Following the example of the Labour government of the 1970s in securing a deluge of rain by appointing a Minister for the drought, clearly the Coalition should expeditiously appoint Ian Liddell Git-rainger as Minister for the Ark !!
I'm pretty sure that scientists in the field will be hoping that we've had enough rain for the government to fund a floods research programme to match the NERC droughts research programme.
I'm watching Sky. Dear lord that Mr.Pickles is a large gentleman!
When Ken Clarke launched his last leadership campaign (at the IoD?), he looked like he'd been doing nothing but eating since 1997. 2000AD belly-wheels seemed required.
I'm watching Sky. Dear lord that Mr.Pickles is a large gentleman!
When Ken Clarke launched his last leadership campaign (at the IoD?), he looked like he'd been doing nothing but eating since 1997. 2000AD belly-wheels seemed required.
Shit I remember that! Arnold Stodgeman goes for the magic ton!
I read earlier on this thread that the EAs budget is almost the size of the equivalent department in the US. This must surely be because the EA has a bigger remit, surely?!
Its probably based on this Guido piece (not budgets but staff employed). THE EPA receive just over $8 billion whereas the EA receives around"1.2 billion (gathered from official sites).
I suspect the difference is that the Federal EPA are far less involved in micro-managing their environment for political ends (power in the US generally, even under Obama, tends to be far more devolved).
I read earlier on this thread that the EAs budget is almost the size of the equivalent department in the US. This must surely be because the EA has a bigger remit, surely?!
I suspect the difference is that the Federal EPA are far less involved in micro-managing our environment for political ends (power in the US generally, even under Obama, tends to be far more devolved in the US).
Ah yeas, I guess each state will have their own EA?
you can see that 2012/3 spend was £636m on flood stuff, £431m on air/land/water quality (making the UK a safe, pleasant place to life as far as posssible) and £140m on water conservation. Back in the days when we didn't have as much of it.
This is just wrong: Of the EA's 1.2 billion budget they spend only 20 million on rivers. FFS! Their staff budget (incl pensions) is 592million. Sack half the bastards and spend their salaries on flood defences.
I read earlier on this thread that the EAs budget is almost the size of the equivalent department in the US. This must surely be because the EA has a bigger remit, surely?!
I suspect the difference is that the Federal EPA are far less involved in micro-managing our environment for political ends (power in the US generally, even under Obama, tends to be far more devolved in the US).
Ah yeas, I guess each state will have their own EA?
Yes they do but as you can see there are considerable differences in the way states approach the issue.
This should be a red line for renegotiation: if it can't be fixed it is the kind of thing which would nudge me into voting to leave EU, if we get a Conservative government and hence a referendum:
Not only is it completely crass in itself, it is an area which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. Getting a UK veto on financial regulation has to be a top priority, and if we can't, then we should leave.
Quite why UKIP are working to prevent a renegotiation and referendum is a mystery.
This should be a red line for renegotiation: if it can't be fixed it is the kind of thing which would nudge me into voting to leave EU, if we get a Conservative government and hence a referendum:
Not only is it completely crass in itself, it is an area which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. Getting a UK veto on financial regulation has to be a top priority, and if we can't, then we should leave.
Quite why UKIP are working to prevent a renegotiation and referendum is a mystery.
Funny how you always worry about financial regulation that affects the South East but laws that threaten the livelihoods of other regions are never a reason to leave. Do you think the Conservatives can win an election by just standing in the South East ?
Funny how you always worry about financial regulation that affects the South East but laws that threaten the livelihoods of other regions are never a reason to leave. Do you think the Conservatives can win an election by just standing in the South East ?
Apologies for my ignorance. I thought in my naivety that people outside the south-east made wills, owned joint properties and wrote insurance policies in trust. Silly me.
There's flooding in Oxford too. Sorry to disappoint you but the old city of Oxford is on one of the gravel terraces of the Thames valley, so most/all the old colleges should be okay, gardens and footie grounds apart - the old A/Saxons weren't stupid. One or two of the more modern colleges such as Wolfson (not sure about the newer ones) are built on the floodplain or its edge. Wolfson's architecture is IIRC designed to mitigate that, being built on stilts, but St Catherines looks dodgier on the flood risk map which shows plenty of scope for flooding in the Victorian inner suburbs along the Thames channel and side branches - Grandpont and the Hinkseys - through which the train line runs.
This is just wrong: Of the EA's 1.2 billion budget they spend only 20 million on rivers. FFS! Their staff budget (incl pensions) is 592million. Sack half the bastards and spend their salaries on flood defences.
I think, perhaps, that some of the staff may do work related to rivers.
Are you not going to show some scepticism about that absurd set of figures?
Funny how you always worry about financial regulation that affects the South East but laws that threaten the livelihoods of other regions are never a reason to leave. Do you think the Conservatives can win an election by just standing in the South East ?
Apologies for my ignorance. I thought in my naivety that people outside the south-east made wills, owned joint properties and wrote insurance policies in trust. Silly me.
Yeah we do but I suspect your concern is perhaps a little more local than you would have me think.
This should be a red line for renegotiation: if it can't be fixed it is the kind of thing which would nudge me into voting to leave EU, if we get a Conservative government and hence a referendum:
Not only is it completely crass in itself, it is an area which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. Getting a UK veto on financial regulation has to be a top priority, and if we can't, then we should leave.
Quite why UKIP are working to prevent a renegotiation and referendum is a mystery.
They are not working to prevent negotiation and referendum per se (unlike the Tories preferred Coalition partners), they are working against a Conservative party whose official EU policy is to remain members of the EU when UKIP's is to withdraw.
You can see the conflict in the two positions? I suspect if you want UKIP to change their opposition to Tory policy then change the policy. Even you concede you might agree with it (to withdraw that is) one day.
This is just wrong: Of the EA's 1.2 billion budget they spend only 20 million on rivers. FFS! Their staff budget (incl pensions) is 592million. Sack half the bastards and spend their salaries on flood defences.
I think, perhaps, that some of the staff may do work related to rivers.
Are you not going to show some scepticism about that absurd set of figures?
I read somewhere (was it Guido as well?) that apparently the vast majority of those involved in river management refuse to respond to emergency flooding situations despite it being in their contracts and their management do nothing about it. You couldn't make it up!
This should be a red line for renegotiation: if it can't be fixed it is the kind of thing which would nudge me into voting to leave EU, if we get a Conservative government and hence a referendum:
Not only is it completely crass in itself, it is an area which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. Getting a UK veto on financial regulation has to be a top priority, and if we can't, then we should leave.
Quite why UKIP are working to prevent a renegotiation and referendum is a mystery.
They are not working to prevent negotiation and referendum per se they are working against a Conservative party whose official EU policy is to remain members of the EU when UKIP's is to withdraw.
You can see the conflict in the two positions? I suspect if you want UKIP to change their opposition to Tory policy then change the policy. Even you concede you might agree with it (to withdraw that is) one day.
Quite. Regardless of how the EU behaves, Cameron wishes us to remain a member of it.
Not for the first time, I find myself wondering if the eurocrats are plain stupid, or if they're working for a British withdrawal.
I get the impression most of the Eurocrat class wants the UK to leave. The British public have this unreasonable expectation in representative governance.
There's flooding in Oxford too. Sorry to disappoint you but the old city of Oxford is on one of the gravel terraces of the Thames valley, so most/all the old colleges should be okay, gardens and footie grounds apart - the old A/Saxons weren't stupid. One or two of the more modern colleges such as Wolfson (not sure about the newer ones) are built on the floodplain or its edge. Wolfson's architecture is IIRC designed to mitigate that, being built on stilts, but St Catherines looks dodgier on the flood risk map which shows plenty of scope for flooding in the Victorian inner suburbs along the Thames channel and side branches - Grandpont and the Hinkseys - through which the train line runs.
The EA have been working to protect Oxford from flooding so it's probably safe cough cough
Interestingly the EA appears to be able to find £2.5million for the Isis easily enough, amd Sir Chris Smith a Cambrdge man too.
They are not working to prevent negotiation and referendum per se they are working against a Conservative party whose official EU policy is to remain members of the EU when UKIP's is to withdraw.
You can see the conflict in the two positions? I suspect if you want UKIP to change their opposition to Tory policy then change the policy. Even you concede you might agree with it (to withdraw that is) one day.
I judge UKIP by their actions. They are currently working for a Labour government. If they were serious about wanting to leave the EU, they'd be urging supporters to vote Conservative in order to get the referendum, and forming an effective Out campaign, in association with people like Dan Hannan, in the three years available before the referendum.
The official policy of the Conservative Party is to try to reneogiate terms, and then to have an In/Out referendum by the end of 2017. UKIP clearly don't want a referendum; quite why is, as I said, a mystery.
norman smith @BBCNormanS 6m Sources say @lordrennard will seek costs against Tim Farron if case goes to court
Be cheaper to form a new Party and let Rennard have the old one.
Might also be a way to distance themselves from the tuition fees ball and chain as well. "Us? No no no....that was the other lot, led by that bloke with 9 chins we can't talk about..."
This is just wrong: Of the EA's 1.2 billion budget they spend only 20 million on rivers. FFS! Their staff budget (incl pensions) is 592million. Sack half the bastards and spend their salaries on flood defences.
I think, perhaps, that some of the staff may do work related to rivers.
Are you not going to show some scepticism about that absurd set of figures?
Feel free to post alternative figures then. But given the EA's broad remit, it would not surprise me if it was only £20 million in a year for river flood defences. You have to add in coast defences and all the other things they do, such as air and water quality, waste management and even fishing. Oh, and blooming bird sanctuaries.
Perhaps the problem is that it is too big, and that it should be split. Bring back the National Rivers Authority! ;-)
the most sensible comment of the day from the BBC News website
"I can understand the feelings of the people who have been flooded out but what I can't understand is why they have to find and or decide that some human is to blame for it. At least the ancient Greeks blamed their Gods."
This is just wrong: Of the EA's 1.2 billion budget they spend only 20 million on rivers. FFS! Their staff budget (incl pensions) is 592million. Sack half the bastards and spend their salaries on flood defences.
I think, perhaps, that some of the staff may do work related to rivers.
Are you not going to show some scepticism about that absurd set of figures?
I read somewhere (was it Guido as well?) that apparently the vast majority of those involved in river management refuse to respond to emergency flooding situations despite it being in their contracts and their management do nothing about it. You couldn't make it up!
I suspect you can, and someone has.
"The floods of the past year have caused rural communities significant problems in many parts of the country. Considerable concern has been raised by farmers and land managers about channel maintenance. This year we spent around £22 million in maintaining channel flows and a further £21 million on pumping and deploying assets."
So yep, about £22 million on rivers is right as a base figure. The pumping and deploying assets figure is much woolier in what it means.
They are not working to prevent negotiation and referendum per se they are working against a Conservative party whose official EU policy is to remain members of the EU when UKIP's is to withdraw.
You can see the conflict in the two positions? I suspect if you want UKIP to change their opposition to Tory policy then change the policy. Even you concede you might agree with it (to withdraw that is) one day.
I judge UKIP by their actions. They are currently working for a Labour government. If they were serious about wanting to leave the EU, they'd be urging supporters to vote Conservative in order to get the referendum, and forming an effective Out campaign, in association with people like Dan Hannan, in the three years available before the referendum.
The official policy of the Conservative Party is to try to reneogiate terms, and then to have an In/Out referendum by the end of 2017. UKIP clearly don't want a referendum; quite why is, as I said, a mystery.
Keep telling yourself that.I'm sure it will cushion the blow of defeat in 2015.
PS And if anyone wanted to know whether to trust the Tories and Cameron personally with referendums they only have to look at how they facilitated the screwing over of their coalition partners in the AV referendum. What is it they say 'Beware of Greeks bearing gifts'?
This is just wrong: Of the EA's 1.2 billion budget they spend only 20 million on rivers. FFS! Their staff budget (incl pensions) is 592million. Sack half the bastards and spend their salaries on flood defences.
I think, perhaps, that some of the staff may do work related to rivers.
Are you not going to show some scepticism about that absurd set of figures?
Feel free to post alternative figures then. But given the EA's broad remit, it would not surprise me if it was only £20 million in a year for river flood defences. You have to add in coast defences and all the other things they do, such as air and water quality, waste management and even fishing. Oh, and blooming bird sanctuaries.
Perhaps the problem is that it is too big, and that it should be split. Bring back the National Rivers Authority! ;-)
I don't need to hunt out alternative figures. £20 million is less than 2% of their budget. It's very obviously absurd.
The only way it could be reached is by someone very stupid/malicious going through the accounts and ignoring the flood defence spending because it is lumped in with coastal flood defence, and only counting those items of expenditure that are specifically itemised as being river-only.
Keep telling yourself that.I'm sure it will cushion the blow of defeat in 2015.
PS And if anyone wanted to know whether to trust the Tories and Cameron personally with referendums they only have to look at how they facilitated the screwing over of their coalition partners in the AV referendum. What is it they say 'Beware of Greeks bearing gifts'?
Well, don't blame me. I've made it clear many times how I think a Miliband government will turn out. We'll be going back to the dark days of the late sixties and the seventies. It could well be a couple of decades, as it was then, before we recover.
Oh - and you won't get your referendum either, and with no renegotiation there will be ever-increasing EU interference. The worst of all possible worlds.
This is just wrong: Of the EA's 1.2 billion budget they spend only 20 million on rivers. FFS! Their staff budget (incl pensions) is 592million. Sack half the bastards and spend their salaries on flood defences.
I think, perhaps, that some of the staff may do work related to rivers.
Are you not going to show some scepticism about that absurd set of figures?
I read somewhere (was it Guido as well?) that apparently the vast majority of those involved in river management refuse to respond to emergency flooding situations despite it being in their contracts and their management do nothing about it. You couldn't make it up!
I suspect you can, and someone has.
"The floods of the past year have caused rural communities significant problems in many parts of the country. Considerable concern has been raised by farmers and land managers about channel maintenance. This year we spent around £22 million in maintaining channel flows and a further £21 million on pumping and deploying assets."
So yep, about £22 million on rivers is right as a base figure. The pumping and deploying assets figure is much woolier in what it means.
That is on channel maintenance. That is just one aspect of "rivers" and does not include the spending on riverine flood defences - but Patrick was conflating the two.
This is just wrong: Of the EA's 1.2 billion budget they spend only 20 million on rivers. FFS! Their staff budget (incl pensions) is 592million. Sack half the bastards and spend their salaries on flood defences.
I think, perhaps, that some of the staff may do work related to rivers.
Are you not going to show some scepticism about that absurd set of figures?
Feel free to post alternative figures then. But given the EA's broad remit, it would not surprise me if it was only £20 million in a year for river flood defences. You have to add in coast defences and all the other things they do, such as air and water quality, waste management and even fishing. Oh, and blooming bird sanctuaries.
Perhaps the problem is that it is too big, and that it should be split. Bring back the National Rivers Authority! ;-)
I don't need to hunt out alternative figures. £20 million is less than 2% of their budget. It's very obviously absurd.
The only way it could be reached is by someone very stupid/malicious going through the accounts and ignoring the flood defence spending because it is lumped in with coastal flood defence, and only counting those items of expenditure that are specifically itemised as being river-only.
See their annual report I linked to below. Although some of it does look suspicious: it mentions a £51 million Nottingham flood relief scheme being finished (and £6 million under budget) (1), although some or all of that expenditure might have occurred in other years on the long project. I don't have time to look into it more, but possible the £22 million is for literally maintaining river flows, with individual flood relief projects accounted separately. If that's the case, then I was wrong above.
But it's still a paltry for maintenance.
Don't underestimate the pies that the EA has its fingers in. It's a behemoth.
"I can understand the feelings of the people who have been flooded out but what I can't understand is why they have to find and or decide that some human is to blame for it. At least the ancient Greeks blamed their Gods."
What a stupid comment. People are blaming someone because they have been led to believe by labour and the liberals that the state is all singing, all dancing. Just keep paying the taxes and we'll sort your life out, sunshine - whatever it is.
Under that social contract, people have every right to be seeking someone to blame.
Keep telling yourself that.I'm sure it will cushion the blow of defeat in 2015.
PS And if anyone wanted to know whether to trust the Tories and Cameron personally with referendums they only have to look at how they facilitated the screwing over of their coalition partners in the AV referendum. What is it they say 'Beware of Greeks bearing gifts'?
Well, don't blame me. I've made it clear many times how I think a Miliband government will turn out. We'll be going back to the dark days of the late sixties and the seventies. It could well be a couple of decades, as it was then, before we recover.
Oh - any you won't get your referendum either. The worst of all possible worlds.
Why would anyone blame you? After all every one knows the Tories are not to blame for anything. Even their own failure to win the hearts and minds of sufficient of the electorate is the fault of a party who scored only 3% in the 2010 elections.
Nobody can doubt how impotent the Tory Party has become!
Why would anyone blame you? After all every one knows the Tories are not to blame for anything. Even their own failure to win the hearts and minds of sufficient of the electorate is the fault of a party who scored only 3% in the electorate.
Nobody can doubt how impotent the Tory Party has become!
Not as impotent as UKIP, whose only contribution to politics is to try to sabotage the very thing they claim to want. It really is the most remarkable piece of shooting yourself in the foot that I've seen in 50 years of following UK politics.
This is just wrong: Of the EA's 1.2 billion budget they spend only 20 million on rivers. FFS! Their staff budget (incl pensions) is 592million. Sack half the bastards and spend their salaries on flood defences.
I think, perhaps, that some of the staff may do work related to rivers.
Are you not going to show some scepticism about that absurd set of figures?
I read somewhere (was it Guido as well?) that apparently the vast majority of those involved in river management refuse to respond to emergency flooding situations despite it being in their contracts and their management do nothing about it. You couldn't make it up!
I suspect you can, and someone has.
"The floods of the past year have caused rural communities significant problems in many parts of the country. Considerable concern has been raised by farmers and land managers about channel maintenance. This year we spent around £22 million in maintaining channel flows and a further £21 million on pumping and deploying assets."
So yep, about £22 million on rivers is right as a base figure. The pumping and deploying assets figure is much woolier in what it means.
That is on channel maintenance. That is just one aspect of "rivers" and does not include the spending on riverine flood defences - but Patrick was conflating the two.
Maintenance is massively expensive. However, generally the more you spend on maintenance, the less you spend on remedial works afterwards. I fail to see how 2% of the EA's budget on maintaining channel flows is justifiable. Unless what Lord Smith was right, and they are not bothered with flooding rural areas, and instead want to build defences to protect front rooms in cities ...
This is just wrong: Of the EA's 1.2 billion budget they spend only 20 million on rivers. FFS! Their staff budget (incl pensions) is 592million. Sack half the bastards and spend their salaries on flood defences.
I think, perhaps, that some of the staff may do work related to rivers.
Are you not going to show some scepticism about that absurd set of figures?
Feel free to post alternative figures then. But given the EA's broad remit, it would not surprise me if it was only £20 million in a year for river flood defences. You have to add in coast defences and all the other things they do, such as air and water quality, waste management and even fishing. Oh, and blooming bird sanctuaries.
Perhaps the problem is that it is too big, and that it should be split. Bring back the National Rivers Authority! ;-)
I don't need to hunt out alternative figures. £20 million is less than 2% of their budget. It's very obviously absurd.
The only way it could be reached is by someone very stupid/malicious going through the accounts and ignoring the flood defence spending because it is lumped in with coastal flood defence, and only counting those items of expenditure that are specifically itemised as being river-only.
See their annual report I linked to below. Although some of it does look suspicious: it mentions a £51 million Nottingham flood relief scheme being finished (and £6 million under budget) (1), although some or all of that expenditure might have occurred in other years on the long project. I don't have time to look into it more, but possible the £22 million is for literally maintaining river flows, with individual flood relief projects accounted separately. If that's the case, then I was wrong above.
But it's still a paltry for maintenance.
Don't underestimate the pies that the EA has its fingers in. It's a behemoth.
Just over half of their budget is for flood defence - they don't have a breakdown of what is spent on coastal defence and what on river defence, but it's not unreasonable to guess about half on each.
That suggests a ballpark figure of £300 million per year spent on flood defences for rivers.
People need to display some more scepticism when they are being spinned absurd figures such as only £20 million being spent on rivers by the Environment Agency. But it's all too easy for people to believe that a government agency is useless that they just accept such misleading figures on trust. Perhaps they only reserve their scepticism for scientists, eh?
There's flooding in Oxford too. Sorry to disappoint you but the old city of Oxford is on one of the gravel terraces of the Thames valley, so most/all the old colleges should be okay, gardens and footie grounds apart - the old A/Saxons weren't stupid. One or two of the more modern colleges such as Wolfson (not sure about the newer ones) are built on the floodplain or its edge. Wolfson's architecture is IIRC designed to mitigate that, being built on stilts, but St Catherines looks dodgier on the flood risk map which shows plenty of scope for flooding in the Victorian inner suburbs along the Thames channel and side branches - Grandpont and the Hinkseys - through which the train line runs.
The EA have been working to protect Oxford from flooding so it's probably safe cough cough
Interestingly the EA appears to be able to find £2.5million for the Isis easily enough, amd Sir Chris Smith a Cambrdge man too.
Oh, that's very interesting about the Isis (especially if you mean just the bit through Oxford) - though I have a feeling quite a few allotments will be getting wet.
You posted the wrong link, as I'd have been interested to know more. But, while we are on the Bannockburn thing, I posted some links on the previous thread which showed that the far more important, and underlying, problem is the local Labour-Tory council double booking - whether deliberately or by incompetence, I couldn't possibly suggest - the very long-booked Bannockburn events with the Armed Forces Day as a very late afterthought. As the Bannockburn events included far more than just the 700th anniversary of the1314 battle, in the form of the 2014 Homecoming with the clan gatherings from all over the world, this has been very damaging indeed to the economy (cancellations and so on). The resulting downturn in its prospects are presumably what led to the news piece - though you would not guess it fro the Scotsman.
Why would anyone blame you? After all every one knows the Tories are not to blame for anything. Even their own failure to win the hearts and minds of sufficient of the electorate is the fault of a party who scored only 3% in the electorate.
Nobody can doubt how impotent the Tory Party has become!
Not as impotent as UKIP, whose only contribution to politics is to try to sabotage the very thing they claim to want. It really is the most remarkable piece of shooting yourself in the foot that I've seen in 50 years of following UK politics.
We shall see. One things for sure I'd no more take the word of a Tory on it than I would take the word of a socialist these days. Sadly for all intents and purposes the two have become indistinguishable.
I seriously think that the these flood disasters may turn out as bad for Cameron's government as BlacK Wednesday did for for the Tory government of John Major. In this instance the votes lost being split between UKIP and Labour.
One things for sure I'd no more take the word of a Tory on it than I would take the word of a socialist these days. Sadly for all intents and purposes the two have become indistinguishable.
Well, I am afraid that a few years of Miliband will disabuse you of that particular misconception. For that matter, have you already forgotten 1997-2010?
There's flooding in Oxford too. Sorry to disappoint you but the old city of Oxford is on one of es - Grandpont and the Hinkseys - through which the train line runs.
The EA have been working to protect Oxford from flooding so it's probably safe cough cough
Interestingly the EA appears to be able to find £2.5million for the Isis easily enough, amd Sir Chris Smith a Cambrdge man too.
Oh, that's very interesting about the Isis (especially if you mean just the bit through Oxford) - though I have a feeling quite a few allotments will be getting wet.
You posted the wrong link, as I'd have been interested to know more. But, while we are on the Bannockburn thing, I posted some links on the previous thread which showed that the far more important, and underlying, problem is the local Labour-Tory council double booking - whether deliberately or by incompetence, I couldn't possibly suggest - the very long-booked Bannockburn events with the Armed Forces Day as a very late afterthought. As the Bannockburn events included far more than just the 700th anniversary of the1314 battle, in the form of the 2014 Homecoming with the clan gatherings from all over the world, this has been very damaging indeed to the economy (cancellations and so on). The resulting downturn in its prospects are presumably what led to the news piece - though you would not guess it fro the Scotsman.
I thought the problem was there weren't enough bookings to worry about the cancellations. It wouldn't particularly surprise if the local council were doing a bit of mischief making since mutual eye poking quickly becomes the norm in split societies. However I'd have thought that the major event you describe should be able to hold its own if tied in with Homecoming events particularly if targeted at overseas visitors. US and Canadians aren't going to be going to Scotland just for AFD in Stirling.
What I sense with tories in Somerset is a very bitter resignation. We never thought in the first place the taxes we have paid would bring us much protection.
'I seriously think that the these flood disasters may turn out as bad for Cameron's government as BlacK Wednesday did for for the Tory government of John Major.'
Are you having a laugh or had too many drinks at lunchtime ?
"I can understand the feelings of the people who have been flooded out but what I can't understand is why they have to find and or decide that some human is to blame for it. At least the ancient Greeks blamed their Gods."
What a stupid comment. People are blaming someone because they have been led to believe by labour and the liberals that the state is all singing, all dancing. Just keep paying the taxes and we'll sort your life out, sunshine - whatever it is.
Under that social contract, people have every right to be seeking someone to blame.
There's an attractive theory that the reason civilisation (and The State) got started at all, in Sumeria and Egypt, was that what those places have in common is the need for cooperation in dealing with the flooding of the Euphrates/Nile. And then they had to invent astronomy so as to know when the flood was due, and geometry to identify which field was whose after the floods had subsided. So the feeling that flooding is a state issue is possibly now hard wired in us.
"We'll be going back to the dark days of the late sixties and the seventies"
Actually I wouldn't mind going back to those days. There were plenty of jobs around, beer was cheap, housing was affordable and there was far more personal freedom.
One things for sure I'd no more take the word of a Tory on it than I would take the word of a socialist these days. Sadly for all intents and purposes the two have become indistinguishable.
Well, I am afraid that a few years of Miliband will disabuse you of that particular misconception. For that matter, have you already forgotten 1997-2010?
I think most people would look back objectively on that whole period and think good at the beginning , mixed in the middle and bad at the end . A Conservative such as yourself would not be objective .
"We'll be going back to the dark days of the late sixties and the seventies"
Actually I wouldn't mind going back to those days. There were plenty of jobs around, beer was cheap, housing was affordable and there was far more personal freedom.
The beer was cheap, but it was generally crap, wasn't it? Warm lager and gassy bitter.
One things for sure I'd no more take the word of a Tory on it than I would take the word of a socialist these days. Sadly for all intents and purposes the two have become indistinguishable.
Well, I am afraid that a few years of Miliband will disabuse you of that particular misconception. For that matter, have you already forgotten 1997-2010?
No but having watched the incompetence, division and dysfunction (in both Government and the respective parties) of the last four years, it certainly has put it into a much more defined context.
Sadly I expect Miliband (ably assisted by his misfits) to disappoint as much as his four predecessors (I remember 1992-1997 as well). But what are we to do but cycle them through the system as quickly as possible in the hope that at some point down the line our deranged psychotic political class will get the message and appoint someone worthy of leading the British people?
Oh and it wasn't me who claimed to be the Heir To Blair. Clearly there are some in the Tory Party who do not share your view of how disastrous that period was.
I see Populus, after its sampling readjustment, has now joined ICM (ye olde golde standarde ater all), Comres and (?) Survation in showing Labour only in the mid thirties, shouldn't we perhaps be relying a little less on Yougov, notwithstanding the weekly averages?
I wonder whether the Britons doing this come from one particular community, or whether all ethnic groups and faiths are equally represented in this barbarism. Presumably the left is enjoying the fact their immigration and integration policies over the years have succeeded in "rubbing the Right's nose in diversity".
I seriously think that the these flood disasters may turn out as bad for Cameron's government as BlacK Wednesday did for for the Tory government of John Major. In this instance the votes lost being split between UKIP and Labour.
Please enlighten us on what they could have done different to prevent flooding from this once in a hundred year rain event?
I wonder whether the Britons doing this come from one particular community, or whether all ethnic groups and faiths are equally represented in this barbarism. Presumably the left is enjoying the fact their immigration and integration policies over the years have succeeded in "rubbing the Right's nose in diversity".
The inescapable truth is that the kippers most fear a referendum because they know they will lose it. That's why they are desperate for a Labour government.
It really is as simple as that. They huff and they puff. But they have not an ounce of credibility.
There's flooding in Oxford too. Sorry to disappoint you but the old city of Oxford is on one of the gravel terraces of the Thames valley, so most/all the old colleges should be okay, gardens and footie grounds apart - the old A/Saxons weren't stupid. One or two of the more modern colleges such as Wolfson (not sure about the newer ones) are built on the floodplain or its edge. Wolfson's architecture is IIRC designed to mitigate that, being built on stilts, but St Catherines looks dodgier on the flood risk map which shows plenty of scope for flooding in the Victorian inner suburbs along the Thames channel and side branches - Grandpont and the Hinkseys - through which the train line runs.
My Dad was once "moved on" by the police for trying to know down St. Catz. With a pickaxe.
I think most people would look back objectively on that whole period and think good at the beginning , mixed in the middle and bad at the end . A Conservative such as yourself would not be objective .
I'm sure a LibDem is impeccably objective, of course. Still, I wouldn't disagree too much with that assessment, with the catastrophic exception of Iraq. The first term, when Brown was still following Ken Clarke's economic plans, was reasonable enough, although that was of course the period when he sowed the seeds of disaster with his dismantling of financial supervision, putting no-one in charge of the stability of the banking system.
Nonetheless, for anyone who is not of the left, and certainly for anyone who shares the stated objectives of UKIP, the idea that there's nothing worse about Labour than the Conservatives is just barmy. On every single measure - the economy, the deficit, immigration, education, state interference, and so on - Labour is further from their views. Labour might be closer to your views, but that merely supports my point.
I seriously think that the these flood disasters may turn out as bad for Cameron's government as BlacK Wednesday did for for the Tory government of John Major. In this instance the votes lost being split between UKIP and Labour.
A touch over the top that. Nonetheless, the impression of continuing incompetence and of infighting within the Cabinet over crass attempts to shift blame could have a much wider impact, affecting opinion beyond that of the relatively few people who are directly affected.
See their annual report I linked to below. Although some of it does look suspicious: it mentions a £51 million Nottingham flood relief scheme being finished (and £6 million under budget) (1), although some or all of that expenditure might have occurred in other years on the long project. I don't have time to look into it more, but possible the £22 million is for literally maintaining river flows, with individual flood relief projects accounted separately. If that's the case, then I was wrong above.
But it's still a paltry for maintenance.
Don't underestimate the pies that the EA has its fingers in. It's a behemoth.
Without trying to break down the figures in detail, I can confirm that we had a big flood prevention scheme installed west of Nottingham by the EA a couple of years ago (after a controversy about the exact route). Possibly as a result, we've not been affected by flooding. In general I usually found the EA one of the more responsive agencies.
One things for sure I'd no more take the word of a Tory on it than I would take the word of a socialist these days. Sadly for all intents and purposes the two have become indistinguishable.
Well, I am afraid that a few years of Miliband will disabuse you of that particular misconception. For that matter, have you already forgotten 1997-2010?
No but having watched the incompetence, division and dysfunction (in both Government and the respective parties) of the last four years, it certainly has put it into a much more defined context.
Sadly I expect Miliband (ably assisted by his misfits) to disappoint as much as his four predecessors (I remember 1992-1997 as well). But what are we to do but cycle them through the system as quickly as possible in the hope that at some point down the line our deranged psychotic political class will get the message and appoint someone worthy of leading the British people?
Oh and it wasn't me who claimed to be the Heir To Blair. Clearly there are some in the Tory Party who do not share your view of how disastrous that period was.
I see Populus, after its sampling readjustment, has now joined ICM (ye olde golde standarde ater all), Comres and (?) Survation in showing Labour only in the mid thirties, shouldn't we perhaps be relying a little less on Yougov, notwithstanding the weekly averages?
The inescapable truth is that the kippers most fear a referendum because they know they will lose it. That's why they are desperate for a Labour government.
It really is as simple as that. They huff and they puff. But they have not an ounce of credibility.
We certainly would lose it if we followed Richard's suggestion that we cease to run candidates against the Conservative Party in elections, urged our supporters to vote Conservative, and only appeared on the scene for the referendum campaign.
The inescapable truth is that the kippers most fear a referendum because they know they will lose it. That's why they are desperate for a Labour government.
It really is as simple as that. They huff and they puff. But they have not an ounce of credibility.
UKIPpers are motivated less by the perceived evils of the EU and more by a nihilistic wish to destroy what they perceive as the LibLabCon establishment, without any real idea what they want to put in its place.
I wonder whether the Britons doing this come from one particular community, or whether all ethnic groups and faiths are equally represented in this barbarism. Presumably the left is enjoying the fact their immigration and integration policies over the years have succeeded in "rubbing the Right's nose in diversity".
I don't think ant names were mentioned, so hard to tell.
Might just as easily be a wide boy from Essex or a gruff Northerner in a flat cap
One things for sure I'd no more take the word of a Tory on it than I would take the word of a socialist these days. Sadly for all intents and purposes the two have become indistinguishable.
Well, I am afraid that a few years of Miliband will disabuse you of that particular misconception. For that matter, have you already forgotten 1997-2010?
I think most people would look back objectively on that whole period and think good at the beginning , mixed in the middle and bad at the end . A Conservative such as yourself would not be objective .
Blair lost 2.8 million votes in his first term and 1.2 million in his second term and another million was lost under Brown. The rot set in early.
I think most people would look back objectively on that whole period and think good at the beginning , mixed in the middle and bad at the end . A Conservative such as yourself would not be objective .
I'm sure a LibDem is impeccably objective, of course. Still, I wouldn't disagree too much with that assessment, with the catastrophic exception of Iraq. The first term, when Brown was still following Ken Clarke's economic plans, was reasonable enough, although that was of course the period when he sowed the seeds of disaster with his dismantling of financial supervision, putting no-one in charge of the stability of the banking system.
Nonetheless, for anyone who is not of the left, and certainly for anyone who shares the stated objectives of UKIP, the idea that there's nothing worse about Labour than the Conservatives is just barmy. On every single measure - the economy, the deficit, immigration, education, state interference, and so on - Labour is further from their views. Labour might be closer to your views, but that merely supports my point.
State interference? When the Tories support giving government bureaucracies access to your health records whether you like it or not, when they support GCHQ tracking your internet communications without probable cause or a warrant, when they force people to sign up to an easily leakable list so they are allowed to watch adult material in their own homes... give me a break.
"We'll be going back to the dark days of the late sixties and the seventies"
Actually I wouldn't mind going back to those days. There were plenty of jobs around, beer was cheap, housing was affordable and there was far more personal freedom.
The beer was cheap, but it was generally crap, wasn't it? Warm lager and gassy bitter.
It most certainly was not. True there had been a move towards nasty keg bitter but the early seventies was the start of the fightback (CAMRA was founded in 1971) but even then there were a significant number of good traditional brewers making fine beers. Youngs was still brewing for a start. There was a pub crawl around the Kensington and Chelsea area which entailed drinking 13 real ales, finishing up with a pint Fullers ESB at the Star in Belgravia (both still going I am pleased to say), before going on to the obligatory curry house.
I wonder whether the Britons doing this come from one particular community, or whether all ethnic groups and faiths are equally represented in this barbarism. Presumably the left is enjoying the fact their immigration and integration policies over the years have succeeded in "rubbing the Right's nose in diversity".
I don't think ant names were mentioned, so hard to tell.
Might just as easily be a wide boy from Essex or a gruff Northerner in a flat cap
My suspicion is that they're the children of either Australian backpackers, or some Japanese investment bankers.
I see Populus, after its sampling readjustment, has now joined ICM (ye olde golde standarde ater all), Comres and (?) Survation in showing Labour only in the mid thirties, shouldn't we perhaps be relying a little less on Yougov, notwithstanding the weekly averages?
Steady on JohnO. YouGov offer a daily poll. Where would PB be without polls to argue over?!!!
I think most people would look back objectively on that whole period and think good at the beginning , mixed in the middle and bad at the end . A Conservative such as yourself would not be objective .
I'm sure a LibDem is impeccably objective, of course. Still, I wouldn't disagree too much with that assessment, with the catastrophic exception of Iraq. The first term, when Brown was still following Ken Clarke's economic plans, was reasonable enough, although that was of course the period when he sowed the seeds of disaster with his dismantling of financial supervision, putting no-one in charge of the stability of the banking system.
Nonetheless, for anyone who is not of the left, and certainly for anyone who shares the stated objectives of UKIP, the idea that there's nothing worse about Labour than the Conservatives is just barmy. On every single measure - the economy, the deficit, immigration, education, state interference, and so on - Labour is further from their views. Labour might be closer to your views, but that merely supports my point.
State interference? When the Tories support giving government bureaucracies access to your health records whether you like it or not, when they support GCHQ tracking your internet communications without probable cause or a warrant, when they force people to sign up to an easily leakable list so they are allowed to watch adult material in their own homes... give me a break.
When it comes to issues of personal freedom, this government is simply a continuation of the previous one.
We certainly would lose it if we followed Richard's suggestion that we cease to run candidates against the Conservative Party in elections, urged our supporters to vote Conservative, and only appeared on the scene for the referendum campaign.
That wasn't my suggestion. My suggestion was that you spent three years actively campaigning, in association with people like Dan Hannan. The nice thing from your point of view would be that there wouldn't be much of a Stay In campaign during that time, and it would be divided. You could also use the time doing what the SNP have failed to do in relation to Scottish independence - put together a serious programme for what exactly leaving the EU would entail and how it would be done.
You'd probably still lose, of course. But it's the best chance you'd have in a generation. The alternative is as you suggested - to be like the SNP and wait over half a century.
I think most people would look back objectively on that whole period and think good at the beginning , mixed in the middle and bad at the end . A Conservative such as yourself would not be objective .
I'm sure a LibDem is impeccably objective, of course. Still, I wouldn't disagree too much with that assessment, with the catastrophic exception of Iraq. The first term, when Brown was still following Ken Clarke's economic plans, was reasonable enough, although that was of course the period when he sowed the seeds of disaster with his dismantling of financial supervision, putting no-one in charge of the stability of the banking system.
Nonetheless, for anyone who is not of the left, and certainly for anyone who shares the stated objectives of UKIP, the idea that there's nothing worse about Labour than the Conservatives is just barmy. On every single measure - the economy, the deficit, immigration, education, state interference, and so on - Labour is further from their views. Labour might be closer to your views, but that merely supports my point.
State interference? When the Tories support giving government bureaucracies access to your health records whether you like it or not, when they support GCHQ tracking your internet communications without probable cause or a warrant, when they force people to sign up to an easily leakable list so they are allowed to watch adult material in their own homes... give me a break.
When it comes to issues of personal freedom, this government is simply a continuation of the previous one.
Indeed. Not only has Cameron failed to roll back the various authoritarian intrusions into our civil liberties created by New Labour, he has actually expanded them into new areas.
My Dad was once "moved on" by the police for trying to know down St. Catz. With a pickaxe.
Good on him. It's a monstrosity. If only he'd taken a shot at Wolfson as well! The flood waters are lapping at the feet of Merton, but there is no inundation of the High Street yet.
One things for sure I'd no more take the word of a Tory on it than I would take the word of a socialist these days. Sadly for all intents and purposes the two have become indistinguishable.
Well, I am afraid that a few years of Miliband will disabuse you of that particular misconception. For that matter, have you already forgotten 1997-2010?
I think most people would look back objectively on that whole period and think good at the beginning , mixed in the middle and bad at the end . A Conservative such as yourself would not be objective .
put together a serious programme for what exactly leaving the EU would entail and how it would be done.
You mean as Cameron has done via his repatriation agenda? Remind me of the specific items he says he wants to bring back to UK control again?
Yes, exactly. UKIP would have a big advantage in that respect - they'd have three years to put together a serious alternative plan, whereas the Stay In side wouldn't be able to be specific, and in any case would be divided.
Still, it is not to be. UKIP seem to want half a century of ever-closer union instead. They may well get what they want.
When it comes to issues of personal freedom, this government is simply a continuation of the previous one.
You see - people have already forgotten: HIPs, ID cards, the Contact Point database, the DNA database, CRB checks...
Collection of innocent people's entire internet behaviour gives you far more details of people's private lives than any of the above. And how someone can oppose ID cards on civil liberties grounds yet support bureaucrats from a dozen agencies getting access to whether you've suffered from depression or had an abortion is beyond me...
One things for sure I'd no more take the word of a Tory on it than I would take the word of a socialist these days. Sadly for all intents and purposes the two have become indistinguishable.
Well, I am afraid that a few years of Miliband will disabuse you of that particular misconception. For that matter, have you already forgotten 1997-2010?
I think most people would look back objectively on that whole period and think good at the beginning , mixed in the middle and bad at the end . A Conservative such as yourself would not be objective .
Blair lost 2.8 million votes in his first term and 1.2 million in his second term and another million was lost under Brown. The rot set in early.
Certainly Blair polled many fewer votes in 2001 than in 1997 but so did the opposition parties . That suggests content and no desire for change with the Blair government . Iraq was the first major happening that caused Labour to actively lose support and supporters .
The inescapable truth is that the kippers most fear a referendum because they know they will lose it. That's why they are desperate for a Labour government.
It really is as simple as that. They huff and they puff. But they have not an ounce of credibility.
We certainly would lose it if we followed Richard's suggestion that we cease to run candidates against the Conservative Party in elections, urged our supporters to vote Conservative, and only appeared on the scene for the referendum campaign.
You yourself are an "honourable exception" in that you have said that in your semi-marginal seat you would vote Conservative (assuming UKIP itself had no chance), to prevent Labour winning, but every other of the party's supporters posting here would cheerfully accept a Miliband government under which not only would there never be a referendum but indeed the UK's further integration into the EU would inevitably accelerate.
[Brown] sowed the seeds of disaster with his dismantling of financial supervision, putting no-one in charge of the stability of the banking system.
I thought the normal complaint was that he'd put too many people in charge but since the Bank of England was initially opposed to bailouts, it probably would have made no difference.
You see - people have already forgotten: HIPs, ID cards, the Contact Point database, the DNA database, CRB checks...
The reforms to the retention of DNA on the database made by the Crime and Security Act 2010 were only marginally altered by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. We have the Strasbourg court to thank for prompting the last Labour government to change its policy. This government has extended closed material procedures into all civil procedures in the United Kingdom bar inquests, vastly restricted the reach of Norwich Pharmacal in national security cases, and has instituted TPIMs. The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill 2014 is a particularly egregious piece of draft legislation. The governments seems intent on preventing its unlawful actions being challenged in the courts. Then there is the emasculation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in 2011 and the cession to the Secretary of State of the power to create "temporary class" drugs. This is a thoroughly paternalistic government.
I see Populus, after its sampling readjustment, has now joined ICM (ye olde golde standarde ater all), Comres and (?) Survation in showing Labour only in the mid thirties, shouldn't we perhaps be relying a little less on Yougov, notwithstanding the weekly averages?
Steady on JohnO. YouGov offer a daily poll. Where would PB be without polls to argue over?!!!
LoL. Oh, had forgotten about that. Anyway, Avery's returned and that's the best pb news of the day.
You posted the wrong link, as I'd have been interested to know more. But, while we are on the Bannockburn thing, I posted some links on the previous thread which showed that the far more important, and underlying, problem is the local Labour-Tory council double booking - whether deliberately or by incompetence, I couldn't possibly suggest - the very long-booked Bannockburn events with the Armed Forces Day as a very late afterthought. As the Bannockburn events included far more than just the 700th anniversary of the1314 battle, in the form of the 2014 Homecoming with the clan gatherings from all over the world, this has been very damaging indeed to the economy (cancellations and so on). The resulting downturn in its prospects are presumably what led to the news piece - though you would not guess it fro the Scotsman.
I thought the problem was there weren't enough bookings to worry about the cancellations. It wouldn't particularly surprise if the local council were doing a bit of mischief making since mutual eye poking quickly becomes the norm in split societies. However I'd have thought that the major event you describe should be able to hold its own if tied in with Homecoming events particularly if targeted at overseas visitors. US and Canadians aren't going to be going to Scotland just for AFD in Stirling.
As I understand it the problem is that the poor bookings arise at least in part from the mess made by the council's doublebooking. And AFD makes it much riskier to have the (long-booked) Homecoming/Bannockburn event in the same area on the same day, which weakens the general Homecoming sequence. Partly transport/infrastructure but also low jets (incl. Red Arrows) vs reenactors' horses or the music and dance normal for Highland/Gaelic events. Not to mention competition for visitors. (BTW a bit odd having AFD in Stirling this year, as the special theme is the Navy ...). Anyway I hope it all gets sorted out, but it is a bad foulup - especially with the economic impact, the original multi-day Homecoming event being better in terms of visitor spend than AFD which is just a day out.
Found the links for you - some obviously coming from their media owners' political point of view. The latest situation is described in the first one which I have added.
Collection of innocent people's entire internet behaviour gives you far more details of people's private lives than any of the above. And how someone can oppose ID cards on civil liberties grounds yet support bureaucrats from a dozen agencies getting access to whether you've suffered from depression or had an abortion is beyond me...
Garbage. ID cards are massively more intrusive - for example, they impose an obligation on citizen to notify the state when they change address. In any case, you bizarrely seem to be ignoring a raft of case where the coalition is clearly more on the side of civil liberties than Labour, on the eccentric ground that you have identified one where they are the same. In other words, do you think a score of 4-1 is a draw?
Comments
http://order-order.com/2014/02/10/staff-cuts-are-not-the-problem-at-the-environment-agencywhistleblower-management-just-want-to-expand-kingdom/
I suspect the difference is that the Federal EPA are far less involved in micro-managing their environment for political ends (power in the US generally, even under Obama, tends to be far more devolved).
http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/LIT_8472_6b598a.pdf
you can see that 2012/3 spend was £636m on flood stuff, £431m on air/land/water quality (making the UK a safe, pleasant place to life as far as posssible) and £140m on water conservation. Back in the days when we didn't have as much of it.
Out of interest, more or less than you thought?
http://www2.epa.gov/home/state-and-territorial-environmental-agencies#AZ
twitter.com/Michael_Heaver/status/432901014543269890
One for the Euro election leaflets.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/10624818/EU-to-force-Britons-to-publish-details-of-wills-and-property.html
Not only is it completely crass in itself, it is an area which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. Getting a UK veto on financial regulation has to be a top priority, and if we can't, then we should leave.
Quite why UKIP are working to prevent a renegotiation and referendum is a mystery.
There's flooding in Oxford too. Sorry to disappoint you but the old city of Oxford is on one of the gravel terraces of the Thames valley, so most/all the old colleges should be okay, gardens and footie grounds apart - the old A/Saxons weren't stupid. One or two of the more modern colleges such as Wolfson (not sure about the newer ones) are built on the floodplain or its edge. Wolfson's architecture is IIRC designed to mitigate that, being built on stilts, but St Catherines looks dodgier on the flood risk map which shows plenty of scope for flooding in the Victorian inner suburbs along the Thames channel and side branches - Grandpont and the Hinkseys - through which the train line runs.
Are you not going to show some scepticism about that absurd set of figures?
You can see the conflict in the two positions? I suspect if you want UKIP to change their opposition to Tory policy then change the policy. Even you concede you might agree with it (to withdraw that is) one day.
Interestingly the EA appears to be able to find £2.5million for the Isis easily enough, amd Sir Chris Smith a Cambrdge man too.
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/heritage/battle-lines-drawn-over-bannockburn-row-1-3300359
The official policy of the Conservative Party is to try to reneogiate terms, and then to have an In/Out referendum by the end of 2017. UKIP clearly don't want a referendum; quite why is, as I said, a mystery.
Might also be a way to distance themselves from the tuition fees ball and chain as well. "Us? No no no....that was the other lot, led by that bloke with 9 chins we can't talk about..."
The Mail can reveal that Mr Bercow is on a list of at least ten MPs who will be called to give evidence for the Crown"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554455/John-Bercow-evidence-rape-trial-former-deputy-speaker-Nigel-Evans.html
Perhaps the problem is that it is too big, and that it should be split. Bring back the National Rivers Authority! ;-)
I hope those in UKIP looking forward to a scorched earth policy after 2015 enjoy their diet of burnt turnip.
Except by then the all-powerful, all-pervading EU would no doubt have banned them as being carcinogenic....
"I can understand the feelings of the people who have been flooded out but what I can't understand is why they have to find and or decide that some human is to blame for it. At least the ancient Greeks blamed their Gods."
http://news.sky.com/story/1209106/brits-involved-in-syria-executions-and-torture
The SNP would never have got their chance of winning a referendum, had they not built up electoral representation.
parts of the country. Considerable concern has been raised by farmers and land managers
about channel maintenance. This year we spent around £22 million in maintaining channel
flows and a further £21 million on pumping and deploying assets."
So yep, about £22 million on rivers is right as a base figure. The pumping and deploying assets figure is much woolier in what it means.
From the EA 2012/13 annual report: http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/LIT_8472_6b598a.pdf
PS And if anyone wanted to know whether to trust the Tories and Cameron personally with referendums they only have to look at how they facilitated the screwing over of their coalition partners in the AV referendum. What is it they say 'Beware of Greeks bearing gifts'?
The only way it could be reached is by someone very stupid/malicious going through the accounts and ignoring the flood defence spending because it is lumped in with coastal flood defence, and only counting those items of expenditure that are specifically itemised as being river-only.
Oh - and you won't get your referendum either, and with no renegotiation there will be ever-increasing EU interference. The worst of all possible worlds.
But it's still a paltry for maintenance.
Don't underestimate the pies that the EA has its fingers in. It's a behemoth.
(1): http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/gemi0710bsuv-e-e.pdf
What a stupid comment. People are blaming someone because they have been led to believe by labour and the liberals that the state is all singing, all dancing. Just keep paying the taxes and we'll sort your life out, sunshine - whatever it is.
Under that social contract, people have every right to be seeking someone to blame.
Nobody can doubt how impotent the Tory Party has become!
That suggests a ballpark figure of £300 million per year spent on flood defences for rivers.
People need to display some more scepticism when they are being spinned absurd figures such as only £20 million being spent on rivers by the Environment Agency. But it's all too easy for people to believe that a government agency is useless that they just accept such misleading figures on trust. Perhaps they only reserve their scepticism for scientists, eh?
You posted the wrong link, as I'd have been interested to know more. But, while we are on the Bannockburn thing, I posted some links on the previous thread which showed that the far more important, and underlying, problem is the local Labour-Tory council double booking - whether deliberately or by incompetence, I couldn't possibly suggest - the very long-booked Bannockburn events with the Armed Forces Day as a very late afterthought. As the Bannockburn events included far more than just the 700th anniversary of the1314 battle, in the form of the 2014 Homecoming with the clan gatherings from all over the world, this has been very damaging indeed to the economy (cancellations and so on). The resulting downturn in its prospects are presumably what led to the news piece - though you would not guess it fro the Scotsman.
What I sense with tories in Somerset is a very bitter resignation. We never thought in the first place the taxes we have paid would bring us much protection.
We were right.
'I seriously think that the these flood disasters may turn out as bad for Cameron's government as BlacK Wednesday did for for the Tory government of John Major.'
Are you having a laugh or had too many drinks at lunchtime ?
Actually I wouldn't mind going back to those days. There were plenty of jobs around, beer was cheap, housing was affordable and there was far more personal freedom.
Sadly I expect Miliband (ably assisted by his misfits) to disappoint as much as his four predecessors (I remember 1992-1997 as well). But what are we to do but cycle them through the system as quickly as possible in the hope that at some point down the line our deranged psychotic political class will get the message and appoint someone worthy of leading the British people?
Oh and it wasn't me who claimed to be the Heir To Blair. Clearly there are some in the Tory Party who do not share your view of how disastrous that period was.
It really is as simple as that. They huff and they puff. But they have not an ounce of credibility.
Nonetheless, for anyone who is not of the left, and certainly for anyone who shares the stated objectives of UKIP, the idea that there's nothing worse about Labour than the Conservatives is just barmy. On every single measure - the economy, the deficit, immigration, education, state interference, and so on - Labour is further from their views. Labour might be closer to your views, but that merely supports my point.
It will also include European Election VI.
Might just as easily be a wide boy from Essex or a gruff Northerner in a flat cap
You'd probably still lose, of course. But it's the best chance you'd have in a generation. The alternative is as you suggested - to be like the SNP and wait over half a century.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100240679/exclusive-labour-1997-2010-was-the-worst-government-ever-and-this-is-why/
"Exclusive: Labour, 1997-2010, was The Worst Government Ever. And this is why…"
Still, it is not to be. UKIP seem to want half a century of ever-closer union instead. They may well get what they want.
Found the links for you - some obviously coming from their media owners' political point of view. The latest situation is described in the first one which I have added.
http://www.clans2014.com/bannockburn-monday-date-pulled-from-schedule/
http://www.clans2014.com/2014-when-good-councils-go-bad/
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/call-for-probe-into-clash-between-armed-forces-day-and-bannockburn-celebration-1.181168
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts/news/rethink-over-battle-of-bannockburn-celebration-1-3238660