'2. The major change in perception by a UKIP win in the Euros will also add to the general uncertainty.'
The Euros are a joke election and no matter what the outcome diddly- squat is going to change and voters treat it accordingly.Whereas we are stuck for five years with the outcome of the GE in 2015 and a lot can change.
Quite:
Lord Ashcroft:
Voters readily distinguish between elections that matter and those that matter less. In our research people compared European elections to the Eurovision Song Contest; some cheerfully said that voting UKIP in these elections was just a way to “give Europe a slap”. A strong UKIP performance in [the 2014 Euros] even if they were to win more seats than any other party – need not mean electoral doom for the Tories the following year.
'Judges have moved a long way from believing in testamentary freedom, and love to rule against charities and political parties.'
My wife is currently acting as an executor and seeing at first hand that a Will, even when accompanied by a 'letter of wishes' is worthless if a judge decides it's unfair.
Judges aren't meant to decide cases on the basis of "I sympathise with A, but not with B" but increasingly they do in probate and inheritance matters.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens when p2p digital asset ownership bangs up against that. The deceased will program the ownership of their assets to automatically transfer to their preferred heirs on their death, and the people who thought they should have inherited will have to sue to those people to get them back, if they can work out who actually got them. The courts will then have to decide whether:
a) The transaction giving de-facto ownership of the assets to the heir was a statement of intent that's as near as dammit to a will. b) At the point where the assets were transferred they weren't the deceased's to give because they were dead, so they have to be handed back to whoever the legal system thinks should get them based on reading the will. c) The assets were transferred before the person died, sort-of, so let's just not count them as part of the estate.
But the executor would surely still be faced with counting their values for inheritance tax - as they would be gifts with reservation of benefit, because the deceased had the use of them during the rest of life. If the executor could find the details at all, that is ...
'Judges have moved a long way from believing in testamentary freedom, and love to rule against charities and political parties.'
My wife is currently acting as an executor and seeing at first hand that a Will, even when accompanied by a 'letter of wishes' is worthless if a judge decides it's unfair.
Judges aren't meant to decide cases on the basis of "I sympathise with A, but not with B" but increasingly they do in probate and inheritance matters.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens when p2p digital asset ownership bangs up against that. The deceased will program the ownership of their assets to automatically transfer to their preferred heirs on their death, and the people who thought they should have inherited will have to sue to those people to get them back, if they can work out who actually got them. The courts will then have to decide whether:
a) The transaction giving de-facto ownership of the assets to the heir was a statement of intent that's as near as dammit to a will. b) At the point where the assets were transferred they weren't the deceased's to give because they were dead, so they have to be handed back to whoever the legal system thinks should get them based on reading the will. c) The assets were transferred before the person died, sort-of, so let's just not count them as part of the estate.
But the executor would surely still be faced with counting their values for inheritance tax - as they would be gifts with reservation of benefit, because the deceased had the use of them during the rest of life. If the executor could find the details at all, that is ...
Well, that's a whole nother can of worms right there. I don't really understand why Britain taxes the estate in the first place instead of taxing the people who get the stuff on the stuff they get.
Cameron flood warning revelation The Government was warned last summer of the danger of the Somerset Levels flooding but decided not to fund more dredging.
It has emerged that David Cameron was approached by in August by farmers' leader Edwin White with a plea for urgent action.
Number 10 passed the letter to a minister, Richard Benyon, who replied that he could not provide additional government funding for dredging in Somerset. Mr Cameron finally authorised the funding this week.
The Government has also been left embarrassed over a chart said to exaggerate the amount of future investment proposed in flood defences.
The Times reports that Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, made a complaint about the chart in the National Infrastructure Plan, published with the Autumn Statement in December.
The watchdog took the unusual step of republishing the chart using a more conventional measuring scale.
The Daily Mail reports that ministers and the insurance industry have struck a deal which could see wealthy householders and those living in newer homes forced to pay a flood insurance levy, even though they won’t be covered by it.
It is a good job the Government did not fund more dredging on the Somerset Levels , it has save tens of thousands of homes in Bridgwater and other places down stream from flooding .
Really! So you admit that the Coalition -the British government - is incapable of defending all citizens equally? Shame on the government. And shame on you!
If you live in a house on the banks of say the river Severn then you should expect it to be subject to flooding . common sense applies though clearly not to UKIP supporters such as yourself .
And common sense says, that if the authorities, be they local, regional or governmental, allow building in flood plains, they should be protected by all available means. They were and are not so protected.
Of course if people were forbidden to build on floodplains or besides errant rivers, where would they put all those thousands and thousands of habitats be built. Thanks to those 3 million or so immigrants flooding into Britain in the last decade, probably in our remaining loverly countryside. The chilterns, the cotswolds, perhaps?
Cameron flood warning revelation The Government was warned last summer of the danger of the Somerset Levels flooding but decided not to fund more dredging.
It has emerged that David Cameron was approached by in August by farmers' leader Edwin White with a plea for urgent action.
Number 10 passed the letter to a minister, Richard Benyon, who replied that he could not provide additional government funding for dredging in Somerset. Mr Cameron finally authorised the funding this week.
The Government has also been left embarrassed over a chart said to exaggerate the amount of future investment proposed in flood defences.
The Times reports that Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, made a complaint about the chart in the National Infrastructure Plan, published with the Autumn Statement in December.
The watchdog took the unusual step of republishing the chart using a more conventional measuring scale.
The Daily Mail reports that ministers and the insurance industry have struck a deal which could see wealthy householders and those living in newer homes forced to pay a flood insurance levy, even though they won’t be covered by it.
It is a good job the Government did not fund more dredging on the Somerset Levels , it has save tens of thousands of homes in Bridgwater and other places down stream from flooding .
Really! So you admit that the Coalition -the British government - is incapable of defending all citizens equally? Shame on the government. And shame on you!
If you live in a house on the banks of say the river Severn then you should expect it to be subject to flooding . common sense applies though clearly not to UKIP supporters such as yourself .
And common sense says, that if the authorities, be they local, regional or governmental, allow building in flood plains, they should be protected by all available means. They were and are not so protected.
Of course if people were forbidden to build on floodplains or besides errant rivers, where would they put all those thousands and thousands of habitats be built. Thanks to those 3 million or so immigrants flooding into Britain in the last decade, probably in our remaining loverly countryside. The chilterns, the cotswolds, perhaps?
Call me a loony libertarian but I think people should be allowed to do things that have costs later on, without the government being expected to pay all the costs.
'2. The major change in perception by a UKIP win in the Euros will also add to the general uncertainty.'
The Euros are a joke election and no matter what the outcome diddly- squat is going to change and voters treat it accordingly.Whereas we are stuck for five years with the outcome of the GE in 2015 and a lot can change.
Quite:
Lord Ashcroft:
Voters readily distinguish between elections that matter and those that matter less. In our research people compared European elections to the Eurovision Song Contest; some cheerfully said that voting UKIP in these elections was just a way to “give Europe a slap”. A strong UKIP performance in [the 2014 Euros] even if they were to win more seats than any other party – need not mean electoral doom for the Tories the following year.
Mike highlights Cambridgeshire S, Mitchell's seat, but East Anglia is one of those places more than anywhere else which is disproportionately used to voting Conservative in Westminster and UKIP in Europe. So I don't think it represents UKIP's best bet.
I'm intrigued that David Herdson seems to have taken the word of two academics at face value when there is evidence that their viewpoint doesn't tell the whole story.
If one takes a look at the figures in Lord Ashcroft's project blueprint here (table 3 page 7):
So lets look at the relative breakdown demographically in class and wealth terms for each of the parties:
Conservatives
A/B 37% C1 30% C2 20% D/E 14%
Split Upper Classes 67% Lower Classes 33%
Labour
A/B 25% C1 29% C2 21% D/E 25%
Split Upper Classes 54% Lower Classes 46%
Libdems
A/B 38% C1 28% C2 15% D/E 19%
Split Upper Classes 66% Lower Classes 34%
UKIP
A/B 23% C1 24% C2 24% D/E 28%
Split Upper Classes 47% Lower Classes 53%
Looking at that data in the Ashcroft poll the assertions made by the two academics seem somewhat out of kilter. It's telling that they do not quote any statistics to back up their assertions.
UKIP do have the highest proportion of working class voters in the Ashcroft poll. However in real terms more than twice as many working (lower) class voters (1108 -505) support Labour in the Ashcroft poll and the same is true in both lower categories.
Secondly of all the parties UKIP has the least variance (23%-28%) between the 4 categories of any of the parties. Of all four parties UKIP has the most balanced support in these demographic terms. Whilst the lower categories are in the majority it is nowhere near the sort of position that is suggested in the Ford Goodwin article
Not only that the idea that the middle classes are shunning them is absurd. 47% of their vote comes from A/B/C1 groupings so where the academics get their data from is anyone's guess.
Yes its true that they are attracting floating voters and yes these may well be the equivalent of white van man but the defining shares we are talking about are minimal and UKIP can lay claim to these achievements basically because of the far more severe deficiencies and variances in the three establishment party breakdowns.
Sadly it seems that Ford and Goodwin have presented this in a rather decontextualised manner.
'Judges have moved a long way from believing in testamentary freedom, and love to rule against charities and political parties.'
My wife is currently acting as an executor and seeing at first hand that a Will, even when accompanied by a 'letter of wishes' is worthless if a judge decides it's unfair.
Judges aren't meant to decide cases on the basis of "I sympathise with A, but not with B" but increasingly they do in probate and inheritance matters.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens when p2p digital asset ownership bangs up against that. The deceased will program the ownership of their assets to automatically transfer to their preferred heirs on their death, and the people who thought they should have inherited will have to sue to those people to get them back, if they can work out who actually got them. The courts will then have to decide whether:
a) The transaction giving de-facto ownership of the assets to the heir was a statement of intent that's as near as dammit to a will. b) At the point where the assets were transferred they weren't the deceased's to give because they were dead, so they have to be handed back to whoever the legal system thinks should get them based on reading the will. c) The assets were transferred before the person died, sort-of, so let's just not count them as part of the estate.
But the executor would surely still be faced with counting their values for inheritance tax - as they would be gifts with reservation of benefit, because the deceased had the use of them during the rest of life. If the executor could find the details at all, that is ...
Well, that's a whole nother can of worms right there. I don't really understand why Britain taxes the estate in the first place instead of taxing the people who get the stuff on the stuff they get.
As a matter of interest, how much do you see digital assets as being worth on a 'typical' estate in the reasonably foreseeable future - say not too specialised, not a professional musician or music teacher anything like that? If say only £1K then it's not a huge worry. But if more ... In some ways it would be easier for the executor to turn a blind eye to diversions of the kind you specify if it is not too much and/or not worth the legal costs (with the agreement of the beneficiaries, which is not possible if some are minors or incapacitated). But HMRC is not so relaxed and will want at least a valuation. I speak from experience of acting as an executor!
Besides, if the government wants to turn people's homes into annual floodplains then they should a) buy their houses, and b) compensate landowners such as farmers, rather than do it by stealth.
I don't know anything about this particular valley but unless the rivers have been diverted the flood-plains presumably substantially pre-date the current owners' claims on the land. If that's right it's not obvious that the owners have a property right to flood-plain-free enjoyment of the property that requires the government to compensate them.
The rivers have been managed for centuries. Such management does not stop all floods, but helps limit the damage. What has happened - and you can make assumptions about why - is that the management has been significantly curtailed.
Worse, the people (mainly farmers) themselves are prevented from doing it.
It's the change in status that's the problem. Getting flooded one every twenty years would be annoying, Getting flooded once every year would be devastating. And that is a government decision.
'2. The major change in perception by a UKIP win in the Euros will also add to the general uncertainty.'
The Euros are a joke election and no matter what the outcome diddly- squat is going to change and voters treat it accordingly.Whereas we are stuck for five years with the outcome of the GE in 2015 and a lot can change.
Quite:
Lord Ashcroft:
Voters readily distinguish between elections that matter and those that matter less. In our research people compared European elections to the Eurovision Song Contest; some cheerfully said that voting UKIP in these elections was just a way to “give Europe a slap”. A strong UKIP performance in [the 2014 Euros] even if they were to win more seats than any other party – need not mean electoral doom for the Tories the following year.
Mike highlights Cambridgeshire S, Mitchell's seat, but East Anglia is one of those places more than anywhere else which is disproportionately used to voting Conservative in Westminster and UKIP in Europe. So I don't think it represents UKIP's best bet.
But would they treat a by-election like Westminster or like Europe? The key difference between those two is that the former decides who ends up as Prime Minister whereas the latter decides nothing the voters in question are able to discern. Which also exactly describes the situation in a by-election, assuming the government's majority is higher than one.
Cameron flood warning revelation The Government was warned last summer of the danger of the Somerset Levels flooding but decided not to fund more dredging.
It has emerged that David Cameron was approached by in August by farmers' leader Edwin White with a plea for urgent action.
Number 10 passed the letter to a minister, Richard Benyon, who replied that he could not provide additional government funding for dredging in Somerset. Mr Cameron finally authorised the funding this week.
The Government has also been left embarrassed over a chart said to exaggerate the amount of future investment proposed in flood defences.
The Times reports that Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, made a complaint about the chart in the National Infrastructure Plan, published with the Autumn Statement in December.
The watchdog took the unusual step of republishing the chart using a more conventional measuring scale.
The Daily Mail reports that ministers and the insurance industry have struck a deal which could see wealthy householders and those living in newer homes forced to pay a flood insurance levy, even though they won’t be covered by it.
It is a good job the Government did not fund more dredging on the Somerset Levels , it has save tens of thousands of homes in Bridgwater and other places down stream from flooding .
Really! So you admit that the Coalition -the British government - is incapable of defending all citizens equally? Shame on the government. And shame on you!
If you live in a house on the banks of say the river Severn then you should expect it to be subject to flooding . common sense applies though clearly not to UKIP supporters such as yourself .
Unless the government makes a decision that will lead to the floods occurring much more frequently.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens when p2p digital asset ownership bangs up against that. The deceased will program the ownership of their assets to automatically transfer to their preferred heirs on their death, and the people who thought they should have inherited will have to sue to those people to get them back, if they can work out who actually got them. The courts will then have to decide whether:
a) The transaction giving de-facto ownership of the assets to the heir was a statement of intent that's as near as dammit to a will. b) At the point where the assets were transferred they weren't the deceased's to give because they were dead, so they have to be handed back to whoever the legal system thinks should get them based on reading the will. c) The assets were transferred before the person died, sort-of, so let's just not count them as part of the estate.
But the executor would surely still be faced with counting their values for inheritance tax - as they would be gifts with reservation of benefit, because the deceased had the use of them during the rest of life. If the executor could find the details at all, that is ...
Well, that's a whole nother can of worms right there. I don't really understand why Britain taxes the estate in the first place instead of taxing the people who get the stuff on the stuff they get.
As a matter of interest, how much do you see digital assets as being worth on a 'typical' estate in the reasonably foreseeable future - say not too specialised, not a professional musician or music teacher anything like that? If say only £1K then it's not a huge worry. But if more ... In some ways it would be easier for the executor to turn a blind eye to diversions of the kind you specify if it is not too much and/or not worth the legal costs (with the agreement of the beneficiaries, which is not possible if some are minors or incapacitated). But HMRC is not so relaxed and will want at least a valuation. I speak from experience of acting as an executor!
I'm not thinking of downloaded music and stuff, I'm thinking of bitcoins (potentially millions of pounds worth of savings) and the next set of applications for the technology bitcoin uses, like p2p-tradeable stocks and bonds.
Further to that its interesting to note how the the figures for Tories and Libdems are so similar. Is that the effect of being in government together? Are any ideas that they can retain their distinctiveness in Coalition futile?
isam's analysis of UKIP's support is actually pretty convincing (guest article?!)
And it shows that the bulk of UKIP's rise is, unsurprisingly, down to grumpy rightwing Tories. I doubt they'll be swinging anywhere any time soon, if they do it will only be to one place.
That's a very superficial analysis. Many currently UKIP-inclined voters will have backed Blair in 1997.
Isam, if you are putting Totnes in the second tier for UKIP, it shows how far adrift you are of reality. Dr. Sarah Wollaston will doubtless increase her majority next time. She is largely seen as an independent in action, if not in party label. Many who are not Tories are very happy to have a member of the Awkward Squad as their MP.
Besides, if the government wants to turn people's homes into annual floodplains then they should a) buy their houses, and b) compensate landowners such as farmers, rather than do it by stealth.
I don't know anything about this particular valley but unless the rivers have been diverted the flood-plains presumably substantially pre-date the current owners' claims on the land. If that's right it's not obvious that the owners have a property right to flood-plain-free enjoyment of the property that requires the government to compensate them.
The Somerset Levels which are actually mostly below sea level - hence the poor drainage via rivers have been there for millenia . In Saxon times Glastonbury Tor was originally an island and Glastonbury and other villages were Lake villages
It's going to be interesting to see what happens when p2p digital asset ownership bangs up against that. The deceased will program the ownership of their assets to automatically transfer to their preferred heirs on their death, and the people who thought they should have inherited will have to sue to those people to get them back, if they can work out who actually got them. The courts will then have to decide whether:
a) The transaction giving de-facto ownership of the assets to the heir was a statement of intent that's as near as dammit to a will. b) At the point where the assets were transferred they weren't the deceased's to give because they were dead, so they have to be handed back to whoever the legal system thinks should get them based on reading the will. c) The assets were transferred before the person died, sort-of, so let's just not count them as part of the estate.
But the executor would surely still be faced with counting their values for inheritance tax - as they would be gifts with reservation of benefit, because the deceased had the use of them during the rest of life. If the executor could find the details at all, that is ...
Well, that's a whole nother can of worms right there. I don't really understand why Britain taxes the estate in the first place instead of taxing the people who get the stuff on the stuff they get.
As a matter of interest, how much do you see digital assets as being worth on a 'typical' estate in the reasonably foreseeable future - say not too specialised, not a professional musician or music teacher anything like that? If say only £1K then it's not a huge worry. But if more ... In some ways it would be easier for the executor to turn a blind eye to diversions of the kind you specify if it is not too much and/or not worth the legal costs (with the agreement of the beneficiaries, which is not possible if some are minors or incapacitated). But HMRC is not so relaxed and will want at least a valuation. I speak from experience of acting as an executor!
I'm not thinking of downloaded music and stuff, I'm thinking of bitcoins (potentially millions of pounds worth of savings) and the next set of applications for the technology bitcoin uses, like p2p-tradeable stocks and bonds.
As an active UKIP supporter, how much is the senior reorganisation impacting on the party as a whole? For example bringing in patrick oflynn as director of comms and trying to modernise your campaigning force?
I think it's tough to see this in action for the euros but do you think the party will be in a position to fight a handful of seats professionally by 2015?
Besides, if the government wants to turn people's homes into annual floodplains then they should a) buy their houses, and b) compensate landowners such as farmers, rather than do it by stealth.
I don't know anything about this particular valley but unless the rivers have been diverted the flood-plains presumably substantially pre-date the current owners' claims on the land. If that's right it's not obvious that the owners have a property right to flood-plain-free enjoyment of the property that requires the government to compensate them.
The Somerset Levels which are actually mostly below sea level - hence the poor drainage via rivers have been there for millenia . In Saxon times Glastonbury Tor was originally an island and Glastonbury and other villages were Lake villages
In Saxon times Glastonbury Tor was originally an island and Glastonbury and other villages were Lake villages. Ureka! That's it! build on stilt's. Now why didn't I think of that!
This leads me to believe that the best chance of a UKIP success in by or Gen Elections is a seat where it was close between Lab & Con last time, with a combined BNP & UKIP vote of about 7-8% and a low turnout (that's where a lot of DNV s come into play)
Think you're wrong on that. Their best chance would be a close Con Lib seat with a low Lab vote and a demographic sympathetic to UKIP (perhaps rural working class..?) and low turnout.
In this case, UKIP rather than Lab could benefit from the Lib Dem collapse as well as picking up a big chunk of Tories.
ACyually I kind of agree. I should have said a close contest between Con & Lab or Con & LD, as that's what I based my calculations on. I just didn't type Con & LD out of pure laziness!
Disagree with both of you. The best opportunity for UKIP to win is where they have a strong presence already and have a well supported local party and the demographics and location favour them. The two Thanet seats are clearly at the top of the list with Thanet South obviously the favourite now Sandys has bottled it and is standing down.
Cameron flood warning revelation The Government was warned last summer of the danger of the Somerset Levels flooding but decided not to fund more dredging.
It has emerged that David Cameron was approached by in August by farmers' leader Edwin White with a plea for urgent action.
Number 10 passed the letter to a minister, Richard Benyon, who replied that he could not provide additional government funding for dredging in Somerset. Mr Cameron finally authorised the funding this week.
The Government has also been left embarrassed over a chart said to exaggerate the amount of future investment proposed in flood defences.
The Times reports that Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, made a complaint about the chart in the National Infrastructure Plan, published with the Autumn Statement in December.
The watchdog took the unusual step of republishing the chart using a more conventional measuring scale.
The Daily Mail reports that ministers and the insurance industry have struck a deal which could see wealthy householders and those living in newer homes forced to pay a flood insurance levy, even though they won’t be covered by it.
Ha. What was I saying just yesterday? Soon as it becomes a political blame game, the buck is only going to stop in one place. The Tories made an error "going after" the Environment Agency.
They're criticising the EA because they're the organisation that has failed.
Scapegoating might be the default Tory position, but it's wretched leadership and has a habit of coming back to bite you on the backside.
"The recession started in America.....we didn't borrow too much......"
Cameron flood warning revelation The Government was warned last summer of the danger of the Somerset Levels flooding but decided not to fund more dredging.
It has emerged that David Cameron was approached by in August by farmers' leader Edwin White with a plea for urgent action.
Number 10 passed the letter to a minister, Richard Benyon, who replied that he could not provide additional government funding for dredging in Somerset. Mr Cameron finally authorised the funding this week.
The Government has also been left embarrassed over a chart said to exaggerate the amount of future investment proposed in flood defences.
The Times reports that Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, made a complaint about the chart in the National Infrastructure Plan, published with the Autumn Statement in December.
The watchdog took the unusual step of republishing the chart using a more conventional measuring scale.
The Daily Mail reports that ministers and the insurance industry have struck a deal which could see wealthy householders and those living in newer homes forced to pay a flood insurance levy, even though they won’t be covered by it.
Ha. What was I saying just yesterday? Soon as it becomes a political blame game, the buck is only going to stop in one place. The Tories made an error "going after" the Environment Agency.
They're criticising the EA because they're the organisation that has failed.
Failed at what? Blowing the rainclouds away?
As we know, dredging wouldn't have stopped the floods, and might even create even bigger problems. Which is why the Government - that's, the Government, who are in charge of the EA - rightly decided not to dredge.
Scapegoating might be the default Tory position, but it's wretched leadership and has a habit of coming back to bite you on the backside.
I think part of the problem is that the EA want to 'leave things to nature' and not actively manage the land. Trouble is that all of England pretty much is a creation of man over the centuries. Our green and pleasant land is a giant landscaped garden. It needs to be managed.
And if the weather is changing we need to respond accordingly. I live in the Netherlands which is over 50% below sea level. Absolutely everywhere is maze of polders, dykes, canals, windmills, and the like. They proudly and actively manage their land - or they'd drown. We should emulate them. Surround the whole Somerset Levels with a polder and use windmills to pump water. Job done.
Isam, if you are putting Totnes in the second tier for UKIP, it shows how far adrift you are of reality. Dr. Sarah Wollaston will doubtless increase her majority next time. She is largely seen as an independent in action, if not in party label. Many who are not Tories are very happy to have a member of the Awkward Squad as their MP.
Bit harsh! I said I worked out the top tier etc from a formula I was trying to work out, without looking at the context of the seats at all, and that some would be wildly inaccurate
Cameron flood warning revelation The Government was warned last summer of the danger of the Somerset Levels flooding but decided not to fund more dredging.
It has emerged that David Cameron was approached by in August by farmers' leader Edwin White with a plea for urgent action.
Number 10 passed the letter to a minister, Richard Benyon, who replied that he could not provide additional government funding for dredging in Somerset. Mr Cameron finally authorised the funding this week.
The Government has also been left embarrassed over a chart said to exaggerate the amount of future investment proposed in flood defences.
The Times reports that Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, made a complaint about the chart in the National Infrastructure Plan, published with the Autumn Statement in December.
The watchdog took the unusual step of republishing the chart using a more conventional measuring scale.
The Daily Mail reports that ministers and the insurance industry have struck a deal which could see wealthy householders and those living in newer homes forced to pay a flood insurance levy, even though they won’t be covered by it.
Ha. What was I saying just yesterday? Soon as it becomes a political blame game, the buck is only going to stop in one place. The Tories made an error "going after" the Environment Agency.
They're criticising the EA because they're the organisation that has failed.
Failed at what? Blowing the rainclouds away?
As we know, dredging wouldn't have stopped the floods, and might even create even bigger problems. Which is why the Government - that's, the Government, who are in charge of the EA - rightly decided not to dredge.
Scapegoating might be the default Tory position, but it's wretched leadership and has a habit of coming back to bite you on the backside.
Are you suggesting the EA has succeeded?
This rainfall is a once in a hundred year event, out of the millions of homes in this country how many are flooded? A tiny number given the amount of rain and wind over the past two months. In my view we should be celebrating how well our flood defences have coped.
Besides, if the government wants to turn people's homes into annual floodplains then they should a) buy their houses, and b) compensate landowners such as farmers, rather than do it by stealth.
I don't know anything about this particular valley but unless the rivers have been diverted the flood-plains presumably substantially pre-date the current owners' claims on the land. If that's right it's not obvious that the owners have a property right to flood-plain-free enjoyment of the property that requires the government to compensate them.
The Somerset Levels which are actually mostly below sea level - hence the poor drainage via rivers have been there for millenia . In Saxon times Glastonbury Tor was originally an island and Glastonbury and other villages were Lake villages
Not quite true. They're below peak high tide level.
The monks who drained the land via the Parrett did so by clearing its channel so it flowed faster into the sea at low tide. Channels called Rhynes then drained the land that was lower than high tide level into the river.
The Rhynes were fitted with sluice gates so that the river Parrett, when it was pushed back by high tide (it's tidal to the deserted mediaeval village of Oath) could not refill the field drains. This is simple stuff but depends on the Parrett remaining free flowing to get rid of the upper water. Hence, the need for dredging.
It also looks as if the EA have cut back heavily on both the number of operational pumps and their maintenance. I wonder what the savings are. relative to the cost of emergency pump rental; the sets shipped in from Holland being installed today can't be cheap.
Liverpool 5-0 Arsenal Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain snaps a skidding low shot goalwards, but Simon Mignolet drops on it with time to spare. The Anfield crowd barely break song. "Are you Tottenham in disguise?" is the latest ditty. Liverpool beat Spurs 5-0 at White Hart Lane earlier this season.
Cameron flood warning revelation The Government was warned last summer of the danger of the Somerset Levels flooding but decided not to fund more dredging.
It has emerged that David Cameron was approached by in August by farmers' leader Edwin White with a plea for urgent action.
Number 10 passed the letter to a minister, Richard Benyon, who replied that he could not provide additional government funding for dredging in Somerset. Mr Cameron finally authorised the funding this week.
The Government has also been left embarrassed over a chart said to exaggerate the amount of future investment proposed in flood defences.
The Times reports that Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, made a complaint about the chart in the National Infrastructure Plan, published with the Autumn Statement in December.
The watchdog took the unusual step of republishing the chart using a more conventional measuring scale.
The Daily Mail reports that ministers and the insurance industry have struck a deal which could see wealthy householders and those living in newer homes forced to pay a flood insurance levy, even though they won’t be covered by it.
Ha. What was I saying just yesterday? Soon as it becomes a political blame game, the buck is only going to stop in one place. The Tories made an error "going after" the Environment Agency.
They're criticising the EA because they're the organisation that has failed.
Failed at what? Blowing the rainclouds away?
As we know, dredging wouldn't have stopped the floods, and might even create even bigger problems. Which is why the Government - that's, the Government, who are in charge of the EA - rightly decided not to dredge.
Scapegoating might be the default Tory position, but it's wretched leadership and has a habit of coming back to bite you on the backside.
Are you suggesting the EA has succeeded?
This rainfall is a once in a hundred year event, out of the millions of homes in this country how many are flooded? A tiny number given the amount of rain and wind over the past two months. In my view we should be celebrating how well our flood defences have coped.
You are making the mistake of assuming that the flooding is not occurring at other, non-extreme events. For instance, they flooded last year.
Thanks to TheWatcher below for his summary of the way the Parrett's watershed works. And if you think that's complex, the Ouse is much worse, and I've never quite got my head around it. ;-)
Besides, if the government wants to turn people's homes into annual floodplains then they should a) buy their houses, and b) compensate landowners such as farmers, rather than do it by stealth.
I don't know anything about this particular valley but unless the rivers have been diverted the flood-plains presumably substantially pre-date the current owners' claims on the land. If that's right it's not obvious that the owners have a property right to flood-plain-free enjoyment of the property that requires the government to compensate them.
The Somerset Levels which are actually mostly below sea level - hence the poor drainage via rivers have been there for millenia . In Saxon times Glastonbury Tor was originally an island and Glastonbury and other villages were Lake villages
Not quite true. They're below peak high tide level.
The monks who drained the land via the Parrett did so by clearing its channel so it flowed faster into the sea at low tide. Channels called Rhynes then drained the land that was lower than high tide level into the river.
The Rhynes were fitted with sluice gates so that the river Parrett, when it was pushed back by high tide (it's tidal to the deserted mediaeval village of Oath) could not refill the field drains. This is simple stuff but depends on the Parrett remaining free flowing to get rid of the upper water. Hence, the need for dredging.
It also looks as if the EA have cut back heavily on both the number of operational pumps and their maintenance. I wonder what the savings are. relative to the cost of emergency pump rental; the sets shipped in from Holland being installed today can't be cheap.
Ah, but Mr. Watcher, what those medieval monks didn't realise was that by keeping the river clear and the rhynes free flowing they were actually making the problem worse.
It might have appeared that the land drained and could be taken into productive use but that was just an illusion, albeit one that persisted for centuries. What was really happening is all that work ensuring the water could run off and get out to sea actually increased the scope and chance of flooding. We know this because Hugh, gent of this parish, has told us (see message up thread and a similar one yesterday).
The thesis that blocking channels decreases the chances of flooding is easily proved. Lift up the manhole in your garden and block the out-flow pipe so that it is about one tenth of its original diameter, then sit back and wait for a few days. You will see how much better the sewage and waste water drain away.
The Somerset Levels which are actually mostly below sea level - hence the poor drainage via rivers have been there for millenia . In Saxon times Glastonbury Tor was originally an island and Glastonbury and other villages were Lake villages
Not quite true. They're below peak high tide level.
The monks who drained the land via the Parrett did so by clearing its channel so it flowed faster into the sea at low tide. Channels called Rhynes then drained the land that was lower than high tide level into the river.
The Rhynes were fitted with sluice gates so that the river Parrett, when it was pushed back by high tide (it's tidal to the deserted mediaeval village of Oath) could not refill the field drains. This is simple stuff but depends on the Parrett remaining free flowing to get rid of the upper water. Hence, the need for dredging.
It also looks as if the EA have cut back heavily on both the number of operational pumps and their maintenance. I wonder what the savings are. relative to the cost of emergency pump rental; the sets shipped in from Holland being installed today can't be cheap.
Ah, but Mr. Watcher, what those medieval monks didn't realise was that by keeping the river clear and the rhynes free flowing they were actually making the problem worse.
It might have appeared that the land drained and could be taken into productive use but that was just an illusion, albeit one that persisted for centuries. What was really happening is all that work ensuring the water could run off and get out to sea actually increased the scope and chance of flooding. We know this because Hugh, gent of this parish, has told us (see message up thread and a similar one yesterday).
The thesis that blocking channels decreases the chances of flooding is easily proved. Lift up the manhole in your garden and block the out-flow pipe so that it is about one tenth of its original diameter, then sit back and wait for a few days. You will see how much better the sewage and waste water drain away.
But the stuff that does get through will be going faster. At least until some (ahem) solids block it ... ;-)
I also wonder if FPTP only really works in the more binary world of two dominant parties. It looks like 2015 is going to throw up an absolute stinker of an outcome. I'm guessing it will be close to 35/35/15/15 but Labour having a large majority.
If you have two parties, each winning 40%+, on a 75% turnout, then I think FPTP has few problems.
When you move to a four-party system, and a party can win an overall majority, despite 70% of voters voting against them, and 35% not voting at all, then the system is broken.
If they changed the method of candidate selection, to primaries for new candidates and sitting MPs, the parties would change to reflect the electorate's wishes, and a two party system could work.
But I don't think that would be a good thing for governance.
I recall a study which demonstrated that the country would more often than not vote for a GP over any other criteria (job, education, political views, whatever).
A house of commons full of GPs (or any other profession for that matter) would not be good. Diversity of background and experience is what matters.
Bit harsh! I said I worked out the top tier etc from a formula I was trying to work out, without looking at the context of the seats at all, and that some would be wildly inaccurate
Fair enough. But I think it helps show that the vast majority of Westminster seats - probably all - are simply going to be out of reach for UKIP whilst ever the Tories and Labour are each polling in the 30's. UKIP might slash majorities, might turn safe into marginal-ish. But there is just not the springboard required - especially when the next election is about two diametrically opposed ideas about how to manage the economy: chastity belt versus woo-hoo, the fleet's in port!!
I think this has all gotten rather OTT to be honest. Broadcasters, corporations and newspapers feel like they're competing with each other, and it almost looks like a smugfest.
Bit harsh! I said I worked out the top tier etc from a formula I was trying to work out, without looking at the context of the seats at all, and that some would be wildly inaccurate
Fair enough. But I think it helps show that the vast majority of Westminster seats - probably all - are simply going to be out of reach for UKIP whilst ever the Tories and Labour are each polling in the 30's. UKIP might slash majorities, might turn safe into marginal-ish. But there is just not the springboard required - especially when the next election is about two diametrically opposed ideas about how to manage the economy: chastity belt versus woo-hoo, the fleet's in port!!
I don't see much difference between a Labour government and a Cameroon one.
Someone from Channel 4 is going to get stabbed by a poisoned umbrella-tip for their Winter Olympics ident: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6RID82Ru-k
Brilliant.
They played it last night after the news - on second viewing its even cheekier than I thought;
- the song starts off with the tune of the Russian national anthem - What's with the fat guy? He's the Russian Bear - duh! - Shirtless Putin on the disco mixing deck - Payoff line is Good luck to everyone Out in Sochi......
They really, really don't like being laughed at.....
Those of us who watched Rev Flowers testimony to the TSC, will remember when facing a barrage of Questions showing his failings and lack of capability was that his defence was he'd overseen the first ever female to be appointed to the board........ that was his main achievement and v proud he was of it too.
If the will isn't valid, or she wasn't in her right mind when she made it, the laws of intestacy kick in...
Could mean your estate going to relatives you didn't even know you had! Have you not seen Heirhunters on TV?
the article states she 'was “fully compos mentis” when she made the will.'.
There seems to be some rather sexist and ageist coverage to these cases of little old ladies leaving money to political parties which assumes that the old dears can't possibly be interested in politics and therefore their will must be a mistake.
If this was an older male who had left money to their political party of choice or even if this lady had left her money to a cat sanctuary, I imagine much less would have been made of it.
There seems to be some rather sexist and ageist coverage to these cases of little old ladies leaving money to political parties which assumes that the old dears can't possibly be interested in politics and therefore their will must be a mistake.
If this was an older male who had left money to their political party of choice or even if this lady had left her money to a cat sanctuary, I imagine much less would have been made of it.
Quite so. It's her estate and she can do what she bloody well wants with it.
If the will isn't valid, or she wasn't in her right mind when she made it, the laws of intestacy kick in...
Could mean your estate going to relatives you didn't even know you had! Have you not seen Heirhunters on TV?
the article states she 'was “fully compos mentis” when she made the will.'.
There seems to be some rather sexist and ageist coverage to these cases of little old ladies leaving money to political parties which assumes that the old dears can't possibly be interested in politics and therefore their will must be a mistake.
If this was an older male who had left money to their political party of choice or even if this lady had left her money to a cat sanctuary, I imagine much less would have been made of it.
It's "one of the biggest donations in [the Conservative Party's] history"
Cameron flood warning revelation The Government was warned last summer of the danger of the Somerset Levels flooding but decided not to fund more dredging.
It has emerged that David Cameron was approached by in August by farmers' leader Edwin White with a plea for urgent action.
Number 10 passed the letter to a minister, Richard Benyon, who replied that he could not provide additional government funding for dredging in Somerset. Mr Cameron finally authorised the funding this week.
The Government has also been left embarrassed over a chart said to exaggerate the amount of future investment proposed in flood defences.
The Times reports that Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, made a complaint about the chart in the National Infrastructure Plan, published with the Autumn Statement in December.
The watchdog took the unusual step of republishing the chart using a more conventional measuring scale.
The Daily Mail reports that ministers and the insurance industry have struck a deal which could see wealthy householders and those living in newer homes forced to pay a flood insurance levy, even though they won’t be covered by it.
It is a good job the Government did not fund more dredging on the Somerset Levels , it has save tens of thousands of homes in Bridgwater and other places down stream from flooding .
Really! So you admit that the Coalition -the British government - is incapable of defending all citizens equally? Shame on the government. And shame on you!
If you live in a house on the banks of say the river Severn then you should expect it to be subject to flooding . common sense applies though clearly not to UKIP supporters such as yourself .
If it was purchased on the basis that - as was the historical case - there was regular dredging of the rivers and a subsequent fiat decision by a non-elected body changed this policy then I would have thought you might have a reasonable claim.
However if, for example, you buy a house near Heathrow then the potential for future expansion and noise increase should have been factored into the purchase price and hence I have little sympathy.
Looks like the Immigration Minister didn't know she was here illegally, she had overstayed, and told him she had right to indefinitive leave to remain in the UK and showed him documents to show this.
Looks like the Immigration Minister didn't know she was here illegally, she had overstayed, and told him she had right to indefinitive leave to remain in the UK and showed him documents to show this.
At least his swift resignation has left this as a 'Mark Harper story' not a 'government story' or a 'Cameron judgement story'....
Unfortunately I suspect Farage will be running with "The Tories can't control illegal immigration, the Immigration minister had an illegal worker under his nose"
Looks like the Immigration Minister didn't know she was here illegally, she had overstayed, and told him she had right to indefinitive leave to remain in the UK and showed him documents to show this.
But turns out she did not
Then why did he resign?
Because the Immigration Minister should not be employing people here illegally/do not have the right to work here.
Looks like the Immigration Minister didn't know she was here illegally, she had overstayed, and told him she had right to indefinitive leave to remain in the UK and showed him documents to show this.
@TheScreamingEagles Unfortunately I suspect Farage will be running with "The Tories can't control illegal immigration, the Immigration minister had an illegal worker under his nose"
(Obviously UKIP will run with something snappier) ----------------- Like: Were Singin' In the Rain.....................Teetoo tedoodooo.......
Tho this does raise the question if the Immigration Minister cannot spot a fake document, how is a land lord or employer supposed to?
Worth reading his letter.
Landlords are supposed to take reasonable care, but not to know a fake.
He resigned because he felt that he ought to hold himself to a higher standard than that as he had piloted the legislation through parliament.
Fair play to him. It's bloody refreshing to see a minister hold himself to a higher standard, unlike the vast majority who weasel out of it, and try and blame others.
Comments
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-parties-annual-accounts/2012#UKIP
There is also the perception of momentum. If UKIP look like they're on a roll, they will be.
The local election results will probably have a more direct effect on the 2015 election though.
Of course if people were forbidden to build on floodplains or besides errant rivers, where would they put all those thousands and thousands of habitats be built. Thanks to those 3 million or so immigrants flooding into Britain in the last decade, probably in our remaining loverly countryside. The chilterns, the cotswolds, perhaps?
If one takes a look at the figures in Lord Ashcroft's project blueprint here (table 3 page 7):
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Blueprint-4-Full-tables.pdf
it tells a somewhat different story.
So lets look at the relative breakdown demographically in class and wealth terms for each of the parties:
Conservatives
A/B 37%
C1 30%
C2 20%
D/E 14%
Split Upper Classes 67% Lower Classes 33%
Labour
A/B 25%
C1 29%
C2 21%
D/E 25%
Split Upper Classes 54% Lower Classes 46%
Libdems
A/B 38%
C1 28%
C2 15%
D/E 19%
Split Upper Classes 66% Lower Classes 34%
UKIP
A/B 23%
C1 24%
C2 24%
D/E 28%
Split Upper Classes 47% Lower Classes 53%
Looking at that data in the Ashcroft poll the assertions made by the two academics seem somewhat out of kilter. It's telling that they do not quote any statistics to back up their assertions.
UKIP do have the highest proportion of working class voters in the Ashcroft poll. However in real terms more than twice as many working (lower) class voters (1108 -505) support Labour in the Ashcroft poll and the same is true in both lower categories.
Secondly of all the parties UKIP has the least variance (23%-28%) between the 4 categories of any of the parties. Of all four parties UKIP has the most balanced support in these demographic terms. Whilst the lower categories are in the majority it is nowhere near the sort of position that is suggested in the Ford Goodwin article
Not only that the idea that the middle classes are shunning them is absurd. 47% of their vote comes from A/B/C1 groupings so where the academics get their data from is anyone's guess.
Yes its true that they are attracting floating voters and yes these may well be the equivalent of white van man but the defining shares we are talking about are minimal and UKIP can lay claim to these achievements basically because of the far more severe deficiencies and variances in the three establishment party breakdowns.
Sadly it seems that Ford and Goodwin have presented this in a rather decontextualised manner.
Worse, the people (mainly farmers) themselves are prevented from doing it.
It's the change in status that's the problem. Getting flooded one every twenty years would be annoying, Getting flooded once every year would be devastating. And that is a government decision.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-26097641
As an active UKIP supporter, how much is the senior reorganisation impacting on the party as a whole? For example bringing in patrick oflynn as director of comms and trying to modernise your campaigning force?
I think it's tough to see this in action for the euros but do you think the party will be in a position to fight a handful of seats professionally by 2015?
You said, "As we know, dredging wouldn't have stopped the floods, and might even create even bigger problems."
Please give the scientific evidence for this assertion.
And if the weather is changing we need to respond accordingly. I live in the Netherlands which is over 50% below sea level. Absolutely everywhere is maze of polders, dykes, canals, windmills, and the like. They proudly and actively manage their land - or they'd drown. We should emulate them. Surround the whole Somerset Levels with a polder and use windmills to pump water. Job done.
Could mean your estate going to relatives you didn't even know you had! Have you not seen Heirhunters on TV?
The monks who drained the land via the Parrett did so by clearing its channel so it flowed faster into the sea at low tide. Channels called Rhynes then drained the land that was lower than high tide level into the river.
The Rhynes were fitted with sluice gates so that the river Parrett, when it was pushed back by high tide (it's tidal to the deserted mediaeval village of Oath) could not refill the field drains. This is simple stuff but depends on the Parrett remaining free flowing to get rid of the upper water. Hence, the need for dredging.
It also looks as if the EA have cut back heavily on both the number of operational pumps and their maintenance. I wonder what the savings are. relative to the cost of emergency pump rental; the sets shipped in from Holland being installed today can't be cheap.
Liverpool 5-0 Arsenal
Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain snaps a skidding low shot goalwards, but Simon Mignolet drops on it with time to spare. The Anfield crowd barely break song. "Are you Tottenham in disguise?" is the latest ditty. Liverpool beat Spurs 5-0 at White Hart Lane earlier this season.
Thanks to TheWatcher below for his summary of the way the Parrett's watershed works. And if you think that's complex, the Ouse is much worse, and I've never quite got my head around it. ;-)
Someone from Channel 4 is going to get stabbed by a poisoned umbrella-tip for their Winter Olympics ident:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6RID82Ru-k
Brilliant.
What in the past has taken days to clear is now taking weeks.
Luckily for the Norfolk Broads, they have their own authority managing the wetlands. The EA can't meddle, and wreak havoc over there.
The Screaming Eagles @TSEofPB 7s
Had Sktrel at 40/1 as 1st Goal Scorer
Kerching
twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/432156502736916480
pic.twitter.com/SvbFJYWGmi
It might have appeared that the land drained and could be taken into productive use but that was just an illusion, albeit one that persisted for centuries. What was really happening is all that work ensuring the water could run off and get out to sea actually increased the scope and chance of flooding. We know this because Hugh, gent of this parish, has told us (see message up thread and a similar one yesterday).
The thesis that blocking channels decreases the chances of flooding is easily proved. Lift up the manhole in your garden and block the out-flow pipe so that it is about one tenth of its original diameter, then sit back and wait for a few days. You will see how much better the sewage and waste water drain away.
Can you let me know tonight's Lotto numbers ?
Good old Mr Bernoulli.
I recall a study which demonstrated that the country would more often than not vote for a GP over any other criteria (job, education, political views, whatever).
A house of commons full of GPs (or any other profession for that matter) would not be good. Diversity of background and experience is what matters.
I live about half a mile from the Trent but it isn't flooding at all, luckily.
http://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/six-nations/scotland-v-england/winner
And England to win by 21-30 points at 9/2
http://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/six-nations/scotland-v-england/winning-margin
Tempted to back Everton at 11/4.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/01/osborne-owes-darling-an-apology/
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/fisking-george-osbornes-hard-truths-speech/
- the song starts off with the tune of the Russian national anthem
- What's with the fat guy? He's the Russian Bear - duh!
- Shirtless Putin on the disco mixing deck
- Payoff line is Good luck to everyone Out in Sochi......
They really, really don't like being laughed at.....
Environment Secretary...funny how so many have forgotten that. But he is a none person isn't he?
Just saying....
Ed Balls@edballsmp·5 hrs
No women on MPC since June 2010: if Labour win election I'm determined we put this right - @guardian interview http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/07/ed-balls-conservative-women-george-osborne-labour-chancellor …
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/02/on-the-road-with-ukip-in-the-common-sense-battle-bus/
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/norwich-v-man-city/total-away-goals
There seems to be some rather sexist and ageist coverage to these cases of little old ladies leaving money to political parties which assumes that the old dears can't possibly be interested in politics and therefore their will must be a mistake.
If this was an older male who had left money to their political party of choice or even if this lady had left her money to a cat sanctuary, I imagine much less would have been made of it.
Just to be clear, then. Ozil cost £2.1m more than Arsenal were prepared to pay for Suarez? LOVE the Arsenal business model..
However if, for example, you buy a house near Heathrow then the potential for future expansion and noise increase should have been factored into the purchase price and hence I have little sympathy.
Immigration Minister Mark Harper has reportedly resigned, because he has a cleaner who was in the country illegally.
Sometimes you can't make this stuff up.
But turns out she did not
Minister quits over cleaner's visa
Breaking news
Immigration minister Mark Harper resigns after it emerges his cleaner did not have permission to work in UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26101442#TWEET1038330
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/02/breaking-mark-harper-resigns-as-immigration-minister-over-cleaner/
(Obviously UKIP will run with something snappier)
Compare and contrast with Baroness Scotland.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/02/breaking-mark-harper-resigns-as-immigration-minister-over-cleaner/
Tho this does raise the question if the Immigration Minister cannot spot a fake document, how is a land lord or employer supposed to?
Huzzah for Ireland.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/business-sponsors/points/sponsoringmigrants/sponsorsandratings/illegalworking/
Unfortunately I suspect Farage will be running with "The Tories can't control illegal immigration, the Immigration minister had an illegal worker under his nose"
(Obviously UKIP will run with something snappier)
-----------------
Like: Were Singin' In the Rain.....................Teetoo tedoodooo.......
Landlords are supposed to take reasonable care, but not to know a fake.
He resigned because he felt that he ought to hold himself to a higher standard than that as he had piloted the legislation through parliament.
Mark Harper knew how damaging it would be for the government if he didn't resign.