All this guff about the use of the EU and why we should be out is, I must admit, rather amusing.
First reason : for the first time in 60 years the UK or the nations within the UK, or the nations now in the EU have not been in war with each other.
Secondly : and sorry folks, but within the next 100 years the major blocks; EU, Africa, South America, North America, South Asia and Australia, India, China and the Arabian Penisula will either be at war or have amalgamated to form a single government.
Point 1 - we have not been at war with Japan for 60 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Turkey for 90 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Russia for 140 years despite them not being in the EU
Point 2 - Have you asked any of the peoples of these nations about this? If you look at the trend it's actually for countries to split up into smaller units e.g South Sudan, East Timor, Indie refs in Scotland and maybe Catalonia
Edin is right about the trend, though you're also right - there is certainly a trend for some small units to try to split off. However, there's also a very marked tendency to form EU-like associations in aim if not yet in reality. NAFTA is a reality, much of South America is in one trading bloc, South Asia in another, and embryonic moves in that direction are happening in Africa too. Whether trading blocs lead to other forms of integration is debatable, but the evidence seems to be that they do, slowly.
The EU has been trying, and failing, to promote political union in South America.
No problem at all. They can dredge the rivers, do rain dances, whatever they want. Won't stop them flooding but it might create a bit of community bonding.
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.
And that's exactly the problem.
Originally the local farmers (there were bodies to manage it) handled the dredging.
When the EA was set up it (a1) took over the responsibilities of the river authorities, including dredging; (2) decided not to do dredge; and (3) refusing to allow the farmers to do it themselves.
It's big government deciding they know what is best, acting in a way that has serious negative consequences for local residents, and then refusing to compensate them for the damage their decisions caused.
According to today's Times the government - not the EA - refused to pay for dredging in the Levels when specifically requested last September.
Rightly so.
This is not the Government's fault, nor is it the fault of the EA who work for them. It's been raining, don't know if anyone's noticed.
The Tories were right to reject pointless and expensive dredging on the floodplains. The people living on these marshlands have to make some tough decisions for themselves.
Guess what Hugh. It's England. It rains. I know your tiny brain finds this difficult to understand but these lands have been drained for hundreds of years and just like in Holland and other areas of reclaimed land, if you maintain the drainage and dredge the watercourses it does not flood.
As I said before, if you don't know anything about a subject you really are better off just keeping quiet rather than flaunting your ignorance for all to see.
No problem at all. They can dredge the rivers, do rain dances, whatever they want. Won't stop them flooding but it might create a bit of community bonding.
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.
And that's exactly the problem.
Originally the local farmers (there were bodies to manage it) handled the dredging.
When the EA was set up it (a1) took over the responsibilities of the river authorities, including dredging; (2) decided not to do dredge; and (3) refusing to allow the farmers to do it themselves.
It's big government deciding they know what is best, acting in a way that has serious negative consequences for local residents, and then refusing to compensate them for the damage their decisions caused.
According to today's Times the government - not the EA - refused to pay for dredging in the Levels when specifically requested last September.
Rightly so.
This is not the Government's fault, nor is it the fault of the EA who work for them. It's been raining, don't know if anyone's noticed.
The Tories were right to reject pointless and expensive dredging on the floodplains. The people living on these marshlands have to make some tough decisions for themselves.
Guess what Hugh. It's England. It rains. I know your tiny brain finds this difficult to understand but these lands have been drained for hundreds of years and just like in Holland and other areas of reclaimed land, if you maintain the drainage and dredge the watercourses it does not flood.
As I said before, if you don't know anything about a subject you really are better off just keeping quiet rather than flaunting your ignorance for all to see.
I remember major flooding in Holland a few years ago. It happens when it rains more than it has done for decades. Sometimes nature wins.
The Tories were right to reject pointless and expensive dredging on the floodplains. The people living on these marshlands have to make some tough decisions for themselves.
Fucking hell, it's a mantra. You channelling tim? Have you any idea what a discussion or an argument is? You are supposed to respond to points made by other people. Not keep repeating the same dead phrases.
Just to clear it up for everyone, this is how the current system works:
Stage 1 : Spouse / Fiancé visa applied for outside of UK. Cost approx £900. Lasts 2.5 years, no recourse to public funds.
Stage 2 : Further leave to remain in the UK. Cost approx £900. Lasts another 2.5 years, still no recourse to public funds
Stage 3 : Indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Cost approx £1200. Lasts indefinitely and recourse to public funds allowed
Stage 4: UK citizenship, costs £900. A spouse of a UK citizen is eligible after 5 years assuming they meet the criminality threshold and have ILR.
It's a similar path on a work visa except they have to wait a further year for citizenship.
That is particularly stupid.
If you are a Somali suspected of being a salafist, I can see why you might have to go through the above bolllocks.
But Charles - well, he's loaded. And his missus is a citizen of our closest ally and (presumably) speaks fluent English. Why can't she get citizenship in about 2 years?
No problem at all. They can dredge the rivers, do rain dances, whatever they want. Won't stop them flooding but it might create a bit of community bonding.
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.
And that's exactly the problem.
Originally the local farmers (there were bodies to manage it) handled the dredging.
When the EA was set up it (a1) took over the responsibilities of the river authorities, including dredging; (2) decided not to do dredge; and (3) refusing to allow the farmers to do it themselves.
It's big government deciding they know what is best, acting in a way that has serious negative consequences for local residents, and then refusing to compensate them for the damage their decisions caused.
According to today's Times the government - not the EA - refused to pay for dredging in the Levels when specifically requested last September.
Rightly so.
This is not the Government's fault, nor is it the fault of the EA who work for them. It's been raining, don't know if anyone's noticed.
The Tories were right to reject pointless and expensive dredging on the floodplains. The people living on these marshlands have to make some tough decisions for themselves.
Guess what Hugh. It's England. It rains. I know your tiny brain finds this difficult to understand but these lands have been drained for hundreds of years and just like in Holland and other areas of reclaimed land, if you maintain the drainage and dredge the watercourses it does not flood.
As I said before, if you don't know anything about a subject you really are better off just keeping quiet rather than flaunting your ignorance for all to see.
I remember major flooding in Holland a few years ago. It happens when it rains more than it has done for decades. Sometimes nature wins.
And if you go and look at the official reports the Dutch released after the floods they concluded that the higher than usual rainfall was not the main issue but poor maintenance and poor management were the main reason for the floods. What a surprise.
However, there's also a very marked tendency to form EU-like associations in aim if not yet in reality. NAFTA is a reality, much of South America is in one trading bloc, South Asia in another, and embryonic moves in that direction are happening in Africa too. Whether trading blocs lead to other forms of integration is debatable, but the evidence seems to be that they do, slowly.
Being a liberal in 19th century terms I have always been keen on free trade. The problem with trading blocs is they do not actually promote free trade as they erect tariff barriers against outsiders. I don't understand why the EU should need to (for example) make rules about how we manage the Somerset Levels. Similarly, the French can do what they like with the Camargue. What we need is the most basic of rules applying common minimum standards, and then open our common borders to outside trade with no tariff barriers and no internal subsidies. Simples.
No problem at all. They can dredge the rivers, do rain dances, whatever they want. Won't stop them flooding but it might create a bit of community bonding.
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.
And that's exactly the problem.
Originally the local farmers (there were bodies to manage it) handled the dredging.
When the EA was set up it (a1) took over the responsibilities of the river authorities, including dredging; (2) decided not to do dredge; and (3) refusing to allow the farmers to do it themselves.
It's big government deciding they know what is best, acting in a way that has serious negative consequences for local residents, and then refusing to compensate them for the damage their decisions caused.
According to today's Times the government - not the EA - refused to pay for dredging in the Levels when specifically requested last September.
Rightly so.
This is not the Government's fault, nor is it the fault of the EA who work for them. It's been raining, don't know if anyone's noticed.
The Tories were right to reject pointless and expensive dredging on the floodplains. The people living on these marshlands have to make some tough decisions for themselves.
Guess what Hugh. It's England. It rains. I know your tiny brain finds this difficult to understand but these lands have been drained for hundreds of years and just like in Holland and other areas of reclaimed land, if you maintain the drainage and dredge the watercourses it does not flood.
As I said before, if you don't know anything about a subject you really are better off just keeping quiet rather than flaunting your ignorance for all to see.
Lol. Holland. Maybe The State should spend billions on building dykes and huge canal systems to save the few farmers who choose to live on marshland floodplain?
Entitlement culture, eh.
I do like tulips and windmills though, but not keen on Edam.
They don't need to spend billions. Nor do they need to change the current drainage systems or even build new ones.
What they need to do is return to the same management systems that have worked successfully for hundreds of years. They can either do that by fulfilling their responsibilities or by returning those responsibilities to the people who very successfully exercised them through most of the history of the Levels.
No problem at all. They can dredge the rivers, do rain dances, whatever they want. Won't stop them flooding but it might create a bit of community bonding.
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.
And that's exactly the problem.
Originally the local farmers (there were bodies to manage it) handled the dredging.
When the EA was set up it (a1) took over the responsibilities of the river authorities, including dredging; (2) decided not to do dredge; and (3) refusing to allow the farmers to do it themselves.
It's big government deciding they know what is best, acting in a way that has serious negative consequences for local residents, and then refusing to compensate them for the damage their decisions caused.
According to today's Times the government - not the EA - refused to pay for dredging in the Levels when specifically requested last September.
Rightly so.
This is not the Government's fault, nor is it the fault of the EA who work for them. It's been raining, don't know if anyone's noticed.
The Tories were right to reject pointless and expensive dredging on the floodplains. The people living on these marshlands have to make some tough decisions for themselves.
Guess what Hugh. It's England. It rains. I know your tiny brain finds this difficult to understand but these lands have been drained for hundreds of years and just like in Holland and other areas of reclaimed land, if you maintain the drainage and dredge the watercourses it does not flood.
As I said before, if you don't know anything about a subject you really are better off just keeping quiet rather than flaunting your ignorance for all to see.
I remember major flooding in Holland a few years ago. It happens when it rains more than it has done for decades. Sometimes nature wins.
And if you go and look at the official reports the Dutch released after the floods they concluded that the higher than usual rainfall was not the main issue but poor maintenance and poor management were the main reason for the floods. What a surprise.
About time we increased taxes to pay for this kind of massive State intervention in peoples lives.
Er... people have been paying taxes all along on the assumption this sort of thing was included.
Yep and if you dug just that tiny bit deeper you would see that the reason for that was because of canalisation and building on floodplains further up in Germany. It caused a small but notable diplomatic incident.
Now I know that poor old Hugh who has no idea about these things finds it impossible to differentiate between building on flood plains - which is stupid and causes problems further downstream - and building on reclaimed land which is perfectly good and can be done without issue as long as the drainage systems are maintained.
But I would have hoped you would have had some smidgen of intelligence and been able to understand that they are two entirely different things.
As long as they... don't expect The State to pick up the tab for their irresponsibility.
LOLZ. I kinda assumed you were keen for the State to pay for people's irresponsibility. As long as it's drug use, uncontrolled procreation, unwillingness to obtain the skills, qualifications and attitude useful to maintain paid employment...
Just to clear it up for everyone, this is how the current system works:
Stage 1 : Spouse / Fiancé visa applied for outside of UK. Cost approx £900. Lasts 2.5 years, no recourse to public funds.
Stage 2 : Further leave to remain in the UK. Cost approx £900. Lasts another 2.5 years, still no recourse to public funds
Stage 3 : Indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Cost approx £1200. Lasts indefinitely and recourse to public funds allowed
Stage 4: UK citizenship, costs £900. A spouse of a UK citizen is eligible after 5 years assuming they meet the criminality threshold and have ILR.
It's a similar path on a work visa except they have to wait a further year for citizenship.
That is particularly stupid.
If you are a Somali suspected of being a salafist, I can see why you might have to go through the above bolllocks.
But Charles - well, he's loaded. And his missus is a citizen of our closest ally and (presumably) speaks fluent English. Why can't she get citizenship in about 2 years?
Before the Tories changed the system in 2012, Charles's wife would have been eligible for citizenship after 3 years and ILR after 2. Not to excuse labour, they were going to implement. a hair-brained scheme where citizenship would take 5 years to get but would go down to 3 if you "earned" it by volunteering.
Just to clear it up for everyone, this is how the current system works:
Stage 1 : Spouse / Fiancé visa applied for outside of UK. Cost approx £900. Lasts 2.5 years, no recourse to public funds.
Stage 2 : Further leave to remain in the UK. Cost approx £900. Lasts another 2.5 years, still no recourse to public funds
Stage 3 : Indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Cost approx £1200. Lasts indefinitely and recourse to public funds allowed
Stage 4: UK citizenship, costs £900. A spouse of a UK citizen is eligible after 5 years assuming they meet the criminality threshold and have ILR.
It's a similar path on a work visa except they have to wait a further year for citizenship.
That is particularly stupid.
If you are a Somali suspected of being a salafist, I can see why you might have to go through the above bolllocks.
But Charles - well, he's loaded. And his missus is a citizen of our closest ally and (presumably) speaks fluent English. Why can't she get citizenship in about 2 years?
Before the Tories changed the system in 2012, Charles's wife would have been eligible for citizenship after 3 years and ILR after 2. Not to excuse labour, they were going to implement. a hair-brained scheme where citizenship would take 5 years to get but would go down to 3 if you "earned" it by volunteering.
The problem is, IMO, that we are not selective enough about whom we wish to immigrate. AFAIK, you do not even get "points" towards immigration status if you serve in the British armed forces - which should be a given.
IMO we should move to a residency qualification for means tested benefits. I suggest you qualify after 5 years for 50% of the full rate and this rises annually by 10% until you get the full whack.
Let people living there spend as much as they like dredging.
As long as they pay for the millions of pounds worth of damage they do elsewhere, such as downstream flooding, and don't expect The State to pick up the tab for their irresponsibility.
And again he shows his ignorance.
They can't cause damage downstream because there is no downstream. Keeping the drainage systems dredged and working effectively allows the waters to flow out into the sea. Which is right next door to the Levels. It is the system that has been in use for centuries.
To try and make this really simple for you.
Building on floodplains is stupid because (apart from probably getting you flooded) it prevents the natural spread of flood waters across the land which slows down their movement and allows proper drainage. This applies particularly in major river valleys but also around streams and minor rivers.
Building on reclaimed land is entirely different and does not cause problems further downstream because there is no downstream. The waters collected are carried straight out into the sea. If drainage systems are properly maintained then the risk of flooding is slight and certainly they will not cause problems for anyone else.
Reclaimed land (not flood plains) amounts to about 3% of the total land area of England.
No problem at all. They can dredge the rivers, do rain dances, whatever they want. Won't stop them flooding but it might create a bit of community bonding.
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.
According to today's Times the government - not the EA - refused to pay for dredging in the Levels when specifically requested last September.
Rightly so.
This is not the Government's fault, nor is it the fault of the EA who work for them. It's been raining, don't know if anyone's noticed.
The Tories were right to reject pointless and expensive dredging on the floodplains. The people living on these marshlands have to make some tough decisions for themselves.
Guess what Hugh. It's England. It rains. I know your tiny brain finds this difficult to understand but these lands have been drained for hundreds of years and just like in Holland and other areas of reclaimed land, if you maintain the drainage and dredge the watercourses it does not flood.
As I said before, if you don't know anything about a subject you really are better off just keeping quiet rather than flaunting your ignorance for all to see.
I remember major flooding in Holland a few years ago. It happens when it rains more than it has done for decades. Sometimes nature wins.
And if you go and look at the official reports the Dutch released after the floods they concluded that the higher than usual rainfall was not the main issue but poor maintenance and poor management were the main reason for the floods. What a surprise.
About time we increased taxes to pay for this kind of massive State intervention in peoples lives.
Er... people have been paying taxes all along on the assumption this sort of thing was included.
Yeah but now there's no money left, we're told.
So where will be find the billions upon billions for the dykes and huge canal systems that will turn Somerset into Holland, like Richard Tyndall wants?
Actually I think we'd save many more billions if we stop paying for the drug habits and illegitimate children of people who choose to live on Council estates.
Sunday Times/Panelbase (changes from the last poll in November)
Yes 37% (-1)
No 49% (+2)
Undecideds 14% (-1)
57 no to 43 yes with the undecided/won't vote stripped out. Still a little closer than I would like but something of a relief given recent trends.
Out in Dundee again today there was a small group explaining why we should vote yes for a free, socialist (didn't see the contradiction in this unfortunately) Scotland. Once again absolutely no sign of the no campaign. Only 1 side are fighting this so far and they are losing. The no campaign seem to be relying almost entirely on the good sense of the Scottish people. That makes me a little nervous.
It finds 51% of voters believe independence would mean higher tax bills while 26% expect no change, 6% expect to pay less and the rest don’t know.
It also identifies stark differences between supporters and opponents of independence on the issue, with 28% of Yes backers expecting to pay more tax compared with and 75% of No voters.
No problem at all. They can dredge the rivers, do rain dances, whatever they want. Won't stop them flooding but it might create a bit of community bonding.
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.
According to today's Times the government - not the EA - refused to pay for dredging in the Levels when specifically requested last September.
Rightly so.
This is not the Government's fault, nor is it the fault of the EA who work for them. It's been raining, don't know if anyone's noticed.
The Tories were right to reject pointless and expensive dredging on the floodplains. The people living on these marshlands have to make some tough decisions for themselves.
Guess what Hugh. It's England. It rains. I know your tiny brain finds this difficult to understand but these lands have been drained for hundreds of years and just like in Holland and other areas of reclaimed land, if you maintain the drainage and dredge the watercourses it does not flood.
As I said before, if you don't know anything about a subject you really are better off just keeping quiet rather than flaunting your ignorance for all to see.
I remember major flooding in Holland a few years ago. It happens when it rains more than it has done for decades. Sometimes nature wins.
And if you go and look at the official reports the Dutch released after the floods they concluded that the higher than usual rainfall was not the main issue but poor maintenance and poor management were the main reason for the floods. What a surprise.
About time we increased taxes to pay for this kind of massive State intervention in peoples lives.
Er... people have been paying taxes all along on the assumption this sort of thing was included.
Yeah but now there's no money left, we're told.
So where will be find the billions upon billions for the dykes and huge canal systems that will turn Somerset into Holland, like Richard Tyndall wants?
We don't need to. It already is like Holland. All we need to do is let the local communities get on with maintaining the land in the way they have for centuries. What a surprise, government is the problem not the solution.
You should be happy. It will probably save the government money.
Yep and if you dug just that tiny bit deeper you would see that the reason for that was because of canalisation and building on floodplains further up in Germany. It caused a small but notable diplomatic incident.
Now I know that poor old Hugh who has no idea about these things finds it impossible to differentiate between building on flood plains - which is stupid and causes problems further downstream - and building on reclaimed land which is perfectly good and can be done without issue as long as the drainage systems are maintained.
But I would have hoped you would have had some smidgen of intelligence and been able to understand that they are two entirely different things.
Merely pointing out that they have floods in the Netherlands too. It happens. Risk can be mitigated, but it cannot be eliminated. I don't know the Somerset Levels, but if they are like other parts of the country they will have seen quite a bit of building over recent years. Whether this was done taking into account flood risk I do not know. Drainage systems that are effective for what is essentially low population farmland may not necessarily be effective when that farmland is then built upon. A few inches of water on a field - flood plain or reclaimed land - is very different to a few inches in an area of housing. And it does bear repeating that this recent rain is unprecedented. However, all that said, there has clearly been negligence at local and national level. In the Netherlands they are very focused on flooding because of the potential for country-wide catastrophe. We don't have the same imperative here. I guess that a primary lesson here is the need for devolved decision making and budget control.
No problem at all. They can dredge the rivers, do rain dances, whatever they want. Won't stop them flooding but it might create a bit of community bonding.
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.
According to today's Times the government - not the EA - refused to pay for dredging in the Levels when specifically requested last September.
Rightly so.
This is not the Government's fault, nor is it the fault of the EA who work for them. It's been raining, don't know if anyone's noticed.
The Tories were right to reject pointless and expensive dredging on the floodplains. The people living on these marshlands have to make some tough decisions for themselves.
Guess what Hugh. It's England. It rains. I know your tiny brain finds this difficult to understand but these lands have been drained for hundreds of years and just like in Holland and other areas of reclaimed land, if you maintain the drainage and dredge the watercourses it does not flood.
As I said before, if you don't know anything about a subject you really are better off just keeping quiet rather than flaunting your ignorance for all to see.
I remember major flooding in Holland a few years ago. It happens when it rains more than it has done for decades. Sometimes nature wins.
And if you go and look at the official reports the Dutch released after the floods they concluded that the higher than usual rainfall was not the main issue but poor maintenance and poor management were the main reason for the floods. What a surprise.
About time we increased taxes to pay for this kind of massive State intervention in peoples lives.
Er... people have been paying taxes all along on the assumption this sort of thing was included.
Yeah but now there's no money left, we're told.
So where will be find the billions upon billions for the dykes and huge canal systems that will turn Somerset into Holland, like Richard Tyndall wants?
You should be happy. It will probably save the government money.
Why should he be? He is the sort of person who measures the effectiveness of Government services by how much money is spent.
Interestingly from the panelbase poll. No's increase is because of more women being certain to vote in the referendum than last time, and there's a big gender gap on the indyref among most, if not all pollsters.
At the same time there is evidence that working-class voters could tip the referendum in the nationalists’ favour, with 47% planning to vote Yes and 53% No among those who have made up their minds.
Sunday Times/Panelbase (changes from the last poll in November)
Yes 37% (-1)
No 49% (+2)
Undecideds 14% (-1)
57 no to 43 yes with the undecided/won't vote stripped out. Still a little closer than I would like but something of a relief given recent trends.
Out in Dundee again today there was a small group explaining why we should vote yes for a free, socialist (didn't see the contradiction in this unfortunately) Scotland. Once again absolutely no sign of the no campaign. Only 1 side are fighting this so far and they are losing. The no campaign seem to be relying almost entirely on the good sense of the Scottish people. That makes me a little nervous.
Historically, panelbase have smaller leads for No, than other pollsters.
That said, the fieldwork coincided with the guy from BP, someone from Sainsburys saying independence would be a bad thing for Scots.
"In 2008, when the EA was run by Baroness Young, this was reflected in a policy document which classified areas at risk of flooding under six categories, ranging from those in “Policy Option 1”, where flood defences were a priority, down to “Policy 6’’ where, to promote “biodiversity”, the strategy should be to “increase flooding”. The Somerset Levels were covered by Policy 6."
Reading the Sunday Times write up on the Panelbase poll, it would appear that Scots like Salmond and trust him on a lot of things, but they just don't think he'll be able to deliver what he's saying on the currency and the EU, which they think means higher taxes and a job/investment exodus from Scotland.
Nick Clegg is piping up in the Observer talking about drugs. He says he's disappointed the Tories aren't prepared to end the war on drugs. It struck me that a softer approach to drugs was one of the hallmarks of tory modernisation - remember that? With the exception of Europe - on which I think few modernisers would be as enthusiastic as he, has Clegg now become the true Tory moderniser?
9% think the way that people are appointed to Quangos is open and fair, 55% think it is not.
72% think it is unacceptable for political parties to appoint their own supporters to such roles.
19% think Labour did it more,
17% think the Coalition have done it more,
48% think they've been as bad as each other.
On the specific case of Baroness Morgan 27% think Gove was right not to re-appoint her, 31% think he was wrong, but more people said don't know 42% - the specifics of the case do not appear to be something where the public have a view beyond party partisan answers.
25% support the rail strike, 40% are opposed, 35% say neither or don't know.
Amongst Londoners - 28% support the strike, 43% are opposed.
On Bob Crow
57% think it was unacceptable to him to go on holiday in the run up to the strike (even with a question that pointed out that the holiday was booked long in advance), 68% think it is unacceptable for him to live in a housing association property given his current salary.
Nick Clegg is piping up in the Observer talking about drugs. He says he's disappointed the Tories aren't prepared to end the war on drugs. It struck me that a softer approach to drugs was one of the hallmarks of tory modernisation - remember that? With the exception of Europe - on which I think few modernisers would be as enthusiastic as he, has Clegg now become the true Tory moderniser?
From Portillo to Cameron to Clegg.
1) The public sector cannot afford to sustain legalised drug taking. It can barely cope with the problems of nicotine and alcohol.
2) Without taking unacceptable and unprecedented risks with the provision of legal drugs there is not a business model where the illegal provision of drugs does not out compete the legal provision given the testing and trialling regime that legal provision of drugs would entail. Illegal drugs would always beat legal versions to the streets by several years and undercut the price.
3) If drugs were legalised there would have to be a far more stringent policing of under age drug taking because Government would be blamed for every under-age death. Pro-drug liberalisation politicians would soon be labelled "child killers".
There can be no end to the war on drugs (and I suspect Clegg knows that very well and is just posturing for votes).
I think given Tory modernisation has dragged on for 8 years (Blair's modernisation took 12 months and Miliband's looks like taking three years), has split the right, damaged the Tory party and generally not advanced the party's reputation in any serious way it can now be written off as a failure.
That maybe the case in your patch, but in other areas its simple not true, we just had a Better Together event in my area today. But I am not about to claim that there isn't equally active Yes campaigning where they have a strong activist base going on elsewhere in the country on the back of that local anecdote. You shouldn't equate your own local experience as a more general and sweeping statement of the picture across Scotland when it comes to the Indy Ref campaigns. It might be an idea to highlight that your patch in Dundee is very much an active SNP/Labour area, so you should therefore apply your criticism on a lack of activity to the local Labour party there as result.
Sunday Times/Panelbase (changes from the last poll in November)
Yes 37% (-1)
No 49% (+2)
Undecideds 14% (-1)
57 no to 43 yes with the undecided/won't vote stripped out. Still a little closer than I would like but something of a relief given recent trends.
Out in Dundee again today there was a small group explaining why we should vote yes for a free, socialist (didn't see the contradiction in this unfortunately) Scotland. Once again absolutely no sign of the no campaign. Only 1 side are fighting this so far and they are losing. The no campaign seem to be relying almost entirely on the good sense of the Scottish people. That makes me a little nervous.
All this guff about the use of the EU and why we should be out is, I must admit, rather amusing.
First reason : for the first time in 60 years the UK or the nations within the UK, or the nations now in the EU have not been in war with each other.
Secondly : and sorry folks, but within the next 100 years the major blocks; EU, Africa, South America, North America, South Asia and Australia, India, China and the Arabian Penisula will either be at war or have amalgamated to form a single government.
Rubbish all the Kippers will be saying, but consider this, through out history, families joined together to form hamlets for the joint protection, hamlets became villages, villages became towns, towns became cities, etc., etc.. To protect themselves from the multi-national companies, as well as collecting taxes due, the blocks will have to cooperate one way or another.
Of course, the South of Engerlund could try and be a Swiss or Caribbean island equivalent, but a world government could just as easily isolate the area, but I would like to think that the residents wouldn't be that daft.
Point 1 - we have not been at war with Japan for 60 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Turkey for 90 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Russia for 140 years despite them not being in the EU
On the other hand Japan is still formally at war with Russia, has frosty relations and territorial disputes with South Korea, has its citizens kidnapped by North Korea in retaliation for wartime actions by Japan, and has an ongoing military confrontation with China involving military incursions that could actually turn into a shooting war if we're unlucky.
The European model - form a joint association, maximize trade with each other, make war unthinkable - seems a lot better, no?
On topic, apparently the people who script the storylines for Britain's sham democracy have used up all the ideas they could plagiarize The Thick Of It and are now reduced to pilfering plots from Wag The Dog.
On the substance, it's ridiculous to expect employers to check all this stuff. If the government wants to make a bunch of laws to micro-manage the labour markets it should enforce the sodding things itself.
All this guff about the use of the EU and why we should be out is, I must admit, rather amusing.
First reason : for the first time in 60 years the UK or the nations within the UK, or the nations now in the EU have not been in war with each other.
Secondly : and sorry folks, but within the next 100 years the major blocks; EU, Africa, South America, North America, South Asia and Australia, India, China and the Arabian Penisula will either be at war or have amalgamated to form a single government.
Rubbish all the Kippers will be saying, but consider this, through out history, families joined together to form hamlets for the joint protection, hamlets became villages, villages became towns, towns became cities, etc., etc.. To protect themselves from the multi-national companies, as well as collecting taxes due, the blocks will have to cooperate one way or another.
Of course, the South of Engerlund could try and be a Swiss or Caribbean island equivalent, but a world government could just as easily isolate the area, but I would like to think that the residents wouldn't be that daft.
Point 1 - we have not been at war with Japan for 60 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Turkey for 90 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Russia for 140 years despite them not being in the EU
On the other hand Japan is still formally at war with Russia, has frosty relations and territorial disputes with South Korea, has its citizens kidnapped by North Korea in retaliation for wartime actions by Japan, and has an ongoing military confrontation with China involving military incursions that could actually turn into a shooting war if we're unlucky.
The European model - form a joint association, maximize trade with each other, make war unthinkable - seems a lot better, no?
All this guff about the use of the EU and why we should be out is, I must admit, rather amusing.
First reason : for the first time in 60 years the UK or the nations within the UK, or the nations now in the EU have not been in war with each other.
Secondly : and sorry folks, but within the next 100 years the major blocks; EU, Africa, South America, North America, South Asia and Australia, India, China and the Arabian Penisula will either be at war or have amalgamated to form a single government.
Rubbish all the Kippers will be saying, but consider this, through out history, families joined together to form hamlets for the joint protection, hamlets became villages, villages became towns, towns became cities, etc., etc.. To protect themselves from the multi-national companies, as well as collecting taxes due, the blocks will have to cooperate one way or another.
Of course, the South of Engerlund could try and be a Swiss or Caribbean island equivalent, but a world government could just as easily isolate the area, but I would like to think that the residents wouldn't be that daft.
Point 1 - we have not been at war with Japan for 60 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Turkey for 90 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Russia for 140 years despite them not being in the EU
On the other hand Japan is still formally at war with Russia, has frosty relations and territorial disputes with South Korea, has its citizens kidnapped by North Korea in retaliation for wartime actions by Japan, and has an ongoing military confrontation with China involving military incursions that could actually turn into a shooting war if we're unlucky.
The European model - form a joint association, maximize trade with each other, make war unthinkable - seems a lot better, no?
Worked well for Yugoslavia didn't it.
Yugoslavia was a country created by Versailles, the EU was a voluntary union created by countries that wanted to gradually integrate their economies and avoid the next war. If the winning wartime powers had turned Japan, Korea and China into one country this would probably not have worked out well, but the region would be well served by voluntarily creating a free trade zone and a human rights court and building joint institutions from there.
When Bhutan had a mock general election (a year before the first proper general election, to teach the people how it worked) they had four mock parties called Yellow, Red, Blue and Green.
Perhaps, in the style which is often used by Our Genius Helmsman, the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and UKI parties should be re-named Blue, Red, Yellow and Purple.
Or perhaps we could name them after food: UKIP = Fruitcake, Green = Watermelon, Lib Dem = Pumpkin, Conservative = Potato, Labour = Rice.
On topic, apparently the people who script the storylines for Britain's sham democracy have used up all the ideas they could plagiarize The Thick Of It and are now reduced to pilfering plots from Wag The Dog.
On the substance, it's ridiculous to expect employers to check all this stuff. If the government wants to make a bunch of laws to micro-manage the labour markets it should enforce the sodding things itself.
The government finds it easier to give employers the cost and inconvenience of doing the work and the liability of being fined and sued if they make any mistakes.
The current changes to the pension system are a good case in point and will be a huge feeding ground for compensation lawyers in a few years.
On topic, apparently the people who script the storylines for Britain's sham democracy have used up all the ideas they could plagiarize The Thick Of It and are now reduced to pilfering plots from Wag The Dog.
On the substance, it's ridiculous to expect employers to check all this stuff. If the government wants to make a bunch of laws to micro-manage the labour markets it should enforce the sodding things itself.
The government finds it easier to give employers the cost and inconvenience of doing the work and the liability of being fined and sued if they make any mistakes.
The current changes to the pension system are a good case in point and will be a huge feeding ground for compensation lawyers in a few years.
Yup, it's a horrible way to govern. Makes it harder to create jobs while obscuring the cost of implementing the government's various bright ideas to make it harder to question whether the benefits justify the costs.
This is almost the complete reverse of the Smithson rule about Cameron being in the news when he was Opposition Leader. It would seem that Ed Miliband's ratings have improved because he is not visible in the news anywhere this week. Just saying.
All this guff about the use of the EU and why we should be out is, I must admit, rather amusing.
First reason : for the first time in 60 years the UK or the nations within the UK, or the nations now in the EU have not been in war with each other.
Secondly : and sorry folks, but within the next 100 years the major blocks; EU, Africa, South America, North America, South Asia and Australia, India, China and the Arabian Penisula will either be at war or have amalgamated to form a single government.
Rubbish all the Kippers will be saying, but consider this, through out history, families joined together to form hamlets for the joint protection, hamlets became villages, villages became towns, towns became cities, etc., etc.. To protect themselves from the multi-national companies, as well as collecting taxes due, the blocks will have to cooperate one way or another.
Of course, the South of Engerlund could try and be a Swiss or Caribbean island equivalent, but a world government could just as easily isolate the area, but I would like to think that the residents wouldn't be that daft.
Point 1 - we have not been at war with Japan for 60 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Turkey for 90 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Russia for 140 years despite them not being in the EU
On the other hand Japan is still formally at war with Russia, has frosty relations and territorial disputes with South Korea, has its citizens kidnapped by North Korea in retaliation for wartime actions by Japan, and has an ongoing military confrontation with China involving military incursions that could actually turn into a shooting war if we're unlucky.
The European model - form a joint association, maximize trade with each other, make war unthinkable - seems a lot better, no?
Nukes make war unthinkable. The EU model is about creating a hereditary gravy train for the political class.
All this guff about the use of the EU and why we should be out is, I must admit, rather amusing.
First reason : for the first time in 60 years the UK or the nations within the UK, or the nations now in the EU have not been in war with each other.
Secondly : and sorry folks, but within the next 100 years the major blocks; EU, Africa, South America, North America, South Asia and Australia, India, China and the Arabian Penisula will either be at war or have amalgamated to form a single government.
Rubbish all the Kippers will be saying, but consider this, through out history, families joined together to form hamlets for the joint protection, hamlets became villages, villages became towns, towns became cities, etc., etc.. To protect themselves from the multi-national companies, as well as collecting taxes due, the blocks will have to cooperate one way or another.
Of course, the South of Engerlund could try and be a Swiss or Caribbean island equivalent, but a world government could just as easily isolate the area, but I would like to think that the residents wouldn't be that daft.
Point 1 - we have not been at war with Japan for 60 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Turkey for 90 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Russia for 140 years despite them not being in the EU
On the other hand Japan is still formally at war with Russia, has frosty relations and territorial disputes with South Korea, has its citizens kidnapped by North Korea in retaliation for wartime actions by Japan, and has an ongoing military confrontation with China involving military incursions that could actually turn into a shooting war if we're unlucky.
The European model - form a joint association, maximize trade with each other, make war unthinkable - seems a lot better, no?
Nukes make war unthinkable. The EU model is about creating a hereditary gravy train for the political class.
China has nukes, Japan's ally has nukes and Japan could build their own within a year. I'm not saying it's likely that they'll end up in a shooting war over the Senkaku Islands, but it's not at all implausible.
You can argue about how much the EU is a cause of European peace and how much it's a symptom, but looking at how it turned out where governments didn't make the efforts the Europeans did, European peace is a huge achievement, that wasn't at all inevitable.
Comments
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/10th-december-2005/16/lessons-from-latin-america
http://youtu.be/n1rA-V6suK0
As I said before, if you don't know anything about a subject you really are better off just keeping quiet rather than flaunting your ignorance for all to see.
If you are a Somali suspected of being a salafist, I can see why you might have to go through the above bolllocks.
But Charles - well, he's loaded. And his missus is a citizen of our closest ally and (presumably) speaks fluent English. Why can't she get citizenship in about 2 years?
http://geographyfieldwork.com/RhineEffects.htm
It happens.
What they need to do is return to the same management systems that have worked successfully for hundreds of years. They can either do that by fulfilling their responsibilities or by returning those responsibilities to the people who very successfully exercised them through most of the history of the Levels.
Now I know that poor old Hugh who has no idea about these things finds it impossible to differentiate between building on flood plains - which is stupid and causes problems further downstream - and building on reclaimed land which is perfectly good and can be done without issue as long as the drainage systems are maintained.
But I would have hoped you would have had some smidgen of intelligence and been able to understand that they are two entirely different things.
Sunday Times/Panelbase (changes from the last poll in November)
Yes 37% (-1)
No 49% (+2)
Undecideds 14% (-1)
The survey of 1,012 Scottish adults between January 29 and February 7, 2014.
Which means part of it was during Dave's speech
Constituency vote (changes since Nov)
SNP 39% (nc), Labour on 28% (+1), Conservatives 12% (-1), Lib Dems 5% (+1) UKIP 3% (nc), Greens 2% (nc), 10% (-2) are undecided.
In the regional list
SNP 40% (+2), Labour 25% (-2), Conservative 12% (+1), Greens 6% (+1), Lib Dems 4% (nc), UKIP 3% (nc), Undecideds on 9% (-2).
Alphaville performing "Forever Young", in 1984 and 2013:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCSD7OLyRjc&
www.youtube.com/watch?v=e30L1DqxH6g&
IMO we should move to a residency qualification for means tested benefits. I suggest you qualify after 5 years for 50% of the full rate and this rises annually by 10% until you get the full whack.
They can't cause damage downstream because there is no downstream. Keeping the drainage systems dredged and working effectively allows the waters to flow out into the sea. Which is right next door to the Levels. It is the system that has been in use for centuries.
To try and make this really simple for you.
Building on floodplains is stupid because (apart from probably getting you flooded) it prevents the natural spread of flood waters across the land which slows down their movement and allows proper drainage. This applies particularly in major river valleys but also around streams and minor rivers.
Building on reclaimed land is entirely different and does not cause problems further downstream because there is no downstream. The waters collected are carried straight out into the sea. If drainage systems are properly maintained then the risk of flooding is slight and certainly they will not cause problems for anyone else.
Reclaimed land (not flood plains) amounts to about 3% of the total land area of England.
Out in Dundee again today there was a small group explaining why we should vote yes for a free, socialist (didn't see the contradiction in this unfortunately) Scotland. Once again absolutely no sign of the no campaign. Only 1 side are fighting this so far and they are losing. The no campaign seem to be relying almost entirely on the good sense of the Scottish people. That makes me a little nervous.
It finds 51% of voters believe independence would mean higher tax bills while 26% expect no change, 6% expect to pay less and the rest don’t know.
It also identifies stark differences between supporters and opponents of independence on the issue, with 28% of Yes backers expecting to pay more tax compared with and 75% of No voters.
You should be happy. It will probably save the government money.
At the same time there is evidence that working-class voters could tip the referendum in the nationalists’ favour, with 47% planning to vote Yes and 53% No among those who have made up their minds.
That said, the fieldwork coincided with the guy from BP, someone from Sainsburys saying independence would be a bad thing for Scots.
That could have had an impact.
Oh and Dave's intervention as well.
"In 2008, when the EA was run by Baroness Young, this was reflected in a policy document which classified areas at risk of flooding under six categories, ranging from those in “Policy Option 1”, where flood defences were a priority, down to “Policy 6’’ where, to promote “biodiversity”, the strategy should be to “increase flooding”. The Somerset Levels were covered by Policy 6."
If the Euros were held tomorrow, they would vote
Lab 37.4%, Lib Dems, 17.1%, Tories 15.6%, UKIP 9.7%
When asked who is the most effective leader
Miliband 30%, Farage 16.3%, Cameron 15.6% and Clegg 14%
To win, he's got to correct that.
CON 35%, LAB 39%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 10%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#2014
Cameron -11 (+1)
Miliband -28 (+3)
Clegg -53 (-1)
From Portillo to Cameron to Clegg.
20% think Gove is doing a good job as education secretary. 57% say he is doing badly.
72% think it is unacceptable for political parties to appoint their own supporters to such roles.
19% think Labour did it more,
17% think the Coalition have done it more,
48% think they've been as bad as each other.
On the specific case of Baroness Morgan 27% think Gove was right not to re-appoint her, 31% think he was wrong, but more people said don't know 42% - the specifics of the case do not appear to be something where the public have a view beyond party partisan answers.
25% say Cameron has responded well to the floods, 62% badly
For the environment agency 24% say they have responded well, 64% badly.
Voters are 49% to 26% in favour of more spending on flood defences.
On where that more spending should be aimed at 52% want to see them aimed at towns and villages where there are more homes that could be affected.
16% say the priority should be more isolated rural areas that are more seriously affected
25% support the rail strike, 40% are opposed, 35% say neither or don't know.
Amongst Londoners - 28% support the strike, 43% are opposed.
On Bob Crow
57% think it was unacceptable to him to go on holiday in the run up to the strike (even with a question that pointed out that the holiday was booked long in advance), 68% think it is unacceptable for him to live in a housing association property given his current salary.
Yes 43% (-2)
No 57% (+2)
That's the figure if you strip out the DKs.
2) Without taking unacceptable and unprecedented risks with the provision of legal drugs there is not a business model where the illegal provision of drugs does not out compete the legal provision given the testing and trialling regime that legal provision of drugs would entail. Illegal drugs would always beat legal versions to the streets by several years and undercut the price.
3) If drugs were legalised there would have to be a far more stringent policing of under age drug taking because Government would be blamed for every under-age death. Pro-drug liberalisation politicians would soon be labelled "child killers".
There can be no end to the war on drugs (and I suspect Clegg knows that very well and is just posturing for votes).
I think given Tory modernisation has dragged on for 8 years (Blair's modernisation took 12 months and Miliband's looks like taking three years), has split the right, damaged the Tory party and generally not advanced the party's reputation in any serious way it can now be written off as a failure.
Poles in the UK European Elections VI
Lab 37%
LD 17%
Con 15%
Green 11%
UKIP 10%
Others 10%
Piece says there are 450k Poles in the UK, with 250k on the electoral register.
Sample size for this poll was 263
It is one thing I've noticed amongst immigrants - it is not uncommon for them to be reasonably anti-immigration.
"Don't let the rest of the riff-raff in now I'm here"
The European model - form a joint association, maximize trade with each other, make war unthinkable - seems a lot better, no?
On the substance, it's ridiculous to expect employers to check all this stuff. If the government wants to make a bunch of laws to micro-manage the labour markets it should enforce the sodding things itself.
Perhaps, in the style which is often used by Our Genius Helmsman, the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and UKI parties should be re-named Blue, Red, Yellow and Purple.
Or perhaps we could name them after food: UKIP = Fruitcake, Green = Watermelon, Lib Dem = Pumpkin, Conservative = Potato, Labour = Rice.
The current changes to the pension system are a good case in point and will be a huge feeding ground for compensation lawyers in a few years.
Blimmin' 'eck.
Homosexuality is massively disliked in Eastern Europe and UKIP were the only party to be against same sex marriage.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhqrnmZeIEQ&
http://www.anorak.co.uk/384414/news/flashback/sublime-footage-of-berlin-in-1900.html/
You can argue about how much the EU is a cause of European peace and how much it's a symptom, but looking at how it turned out where governments didn't make the efforts the Europeans did, European peace is a huge achievement, that wasn't at all inevitable.