1992 general election]
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.
I think the point is that damage is occurring more frequently than once in every few hundred years - the TV just said there was flooding last year as well. Dredging and other works may not have prevented this event, but may well have prevented damage from previous smaller ones.
More importantly, it may prevent other minor events causing big floods in the future. That is why the locals can be excused for using this event to press for change, even if it may not have helped with this year's excessive rainfall.
It may mean the difference between being flooded every hundred years, and every two years.
If the reports that the Environment Agency stopped dredging the levels are correct was it for "save the ducks" type reasons? Also if the reports are correct can all the flooded people sue?
The public argument used by the EA has been that reducing dredging, and using the levels as a place to store excess water, is a way to make flood protection for Bridgwater downstream easier to achieve. No-one has explained how you get all the water from the levels to the sea in a few days without flooding a larger number of people downstream.
If you look at the drop in turnout levels since 92/97 there's lots of ex-voters not just non-voters.
I'd be really interested in an attempt to quantify that, but it is possible that the ex-voters are late voters and the next generation that has replaced them simply does not engage with the political process, or wider civic society, as much as previous generations.
It will be 23 years since 1992 in 2015. At some point the people who cling to Major's missing voters as the answer to all their problems will have to accept that the poor dears are all dead. [With apologies to those older contributors to the thread who were eligible to vote in the 1992 general election]
The idea of shy tories now is one of the more amusing ones. They're not shy in jumping over to UKIP when they are sufficiently annoyed.
Getting a handle on that kipper protest vote is not easy though. Real results have proved it is not illusory and that the pollsters just don't seem to be able to nail it down yet. They might do a better job at the EU elections but we'll have to wait and see. Prompting is also an obvious factor too.
One of the crazier things about the Russia / gays situation is the sight of Cameron condemning Russia for a law not entirely dissimilar to one he supported having in the UK until recently.
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.
Strikes me the Nats are as obsessed with history as anyone else, and like anyone else they're only interested in their version of it.
cough...Bannockburn...cough.....
Example of an actual quotation from Mr Salmond or similar comparable with Mr C's use of history, please? Not myth from the Daily Telegraph? (And you are not allowed to use the opening of the new National Trust for Scotland visitor centre - that is a valid use/reference to history).
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.
- in almost complete contrast to the Yes side.
Strikes me the Nats are as obsessed with history as anyone else, and like anyone else they're only interested in their version of it.
You mean the scottish public will have to choose who they trust most? That is surprising. Well it's a good thing Cammie is on the case along with the PB tories, isn't it?
No I don't mean that at all, the post's fairly self explanatory .
Now what does that disco music they are playing remind me of....
The formation of the Olympic cauldron from the different teams and the Olympic torch was for me the absolute highlight of the 2012 ceremony (even ahead of the dancing nurses!) It was a brilliant vision and a superb piece of engineering that worked.
OGH - I knew the fact that that you didn't bow at the Temple of Gove would end in tears. He has now set one of his minions on to you. It must feel like being savaged by a dead sheep as someone once said.
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.
I think the point is that damage is occurring more frequently than once in every few hundred years - the TV just said there was flooding last year as well. Dredging and other works may not have prevented this event, but may well have prevented damage from previous smaller ones.
More importantly, it may prevent other minor events causing big floods in the future. That is why the locals can be excused for using this event to press for change, even if it may not have helped with this year's excessive rainfall.
It may mean the difference between being flooded every hundred years, and every two years.
Monbiot wrote an excellent article about why dredging can not prevent flooding.
The basic argument is that a river channel is far too small carry enough floodwater away to prevent a flood, regardless of how much you dredge it. What you need to do is to slow the water down, so that it is held up in the hills as long as possible. This also then helps to prevent drought when the rains decide to go away for a few consecutive months.
Q12a. Do you think the Secretary of State’s changes to teachers’ pay and pensions will mean you are more or less likely to stay in the teaching profession?
Q21. What proportion of your workload relates to tasks and activities which you feel do not directly benefit children’s learning?
Q24. What impact are public sector cuts and austerity measures having on the children you teach and their families?
Q26. [the last question in the survey] If there was a General Election tomorrow which political party would you vote for?
I think the Tories are unwise to scapegoat and badmouth the Environment Agency.
Who should take the blame - the sports minister ?
Hillary Benn could be a good candidate for some of it, as a former Secretary of State for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs.
Ah, you mean the Benn whose family home magically got some flood protection built in front of it?
It was a double success for the then environment secretary - he gets flood defences repaired whilst others do not, and to keep walkers out, even as he proposed coastal access around the whole of England!
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.
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.
Strikes me the Nats are as obsessed with history as anyone else, and like anyone else they're only interested in their version of it.
cough...Bannockburn...cough.....
Example of an actual quotation from Mr Salmond or similar comparable with Mr C's use of history, please? Not myth from the Daily Telegraph? (And you are not allowed to use the opening of the new National Trust for Scotland visitor centre - that is a valid use/reference to history).
6 days ago in the FT...
"Salmond says: “In the battle of Bannockburn [1314] it was said that the small folk determined the result of the battle ... Small folk with the small things like the bedroom tax, social security, fairness and equality, getting rid of nuclear weapons, not going into illegal wars. I think the small folk will determine this [referendum]”"
@Tubby_Isaacs@toadmeister is actually smearing @YouGov by suggesting that the polls were not carried out properly. Must do better Mr Young
Mr Young does have a point. Surely it would have been better to ask 'voting intention' as the first question, rather than the last, after questions such as:
What impact are public sector cuts and austerity measures having on the children you teach and their families?
Do you think publicly funded sch ools should be run for profit?
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.
- in almost complete contrast to the Yes side.
Strikes me the Nats are as obsessed with history as anyone else, and like anyone else they're only interested in their version of it.
You mean the scottish public will have to choose who they trust most? That is surprising. Well it's a good thing Cammie is on the case along with the PB tories, isn't it?
No I don't mean that at all, the post's fairly self explanatory .
It is. You posit that everyone has their own version of events so that being the case it self-evidently means that the scottish public will have to choose which and whose version they trust the most or indeed least. All elections boil down to trust. Same with referenda.
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.
I think the point is that damage is occurring more frequently than once in every few hundred years - the TV just said there was flooding last year as well. Dredging and other works may not have prevented this event, but may well have prevented damage from previous smaller ones.
More importantly, it may prevent other minor events causing big floods in the future. That is why the locals can be excused for using this event to press for change, even if it may not have helped with this year's excessive rainfall.
It may mean the difference between being flooded every hundred years, and every two years.
Monbiot wrote an excellent article about why dredging can not prevent flooding.
The basic argument is that a river channel is far too small carry enough floodwater away to prevent a flood, regardless of how much you dredge it. What you need to do is to slow the water down, so that it is held up in the hills as long as possible. This also then helps to prevent drought when the rains decide to go away for a few consecutive months.
The farmers used to dredge the drainage channels. It prevented flooding.
(at least some of the time).
edit: actually this is too dumb for words. if drainage channels can drain x amount of flooding but then you get 2x amount of water you'll still only get x amount of flooding instead of 2x.
One of the crazier things about the Russia / gays situation is the sight of Cameron condemning Russia for a law not entirely dissimilar to one he supported having in the UK until recently.
Did you see the C4 Despatches documentary? I assume you didn't, or you would not have written such utter fatuity...
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.
- in almost complete contrast to the Yes side.
Strikes me the Nats are as obsessed with history as anyone else, and like anyone else they're only interested in their version of it.
You mean the scottish public will have to choose who they trust most? That is surprising. Well it's a good thing Cammie is on the case along with the PB tories, isn't it?
No I don't mean that at all, the post's fairly self explanatory .
It is. You posit that everyone has their own version of events so that being the case it self-evidently means that the scottish public will have to choose which and whose version they trust the most or indeed least. All elections boil down to trust. Same with referenda.
looking at the state of the market to date not enough Scots trust Salmond. Why should they he's been almost as wrong as Ed Balls ?
One of the crazier things about the Russia / gays situation is the sight of Cameron condemning Russia for a law not entirely dissimilar to one he supported having in the UK until recently.
Did you see the C4 Despatches documentary? I assume you didn't, or you would not have written such utter fatuity...
Which part of "Cameron is now condemning a Russian law that is similar to one he recently supported in the UK" is fatuous? It's just the truth.
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.
- in almost complete contrast to the Yes side.
Strikes me the Nats are as obsessed with history as anyone else, and like anyone else they're only interested in their version of it.
You mean the scottish public will have to choose who they trust most? That is surprising. Well it's a good thing Cammie is on the case along with the PB tories, isn't it?
No I don't mean that at all, the post's fairly self explanatory .
It is. You posit that everyone has their own version of events so that being the case it self-evidently means that the scottish public will have to choose which and whose version they trust the most or indeed least. All elections boil down to trust. Same with referenda.
looking at the state of the market to date not enough Scots trust Salmond.
Just like before the 2011 campaign got to it's crucial final weeks. Didn't turn out too well for labour as I recall.
Why should they he's been almost as wrong as Ed Balls ?
The SNP aren't the ones quoting articles praising Ed Balls as an economic 'wise man' who must be listened to on Independence. That would be the most amusing PB tories.
The Tory politicians who are ultimately responsible for dredging / the Environment Agency have made the right decisions on it.
Dredging the levels is (almost literally) throwing taxpayers money down the drain.
The idea that people have some sort of "right" to live on marshland below sea level, flood-free during the wettest weather on record, is insane.
If anything is to "blame" it is climate change and everything that is causing it.
The response of the authorities - Govt, EA, Emergency Services, has seemed fine. By turning it it into a political / blame issue, the Tories are simply creating a problem for themselves where none existed.
My understanding is the farmers used to do the dredging for nothing. Could be wrong but seeing as their livelihood depends on it, it seems plausible.
I've known green types in the past who thought human management of the environment was morally wrong so i'm wondering if the farmers were prevented from dredging for "save the ducks" reasons.
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.
- in almost complete contrast to the Yes side.
Strikes me the Nats are as obsessed with history as anyone else, and like anyone else they're only interested in their version of it.
You mean the scottish public will have to choose who they trust most? That is surprising. Well it's a good thing Cammie is on the case along with the PB tories, isn't it?
No I don't mean that at all, the post's fairly self explanatory .
It is. You posit that everyone has their own version of events so that being the case it self-evidently means that the scottish public will have to choose which and whose version to it's crucial final weeks. Didn't turn out too well for labour as I recall.
Why should they he's been almost as wrong as Ed Balls ?
The SNP aren't the ones quoting articles praising Ed Balls as an economic 'wise man' who must be listened to on Independence. That would be the most amusing PB tories.
Looking at what Salmond has called on the scottish economy he has been pretty crap to date.
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.
- in almost complete contrast to the Yes side.
Strikes me the Nats are as obsessed with history as anyone else, and like anyone else they're only interested in their version of it.
You mean the scottish public will have to choose who they trust most? That is surprising. Well it's a good thing Cammie is on the case along with the PB tories, isn't it?
No I don't mean that at all, the post's fairly self explanatory .
It is. You posit that everyone has their own version of events so that being the case it self-evidently means that the scottish public will have to choose which and whose version to it's crucial final weeks. Didn't turn out too well for labour as I recall.
Why should they he's been almost as wrong as Ed Balls ?
The SNP aren't the ones quoting articles praising Ed Balls as an economic 'wise man' who must be listened to on Independence. That would be the most amusing PB tories.
Looking at what Salmond has called on the scottish economy he has been pretty crap to date.
If the reports that the Environment Agency stopped dredging the levels are correct was it for "save the ducks" type reasons? Also if the reports are correct can all the flooded people sue?
The public argument used by the EA has been that reducing dredging, and using the levels as a place to store excess water, is a way to make flood protection for Bridgwater downstream easier to achieve. No-one has explained how you get all the water from the levels to the sea in a few days without flooding a larger number of people downstream.
If the reports that the Environment Agency stopped dredging the levels are correct was it for "save the ducks" type reasons? Also if the reports are correct can all the flooded people sue?
The public argument used by the EA has been that reducing dredging, and using the levels as a place to store excess water, is a way to make flood protection for Bridgwater downstream easier to achieve. No-one has explained how you get all the water from the levels to the sea in a few days without flooding a larger number of people downstream.
i bet myself a choccy biscuit "save the ducks" is involved in this somewhere.
The Tory politicians who are ultimately responsible for dredging / the Environment Agency have made the right decisions on it.
Dredging the levels is (almost literally) throwing taxpayers money down the drain.
The idea that people have some sort of "right" to live on marshland below sea level, flood-free during the wettest weather on record, is insane.
If anything is to "blame" it is climate change and everything that is causing it.
The response of the authorities - Govt, EA, Emergency Services, has seemed fine. By turning it it into a political / blame issue, the Tories are simply creating a problem for themselves where none existed.
My understanding is the farmers used to do the dredging for nothing. Could be wrong but seeing as their livelihood depends on it, it seems plausible.
I've known green types in the past who thought human management of the environment was morally wrong so i'm wondering if the farmers were prevented from dredging for "save the ducks" reasons.
Flooding, rather than flood prevention, does appear to be a deliberate policy decision.
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?
My point is that those 3.1% of voters represent 60% of the "Others and Did not votes" part of the graphic in the thread header
The remaining 40% of others and did not vote = 13% of the UKIP score of 15 in the poll
So unless you are the kind of person that can pour three halves of lager into a pint glass without spilling any, you have got the maths wildly wrong
Again, the lack of contradiction from people who would normally argue with anything I said, or invent things that I didn't say, is a big tick and a gold star
If OGH were right and I were wrong here, I think we would have heard about it
The only way he could be right is if the UKIP 2010 vote is not included in the others/DNV part of the pie chart in the header
I think the point is that damage is occurring more frequently than once in every few hundred years - the TV just said there was flooding last year as well. Dredging and other works may not have prevented this event, but may well have prevented damage from previous smaller ones.
More importantly, it may prevent other minor events causing big floods in the future. That is why the locals can be excused for using this event to press for change, even if it may not have helped with this year's excessive rainfall.
It may mean the difference between being flooded every hundred years, and every two years.
Monbiot wrote an excellent article about why dredging can not prevent flooding.
The basic argument is that a river channel is far too small carry enough floodwater away to prevent a flood, regardless of how much you dredge it. What you need to do is to slow the water down, so that it is held up in the hills as long as possible. This also then helps to prevent drought when the rains decide to go away for a few consecutive months.
Perhaps the problem with Monbiot's argument is that this *is* downstream. His argument holds water in places like the Peak District, where the moorland is being managed to act as a big sponge (including EU grants to block drainage channels cut with EU grants a couple of decades ago). Obviously, the more you can smooth out peak discharges from high ground, the better.
It seems less persuasive in such lowland areas which come under massive pressure from the surrounding land. I cannot see how anything other than having fast-moving and draining channels will help.
Well last weekend we had the English cricket team being humilated by Australia, Man U getting beaten by Stoke and the Scottish rugby team getting humped by Ireland. In the words of a wise but ultimately ill informed politician "Things can only get better".
Not sure about the last one though. England by 20 points I fear.
I think the point is that damage is occurring more frequently than once in every few hundred years - the TV just said there was flooding last year as well. Dredging and other works may not have prevented this event, but may well have prevented damage from previous smaller ones.
More importantly, it may prevent other minor events causing big floods in the future. That is why the locals can be excused for using this event to press for change, even if it may not have helped with this year's excessive rainfall.
It may mean the difference between being flooded every hundred years, and every two years.
Monbiot wrote an excellent article about why dredging can not prevent flooding.
The basic argument is that a river channel is far too small carry enough floodwater away to prevent a flood, regardless of how much you dredge it. What you need to do is to slow the water down, so that it is held up in the hills as long as possible. This also then helps to prevent drought when the rains decide to go away for a few consecutive months.
Perhaps the problem with Monbiot's argument is that this *is* downstream. His argument holds water in places like the Peak District, where the moorland is being managed to act as a big sponge (including EU grants to block drainage channels cut with EU grants a couple of decades ago). Obviously, the more you can smooth out peak discharges from high ground, the better.
It seems less persuasive in such lowland areas which come under massive pressure from the surrounding land. I cannot see how anything other than having fast-moving and draining channels will help.
So was Toby Young wrong when he suggested that OGH had not mentioned that the Gove poll was commissioned by the NUT ?
This is what OGH wrote:
In MARCH 2010 YouGov found teachers splitting CON 33: LAB 32: LD 27: UKIP 3. In the latest polling of the same segment published last month it is CON 16: LAB 57: LD 8: UKIP 8 which is quite some movement.
From a methodological point of view, who commissioned the poll should be neither here nor there.
That the VI question in the second poll was preceded by 25 other questions, some of them inviting hostile responses to Gove/the coalition might.
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?
My point is that those 3.1% of voters represent 60% of the "Others and Did not votes" part of the graphic in the thread header
The remaining 40% of others and did not vote = 13% of the UKIP score of 15 in the poll
So unless you are the kind of person that can pour three halves of lager into a pint glass without spilling any, you have got the maths wildly wrong
Again, the lack of contradiction from people who would normally argue with anything I said, or invent things that I didn't say, is a big tick and a gold star
If OGH were right and I were wrong here, I think we would have heard about it
The only way he could be right is if the UKIP 2010 vote is not included in the others/DNV part of the pie chart in the header
I should have known that lessons to be learnt would pop up again.
"David Cameron has admitted the Government has "lessons to learn" from the Somerset floods but insisted "everything that can be done will be done" to help those affected by the inundation.
The Prime Minister was speaking on a visit to flood-hit areas of the county this afternoon.
"There are always lessons to learn and I’ll make sure they are learnt, but Cobra has been sitting in almost permanent session so we can bring the whole resources of government, the country, the military to bear," he told reporters."
Give me strength...or at least a super strength beer.
I was thinking POTWAS, poor old Tim what a shame, he'd have loved to give Cameron yet another kicking on pb. But then he would have to ignore the hapless Smith running back to the comfort of a 4x4.
A bit of good news for British mens tennis unrelated to Andy Murray as Dan Evans has just reached the SF of the main tour ATP event in Zagreb having defeated the third seed Philip Kohlschreiber in three sets.
Evans got into the main draw as a lucky loser having failed at the last hurdle of qualifying.
The Tory politicians who are ultimately responsible for dredging / the Environment Agency have made the right decisions on it.
Dredging the levels is (almost literally) throwing taxpayers money down the drain.
The idea that people have some sort of "right" to live on marshland below sea level, flood-free during the wettest weather on record, is insane.
If anything is to "blame" it is climate change and everything that is causing it.
The response of the authorities - Govt, EA, Emergency Services, has seemed fine. By turning it it into a political / blame issue, the Tories are simply creating a problem for themselves where none existed.
My understanding is the farmers used to do the dredging for nothing. Could be wrong but seeing as their livelihood depends on it, it seems plausible.
I've known green types in the past who thought human management of the environment was morally wrong so i'm wondering if the farmers were prevented from dredging for "save the ducks" reasons.
Flooding, rather than flood prevention, does appear to be a deliberate policy decision.
"Allowing the flooding of the Levels was a matter of EU policy, introduced by a 2007 Directive and consciously adopted by the Environment Agency in 2008, which then sought to increase the frequency of flooding in the area."
Shame, if it's ultimately an EU directive - even if it's all documented - the Cameroons will take the hit rather than blame the EU.
Cobra has been sitting in almost permanent session so we can bring the whole resources of government, the country, the military to bear," he told reporters." .
For heavens sake. It's some flooding of a few properties built on sodding floodplain marshland, not a nuclear attack.
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?
My point is that those 3.1% of voters represent 60% of the "Others and Did not votes" part of the graphic in the thread header
The remaining 40% of others and did not vote = 13% of the UKIP score of 15 in the poll
So unless you are the kind of person that can pour three halves of lager into a pint glass without spilling any, you have got the maths wildly wrong
Again, the lack of contradiction from people who would normally argue with anything I said, or invent things that I didn't say, is a big tick and a gold star
If OGH were right and I were wrong here, I think we would have heard about it
The only way he could be right is if the UKIP 2010 vote is not included in the others/DNV part of the pie chart in the header
Or the newly adjusted figure is still too low?
Well, yes if the adjusted UKIP figure is still too low, it could be that there is a lot bigger proportion of others/DNVs in the UKIP score (that isn't here), but then again if they did all decide not to vote, the "hardcore" would still be 13.5ish
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?
My point is that those 3.1% of voters represent 60% of the "Others and Did not votes" part of the graphic in the thread header
The remaining 40% of others and did not vote = 13% of the UKIP score of 15 in the poll
So unless you are the kind of person that can pour three halves of lager into a pint glass without spilling any, you have got the maths wildly wrong
Again, the lack of contradiction from people who would normally argue with anything I said, or invent things that I didn't say, is a big tick and a gold star
If OGH were right and I were wrong here, I think we would have heard about it
The only way he could be right is if the UKIP 2010 vote is not included in the others/DNV part of the pie chart in the header
Or the newly adjusted figure is still too low?
Well, yes if the adjusted UKIP figure is still too low, it could be that there is a lot bigger proportion of others/DNVs in the UKIP score (that isn't here), but then again if they did all decide not to vote, the "hardcore" would still be 13.5ish
Where do you (or anyone else for that matter) feel the "tipping point" is in the polls? By that I mean the point where UKIP become, in the wider public perception (not the average Kipper's perception), a genuine alternative choice whereby a vote for them will not be "wasted". I fear I'm not phrasing this very well, but hopefully you know what I mean.
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?
My point is that those 3.1% of voters represent 60% of the "Others and Did not votes" part of the graphic in the thread header
The remaining 40% of others and did not vote = 13% of the UKIP score of 15 in the poll
So unless you are the kind of person that can pour three halves of lager into a pint glass without spilling any, you have got the maths wildly wrong
Again, the lack of contradiction from people who would normally argue with anything I said, or invent things that I didn't say, is a big tick and a gold star
If OGH were right and I were wrong here, I think we would have heard about it
The only way he could be right is if the UKIP 2010 vote is not included in the others/DNV part of the pie chart in the header
Or the newly adjusted figure is still too low?
Well, yes if the adjusted UKIP figure is still too low, it could be that there is a lot bigger proportion of others/DNVs in the UKIP score (that isn't here), but then again if they did all decide not to vote, the "hardcore" would still be 13.5ish
If that is the case we are looking at a Labour landslide on around 35% of the vote. Calls for voting reform would be impossible to resist.
"Alex Salmond is within striking distance of victory. Why hasn’t England noticed? We could be seven months away from the end of Britain. It's time to worry"
Cobra has been sitting in almost permanent session so we can bring the whole resources of government, the country, the military to bear," he told reporters." .
For heavens sake. It's some flooding of a few properties built on sodding floodplain marshland, not a nuclear attack.
I agree, but I think Dave is terrified of the sort of thing that happened to Blair during the fuel strikes in 2000.
Strikes me the Nats are as obsessed with history as anyone else, and like anyone else they're only interested in their version of it.
cough...Bannockburn...cough.....
Example of an actual quotation from Mr Salmond or similar comparable with Mr C's use of history, please? Not myth from the Daily Telegraph? (And you are not allowed to use the opening of the new National Trust for Scotland visitor centre - that is a valid use/reference to history).
6 days ago in the FT...
"Salmond says: “In the battle of Bannockburn [1314] it was said that the small folk determined the result of the battle ... Small folk with the small things like the bedroom tax, social security, fairness and equality, getting rid of nuclear weapons, not going into illegal wars. I think the small folk will determine this [referendum]”"
Thank you, that's most interesting and I'd missed it. The fuller version without paywall seems to be http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3882303c-8a96-11e3-9c29-00144feab7de.html#axzz2sex8B4Rl (not much more to it). Ah, it's in fact a comment in an interview, an attack on Ms Lamont's recent 'wee things' faux pas - with a witty allusion to the famous (in Scots history) "small folk" which determined the outcome at Bannockburn when they hove into sight. But that is a reference specifically to ordinary people determining the fate of their country, if today (mercifully) voting with their pencils rather than their billhooks. Democracy and all that.
It's not exactly claiming in a major speech that we have to vote Yes because our forebears had fought in the schiltrons at Bannockburn, much as Mr C did today for his own view of life and history, is it?
The most important questions with this new tranche of rainfall that needs answered is......has Dave tripped his leccy again and has he completed a course on how to change a fuse since the last time?
The most important questions with this new tranche of rainfall that needs answered is......has Dave tripped his leccy again and has he completed a course on how to change a fuse since the last time?
He convened a Cobra meeting to sort it out.
You have to give him 10 out of 10 for this acting face:
Comments
However, he is a simple soul, and his vote could easily be bought by a change of policy on gay marriage.
Rest assured 'kippers, whoever he votes for in 2015, he will still be voting for EU exit when a referendum comes...
Unless of course, the Nats don't believe all the lines they keep feeding us on how well they'll do and how badly rUK will do......
The remaining 40% of others and did not vote = 13% of the UKIP score of 15 in the poll
So unless you are the kind of person that can pour three halves of lager into a pint glass without spilling any, you have got the maths wildly wrong
http://order-order.com/2014/02/07/sallys-hunk-revealed/
The clear policy of the SNP is to make independence as innocuous as possible so as much as possible is not going to change. The line they have taken with the currency has been guided by that rather than any kind of assessment of the implications for the Scottish economy.
Whether the Scottish £ appreciates or depreciates will depend a great deal on the price of oil. This may make the manufacturing of other goods or the provision of services internationally a little more problematic but it is far from an insuperable problem.
They just don't want to scare the horses or have anyone suggest their pensions are going to be paid in some funny money. A bit ironic really given the use of QE over the last few years.
It was a double success for the then environment secretary - he gets flood defences repaired whilst others do not, and to keep walkers out, even as he proposed coastal access around the whole of England!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3325629/Hilary-Benn-in-new-row-over-flood-defences.html
You mean the scottish public will have to choose who they trust most? That is surprising.
Well it's a good thing Cammie is on the case along with the PB tories, isn't it?
It will be 23 years since 1992 in 2015. At some point the people who cling to Major's missing voters as the answer to all their problems will have to accept that the poor dears are all dead. [With apologies to those older contributors to the thread who were eligible to vote in the 1992 general election]
More importantly, it may prevent other minor events causing big floods in the future. That is why the locals can be excused for using this event to press for change, even if it may not have helped with this year's excessive rainfall.
It may mean the difference between being flooded every hundred years, and every two years.
Sochi Olympic Rings Fail - four rings and a snowflake.....
http://www.businessinsider.com/opening-ceremony-snowflake-malfunction-2014-2
Now what does that disco music they are playing remind me of....
Getting a handle on that kipper protest vote is not easy though. Real results have proved it is not illusory and that the pollsters just don't seem to be able to nail it down yet. They might do a better job at the EU elections but we'll have to wait and see. Prompting is also an obvious factor too.
Oh er Matron !!
PM being very cloak and dagger on his trip to Somerset. We weren't told where he was going now we are not being allowed in to film him
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100258707/yet-another-attempt-by-the-nut-to-smear-michael-gove-with-dodgy-data/
The basic argument is that a river channel is far too small carry enough floodwater away to prevent a flood, regardless of how much you dredge it. What you need to do is to slow the water down, so that it is held up in the hills as long as possible. This also then helps to prevent drought when the rains decide to go away for a few consecutive months.
Q21. What proportion of your workload relates to tasks and activities which you feel do not directly benefit children’s learning?
Q24. What impact are public sector cuts and austerity measures having on the children you teach and their families?
Q26. [the last question in the survey] If there was a General Election tomorrow which political party would you vote for?
"Salmond says: “In the battle of Bannockburn [1314] it was said that the small folk determined the result of the battle ... Small folk with the small things like the bedroom tax, social security, fairness and equality, getting rid of nuclear weapons, not going into illegal wars. I think the small folk will determine this [referendum]”"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3882303c-8a96-11e3-9c29-00144feab7de.html#axzz2seob3zAt
http://www.you
tube.com/watch?v=H8--ReA778Q
What impact are public sector cuts and austerity measures having on the children you teach and their families?
Do you think publicly funded sch ools should be run for profit?
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/r9niuhpjoa/YG-Archive-131202-NUT.pdf
(at least some of the time).
edit: actually this is too dumb for words. if drainage channels can drain x amount of flooding but then you get 2x amount of water you'll still only get x amount of flooding instead of 2x.
http://centrallobby.politicshome.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/maria-eagle-mp-somerset-flooding-exposes-failure-of-national-leadership/
The SNP aren't the ones quoting articles praising Ed Balls as an economic 'wise man' who must be listened to on Independence. That would be the most amusing PB tories.
I've known green types in the past who thought human management of the environment was morally wrong so i'm wondering if the farmers were prevented from dredging for "save the ducks" reasons.
The term push poll is much misunderstood.
See the US examples given in the link below.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
vine.co/v/Mz3nAKXEtmt
*chortle*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/handsonnature/wetlands/images/map_somerset_levels300.jpg
looks like it's right next to the sea - which is kind of what you'd expect for reclaimed wetlands
the kind of reclaimed wetlands a lot of environmentalist think ought to be returned to wetlands
i bet myself a choccy biscuit "save the ducks" is involved in this somewhere.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10623109/UK-floods-Environment-Agency-accused-of-putting-birds-before-humans.html
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84683
If OGH were right and I were wrong here, I think we would have heard about it
The only way he could be right is if the UKIP 2010 vote is not included in the others/DNV part of the pie chart in the header
It seems less persuasive in such lowland areas which come under massive pressure from the surrounding land. I cannot see how anything other than having fast-moving and draining channels will help.
But IANAE.
Not sure about the last one though. England by 20 points I fear.
The environment agency' s name is now mud!
In MARCH 2010 YouGov found teachers splitting CON 33: LAB 32: LD 27: UKIP 3. In the latest polling of the same segment published last month it is CON 16: LAB 57: LD 8: UKIP 8 which is quite some movement.
From a methodological point of view, who commissioned the poll should be neither here nor there.
That the VI question in the second poll was preceded by 25 other questions, some of them inviting hostile responses to Gove/the coalition might.
It is unfortunate that this was not mentioned....
"David Cameron has admitted the Government has "lessons to learn" from the Somerset floods but insisted "everything that can be done will be done" to help those affected by the inundation.
The Prime Minister was speaking on a visit to flood-hit areas of the county this afternoon.
"There are always lessons to learn and I’ll make sure they are learnt, but Cobra has been sitting in almost permanent session so we can bring the whole resources of government, the country, the military to bear," he told reporters."
Give me strength...or at least a super strength beer.
I was thinking POTWAS, poor old Tim what a shame, he'd have loved to give Cameron yet another kicking on pb. But then he would have to ignore the hapless Smith running back to the comfort of a 4x4.
Evans got into the main draw as a lucky loser having failed at the last hurdle of qualifying.
Shame, if it's ultimately an EU directive - even if it's all documented - the Cameroons will take the hit rather than blame the EU.
Forty wet houses nowadays, and the tears of agony just add to the floods.
"Alex Salmond is within striking distance of victory. Why hasn’t England noticed?
We could be seven months away from the end of Britain. It's time to worry"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9131482/union-in-peril/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3882303c-8a96-11e3-9c29-00144feab7de.html#axzz2sex8B4Rl (not much more to it). Ah, it's in fact a comment in an interview, an attack on Ms Lamont's recent 'wee things' faux pas - with a witty allusion to the famous (in Scots history) "small folk" which determined the outcome at Bannockburn when they hove into sight. But that is a reference specifically to ordinary people determining the fate of their country, if today (mercifully) voting with their pencils rather than their billhooks. Democracy and all that.
It's not exactly claiming in a major speech that we have to vote Yes because our forebears had fought in the schiltrons at Bannockburn, much as Mr C did today for his own view of life and history, is it?
http://www.politicshome.com/timthumb.php?h=200&src=/images//1.1.MPs/David_Cameron_Somerset_070214.png