UKIP polled 16% in Euro 2009.It`s not even remotely believable that they`ll poll 20 this time.
I would be interested to see how ICM adjust the figures for the Euro poll.
ICM's first stab at Euro polling in 2009, put UKIP on 9% and Labour on 28%, compared to outcomes of 17% and 16%. 20% with ICM is a very good figure for UKIP, and certainly implies an outcome of 25-30%.
Yes- but that fails to take account of how the Expenses scandal upset earlier polls and calculations on a massive scale in 2009. Whilst nothing can be ruled out, it seems unlikely to happen again this year.
Well clearly these academics from Leicester University disagree with you:
Explaining support for the UK Independence Party at the 2009 European Parliament elections
The UK Independence Party (UKIP) achieved its best result in the 2009 European elections, beating the governing Labour Party into second place. Despite its recent success we still know relatively little about who votes for the party and how these supporters compare with those of UKIP’s competitors. This paper analyses support for UKIP at the 2009 European elections first at the aggregate level, to understand the social and economic context in which the party performs best, and second at the individual level using a YouGov survey of over 32,000 voters, more than 4,000 of whom were UKIP supporters. We show that Euroscepticism is the biggest explanatory factor but that UKIP voters are also concerned about immigration and show dissatisfaction with and a lack of trust in the political system.Our findings add credence to the argument that views on European integration matter in voters’ decisions at European elections and we show how the balance of attitudinal explanations of UKIP support makes its votersdistinct from those voting for far right parties.
I hardly think the situation has changed much when immigration is now neck nand neck with the economy as an issue according to Mori and full blown political and financial integration is now a realistic possibility for the EU. Even with expenses and the like, we now have the prospect of an 11% MPs pay rise to bolster the general view of a corrupt Westminster village (IPSA or no IPSA).
Many people appear to have forgotten that the 2009 EuroElections coincided with when the Expenses scandal was at its most intense. UKIP - and to a lesser extent the Greens and BNP - benefitted as NOTA alternative, whilst Labour in particular suffered as the governing party at the time.Prior to the scandal UKIP had been widely expected to fall back from its 2004 performance - perhaps to below10%.Whatever happens in May,it is far from obvious that such an event will boost UKIP this year.
I seem to remember UKIP's demise being predicted on this site by some in the months before the 2009 Euro election.
Many people appear to have forgotten that the 2009 EuroElections coincided with when the Expenses scandal was at its most intense. UKIP - and to a lesser extent the Greens and BNP - benefitted as NOTA alternative, whilst Labour in particular suffered as the governing party at the time.Prior to the scandal UKIP had been widely expected to fall back from its 2004 performance - perhaps to below10%.Whatever happens in May,it is far from obvious that such an event will boost UKIP this year.
I seem to remember UKIP's demise being predicted on this site by some in the months before the 2009 Euro election.
It was also predicted by Rumpy Pumpy's spoof Euro marketing organisation as well.
I think it's entirely possible UKIP may only get approx 20% in the Euros.
Last time there was a big novelty aspect to UKIP and in particular I doubt many people had a very negative view about them.
This time, UKIP are much better known to a large proportion of the population. Whilst they obviously have many more definite supporters than in 2009, there are also far, far more people who now have a definite unfavourable view of UKIP.
This means it going to be far harder to gain lots of votes in the campaign on a sort of "bandwagon" effect - because any such "movement" is going to come up against stronger adverse forces.
I cant see how the increased UKIP coverage and realisation that a cost-free-protest-vote-opportunity is around the corner wont benefit them in the run-up to May. I'd certainly happily take any offers of bets of evens on them getting more than 20%.
Sod UKIP, these floods are pretty brutal. Amazing, not in a good way.
Expect a bold move from Cam to wrest back both the initiative and to stop the bickering. We will be hearing a lot about him "personally overseeing COBRA meetings", etc and I guess we will get some pretty strong visuals (army perhaps, under MACA?) to show how he and the Cons are getting a grip.
Not to say that he will politicise it but there are plenty of communities in need and a lot of water on screen that he needs to act upon.
I think it's entirely possible UKIP may only get approx 20% in the Euros.
Last time there was a big novelty aspect to UKIP and in particular I doubt many people had a very negative view about them.
This time, UKIP are much better known to a large proportion of the population. Whilst they obviously have many more definite supporters than in 2009, there are also far, far more people who now have a definite unfavourable view of UKIP.
This means it going to be far harder to gain lots of votes in the campaign on a sort of "bandwagon" effect - because any such "movement" is going to come up against stronger adverse forces.
UKIP's favourable/unfavourable numbers are +27/-38.
On an issue like the EU, where UKIP are clearly the strongest anti-EU option, I think even people that dislike UKIP might vote for them. The ambivalent certainly would.
As much as I would like this euro poll to be true, UKIP will almost certainly significantly increase their vote share. Mainly at the expense of Labour.
In 2009, ICM were just out of line with other pollsters for the Euros. My guess is that their techniques don't work as well with low turnout elections under PR as they do with high turnout elections under FPTP.
I think that's likely to be right. Their model assumes that people who don't know how they'll vote will (50%) default back to their previous vote. But in the Euros such people are just as likely to abstain, or vote in some semi-random fashion according to mood.
Sod UKIP, these floods are pretty brutal. Amazing, not in a good way.
Expect a bold move from Cam to wrest back both the initiative and to stop the bickering. We will be hearing a lot about him "personally overseeing COBRA meetings", etc and I guess we will get some pretty strong visuals (army perhaps, under MACA?) to show how he and the Cons are getting a grip.
Not to say that he will politicise it but there are plenty of communities in need and a lot of water on screen that he needs to act upon.
He'd be better off now getting his waders on and going down to Somerset and lugging sandbags about for a week. Pissing about in a talking shop that should have been convened weeks before it actually was and hasn't managed to ensure that resources were on the ground to help Wraybury or the likes today is just adding insult to injury. The idea that having another meeting is going to impress anybody is risible,
Better still he could jet off and go and help build a school with Taxpayers money in some god forsaken corner of Africa. That'll impress!
Sod UKIP, these floods are pretty brutal. Amazing, not in a good way.
Expect a bold move from Cam to wrest back both the initiative and to stop the bickering. We will be hearing a lot about him "personally overseeing COBRA meetings", etc and I guess we will get some pretty strong visuals (army perhaps, under MACA?) to show how he and the Cons are getting a grip.
Not to say that he will politicise it but there are plenty of communities in need and a lot of water on screen that he needs to act upon.
He'd be better off now getting his waders on and going down to Somerset and lugging sandbags about for a week. Pissing about in a talking shop that should have been convened weeks before it actually was and hasn't managed to ensure that resources were on the ground to help Wraybury or the likes today is just adding insult to injury. The idea that having another meeting is going to impress anybody is risible,
You don't want your leader sucked into the maelstrom (literally in this case).
You want him orchestrating events in a cool, calm but concerned manner. Plus there are several places facing flooding; would you have him circling each one setting down, glad-handing, then heading off again immediately?
As much as I would like this euro poll to be true, UKIP will almost certainly significantly increase their vote share. Mainly at the expense of Labour.
Wow,a post from you which doesn't have your usual Labour Quilt covers and matching curtains signs ;-)
I am very honest and I think fair. The difference is, I think most of what the press talk about matters not a jot. What I think matters is members, activism and campaigning eg the ground game.
In a Lab vs Tory battle there is only one winner there.
Sod UKIP, these floods are pretty brutal. Amazing, not in a good way.
Expect a bold move from Cam to wrest back both the initiative and to stop the bickering. We will be hearing a lot about him "personally overseeing COBRA meetings", etc and I guess we will get some pretty strong visuals (army perhaps, under MACA?) to show how he and the Cons are getting a grip.
Not to say that he will politicise it but there are plenty of communities in need and a lot of water on screen that he needs to act upon.
He'd be better off now getting his waders on and going down to Somerset and lugging sandbags about for a week. Pissing about in a talking shop that should have been convened weeks before it actually was and hasn't managed to ensure that resources were on the ground to help Wraybury or the likes today is just adding insult to injury. The idea that having another meeting is going to impress anybody is risible,
You don't want your leader sucked into the maelstrom (literally in this case).
You want him orchestrating events in a cool, calm but concerned manner. Plus there are several places facing flooding; would you have him circling each one setting down, glad-handing, then heading off again immediately?
Of course you don't.
A leader must lead.
Cameron? A Leader? ROFLMAO. He couldn't lead the Tories to a party in a brewery. Have you missed the last 8 years of division and dysfunction with the biggest backbench rebellions in history?
PS And I never suggested any 'glad-handing' (there is nothing to be glad about). I suggested he rolled his sleeves up and lent a hand in the battle against the rising waters (e.g. doing some serious work with that Sikh charity down in Somerset for example would do him no harm ) and did a bit of leading by example rather than pontificating from one of those rather squalid and dishevelled towers in Westminster that politicians love to sanctimoniously preach from.
Cameron is the worst Tory leader ever in my opinion. Just the fact he has destroyed the Tories membership and split the right alone should condemn him to this fate,
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
I think it's entirely possible UKIP may only get approx 20% in the Euros.
Last time there was a big novelty aspect to UKIP and in particular I doubt many people had a very negative view about them.
This time, UKIP are much better known to a large proportion of the population. Whilst they obviously have many more definite supporters than in 2009, there are also far, far more people who now have a definite unfavourable view of UKIP.
This means it going to be far harder to gain lots of votes in the campaign on a sort of "bandwagon" effect - because any such "movement" is going to come up against stronger adverse forces.
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
It must be lord smith ?
Yep, it says Lord Smith.
Thanks,and thank God for that,I was thinking a tory minister ;-) that's all they need ;-)
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
It must be lord smith ?
Yep, it says Lord Smith.
Thanks,for God for that,I was thinking a tory minister ;-) that's all they need ;-)
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
It must be lord smith ?
Yep, it says Lord Smith.
Thanks,for God for that,I was thinking a tory minister ;-) that's all they need ;-)
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
It must be lord smith ?
Yes.
"Lord Smith said people who bought homes on the flood plains needed to think about the "risk that property faces."
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
It must be lord smith ?
Yes.
"Lord Smith said people who bought homes on the flood plains needed to think about the "risk that property faces."
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
It must be lord smith ?
Yes.
"Lord Smith said people who bought homes on the flood plains needed to think about the "risk that property faces."
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
It must be lord smith ?
Tories STILL going after the EA?
Jeezus are they mental? *facepalm*
Nope hugh -
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 7 mins Tuesday's Guardian front page - "PM: stop flooding blame game" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/FVxCi9Spk2
I think it's entirely possible UKIP may only get approx 20% in the Euros.
Last time there was a big novelty aspect to UKIP and in particular I doubt many people had a very negative view about them.
This time, UKIP are much better known to a large proportion of the population. Whilst they obviously have many more definite supporters than in 2009, there are also far, far more people who now have a definite unfavourable view of UKIP.
This means it going to be far harder to gain lots of votes in the campaign on a sort of "bandwagon" effect - because any such "movement" is going to come up against stronger adverse forces.
The last time the met boroughs were held on their own (2006) the turnout was 36% which is almost the same as turnout is generally for Euro elections (34% in 2010) consequently I don't think it will impact the result much at all.
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
It must be lord smith ?
Yes.
"Lord Smith said people who bought homes on the flood plains needed to think about the "risk that property faces."
The last four winters have been cold and rather snowy. This winter is an extreme event but I shouldn't assume it represents a trend, more likely it's a freak.
I think it's entirely possible UKIP may only get approx 20% in the Euros.
Last time there was a big novelty aspect to UKIP and in particular I doubt many people had a very negative view about them.
This time, UKIP are much better known to a large proportion of the population. Whilst they obviously have many more definite supporters than in 2009, there are also far, far more people who now have a definite unfavourable view of UKIP.
This means it going to be far harder to gain lots of votes in the campaign on a sort of "bandwagon" effect - because any such "movement" is going to come up against stronger adverse forces.
The last time the met boroughs were held on their own (2006) the turnout was 36% which is almost the same as turnout is generally for Euro elections (34% in 2010) consequently I don't think it will impact the result much at all.
Well,it's not the Lennard situation itself, but the cumulative effect of that, Hancock etc which is driving lots of former LD voters away. And encouraging those of us who have moved away to stay away.
Remarkably, for a relatively small country, South Africa produced two of the truly great figures of the 20th century, and for much the same reasons, even if the earlier is now rather unjustly forgotten. Mandela’s greatness lay not only in his moral leadership of the opposition to the oppression of apartheid (even if in absentia for much of that fight), but even more so in how he won without succumbing to bitterness and how, after winning that battle, he used his status to bind and unite rather than to impose a different oppression.
Likewise, nearly a century earlier, another South African, Jan Christian Smuts, used similar vision, empathy and leadership to bring his people to accept a settlement of reconciliation – though in his case from a position of their having been defeated – both after the Boer War and in the formation of the Union of South Africa.
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
You can read it if you zoom in on the picture.
Even better, zoom in on the Matt cartoon, which is an absolute classic.
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
It must be lord smith ?
Yes.
"Lord Smith said people who bought homes on the flood plains needed to think about the "risk that property faces."
The last four winters have been cold and rather snowy. This winter is an extreme event but I shouldn't assume it represents a trend, more likely it's a freak.
Sod UKIP, these floods are pretty brutal. Amazing, not in a good way.
Expect a bold move from Cam to wrest back both the initiative and to stop the bickering. We will be hearing a lot about him "personally overseeing COBRA meetings", etc and I guess we will get some pretty strong visuals (army perhaps, under MACA?) to show how he and the Cons are getting a grip.
Not to say that he will politicise it but there are plenty of communities in need and a lot of water on screen that he needs to act upon.
Yeah you are absolutely right.
It's been raining. A LOT. It's going to rain more. The Government can't control that, they can only show they're dealing with it best they can (and they're doing OK).
That the Tories tried to turn it into a political / blame issue by going after the EA is astonishing.
What idiot made that decision? Some wonky rightwing Oxbridge halfwit who thought it would be a jolly good chance to attack Labour Quangos, what ho, what larks?
Still spouting your ill informed rubbish I see Hugh. As I pointed out earlier, the rain we are having at present is not unique. Indeed there have been higher concentrations at regular intervals in the past and we get this sort of rainfall approximately every 50 years.
Funnily enough on previous occasions the flooding in the Somerset levels has been nowhere as bad. But of course that was because on previous occasions the rivers and flood defences had been properly maintained.
The EA had a responsibility to maintain the rivers and flood defences. They have failed to do this and therefore should be held responsible. Actually the one person who could perhaps reasonably claim some lack of responsibility is Lord Smith since although he is now head of the EA, it was not on his watch that the decision was made to stop dredging.
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
It must be lord smith ?
Yes.
"Lord Smith said people who bought homes on the flood plains needed to think about the "risk that property faces."
But what if these people have been living there for decades as many have? Are they supposed to be able to predict years in advance the thinking of psychotic politicians who exist hundreds of miles away too?
I wonder what he would say if they cut the funding for the Thames barrier? Would he say that people in London should have though about the risks they might face? Politically it is the most desperately crass thing he could have said. Smith is a fool of immense proportions. I can only think he is close to being kicked out of the job.
Yes, I remember David Herdson's superb article very well indeed. It made a very interesting comparison between two great South Africans. But it did not compare Smuts favourably to Mandela, although it's undoubtedly true that the sheer range of Smuts' extraordinary and long career on the world stage was quite remarkable.
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
It must be lord smith ?
Yes.
"Lord Smith said people who bought homes on the flood plains needed to think about the "risk that property faces."
But what if these people have been living there for decades as many have? Are they supposed to be able to predict years in advance the thinking of psychotic politicians who exist hundreds of miles away too?
I wonder what he would say if they cut the funding for the Thames barrier? Would he say that people in London should have though about the risks they might face? Politically it is the most desperately crass thing he could have said. Smith is a fool of immense proportions. I can only think he is close to being kicked out of the job.
Yes, I remember David Herdson's superb article very well indeed. It made a very interesting comparison between two great South Africans. But it did not compare Smuts favourably to Mandela, although it's undoubtedly true that the sheer range of Smuts' extraordinary and long career on the world stage was quite remarkable.
"Likewise, nearly a century earlier, another South African, Jan Christian Smuts, used similar vision, empathy and leadership [to Mandela] to bring his people to accept a settlement of reconciliation – though in his case from a position of their having been defeated – both after the Boer War and in the formation of the Union of South Africa."
"a February Westminster score of just 10% – Nick Clegg's worst ever score with ICM, and a depth the party has only once hit before during the last 20 years, in September 1997 – the height of Tony Blair's honeymoon."
"Likewise, nearly a century earlier, another South African, Jan Christian Smuts, used similar vision, empathy and leadership [to Mandela] to bring his people to accept a settlement of reconciliation – though in his case from a position of their having been defeated – both after the Boer War and in the formation of the Union of South Africa."
That is not comparing Smuts favourably to Mandela. It is comparing Smuts with Mandela (and a very interesting comparison it is).
I think it's entirely possible UKIP may only get approx 20% in the Euros.
Last time there was a big novelty aspect to UKIP and in particular I doubt many people had a very negative view about them.
This time, UKIP are much better known to a large proportion of the population. Whilst they obviously have many more definite supporters than in 2009, there are also far, far more people who now have a definite unfavourable view of UKIP.
This means it going to be far harder to gain lots of votes in the campaign on a sort of "bandwagon" effect - because any such "movement" is going to come up against stronger adverse forces.
The last time the met boroughs were held on their own (2006) the turnout was 36% which is almost the same as turnout is generally for Euro elections (34% in 2010) consequently I don't think it will impact the result much at all.
It may or it may not and given it is your assertion that such a point is predicated upon, I'll leave you to prove that one whichever way
Richard Nabavi has a very amusing mind set. think he is always right, is smug about it. Then gets angry and upset and blames others (see the electorate) when his nonsense arguments are proved false.
We have wet spells - the period you cite was in spring, not winter. The last four winters have been cold and snowy. I cannot understand why people expect anything other than variable, occasionally extreme, conditions in a windy island exposed to the ravages of the North Atlantic on one side, and the continental landmass of Eurasia on the other.
Richard Nabavi has a very amusing mind set. think he is always right, is smug about it. Then gets angry and upset and blames others (see the electorate) when his nonsense arguments are proved false.
Ah, evening Richard. I read the article you posted earlier, and it was actually really interesting!
As your hydrologist author rightly pointed out, dredging would not have stopped the floods.
He spoiled an otherwise interesting piece with a bizarre and irrelevant sentence about "air temperature" though.
Of course, just because the Levels have flooded before has no bearing on the fact that global warming is causing more extreme weather events.
Ah so you know better than the Met office and the NOAA both of whom have released reports recently saying there is currently no evidence that any of the extreme weather events we have seen over the last decade are linked to Global Warming.
Indeed, since there has been no significant temperature increase in more than a decade one has to ask why we are seeing these events now and not decade ago?
One also has to ask why higher rainfalls in the past did not produce such massive flooding?
It is. I'd drop this if I were you. As I said David Herdson (and Mike) got lucky.
I will certainly not drop anything on the basis of ludicrous anonymous threats. Smuts was a very interesting figure. So was Mandela. David H made a very interesting comparison between them, though of course they lived in very different times, with very different attitudes and moral values.
Well your chortle at me for the use of data in future political campaigning for one. You also used to argue that Ed Miliband would never be PM. You seem to have accepted this now and hence your bitterness at the public for not seeing how "near perfect" the chancellor is.
"Likewise, nearly a century earlier, another South African, Jan Christian Smuts, used similar vision, empathy and leadership [to Mandela] to bring his people to accept a settlement of reconciliation – though in his case from a position of their having been defeated – both after the Boer War and in the formation of the Union of South Africa."
That is not comparing Smuts favourably to Mandela. It is comparing Smuts with Mandela (and a very interesting comparison it is).
What a bizarre position to hold given the wording I have just quoted at you. You may be better conceding the point.
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
It must be lord smith ?
Yes.
"Lord Smith said people who bought homes on the flood plains needed to think about the "risk that property faces."
According to that map the Somerset levels are a Flood Zone 3. Exactly the same as central London including Battersea, Lambeth, Bermondsey, Barmes, Fulham and a fair part of the City including Westminster. Is he really suggesting that all those people should be reconsidering living there?
Or is it a case of one rule for the Townies and another for the Countryside?
You also used to argue that Ed Miliband would never be PM. .
No I didn't. As usual, you are making things up.
As it happens, I spent most of 2011 on PB pointing out to despondent Labour supporters, most notably Henry G, that Ed Miliband wasn't as bad and as unelectable as they thought. I also, correctly, recommended betting on Labour Most Seats at the time, when the odds were very favourable.
We have wet spells - the period you cite was in spring, not winter. The last four winters have been cold and snowy. I cannot understand why people expect anything other than variable, occasionally extreme, conditions in a windy island exposed to the ravages of the North Atlantic on one side, and the continental landmass of Eurasia on the other.
"Lord" Chris Smith has just taken a 50 cal, and blown both his feet off. People buy houses where builders, encouraged by local councils ( the Government in most peoples eyes), build 'em. If Smith thinks blaming people for buying house on flood plains is going to endear him to the public, he's thicker than I thought.
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
It must be lord smith ?
Yes.
"Lord Smith said people who bought homes on the flood plains needed to think about the "risk that property faces."
But what if these people have been living there for decades as many have? Are they supposed to be able to predict years in advance the thinking of psychotic politicians who exist hundreds of miles away too?
I wonder what he would say if they cut the funding for the Thames barrier? Would he say that people in London should have though about the risks they might face? Politically it is the most desperately crass thing he could have said. Smith is a fool of immense proportions. I can only think he is close to being kicked out of the job.
Paxo soft pedalled that one. Clearly he'd been told to treat Smith gently although the key word I kept hearing towards the end was 'retreat'. So once again we see Government and its stooges trying to choose which parts of British society its going to serve/ When Government is not willing to serve the whole country then one has to question the value of that government?
We have wet spells - the period you cite was in spring, not winter. The last four winters have been cold and snowy. I cannot understand why people expect anything other than variable, occasionally extreme, conditions in a windy island exposed to the ravages of the North Atlantic on one side, and the continental landmass of Eurasia on the other.
Last summer extraordinarily dry... Buying on a hill is always wise, but your original point suggested a series of warm, wet winters, which we have not had.
Smuts was a political giant of his time, and an interesting counterpoint to Mandela in the history of RSA. DH did not make him out to be better, just pointed out some similarities. It was a much more interesting slant than most of the forgetable hagiography written at that time.
It is. I'd drop this if I were you. As I said David Herdson (and Mike) got lucky.
I will certainly not drop anything on the basis of ludicrous anonymous threats. Smuts was a very interesting figure. So was Mandela. David H made a very interesting comparison between them, though of course they lived in very different times, with very different attitudes and moral values.
"Lord" Chris Smith has just taken a 50 cal, and blown both his feet off. People buy houses where builders, encouraged by local councils ( the Government in most peoples eyes), build 'em. If Smith thinks blaming people for buying house on flood plains is going to endear him to the public, he's thicker than I thought.
Indeed. The Government and local council in Newark have (against the wishes of the local population) made the town a 'Growth Point' which means they have to build some 15,000 extra houses in the next 11 years. The majority of these houses are going to be built on flood plain to the south of the town.
"Lord" Chris Smith has just taken a 50 cal, and blown both his feet off. People buy houses where builders, encouraged by local councils ( the Government in most peoples eyes), build 'em. If Smith thinks blaming people for buying house on flood plains is going to endear him to the public, he's thicker than I thought.
Indeed. The Government and local council in Newark have (against the wishes of the local population) made the town a 'Growth Point' which means they have to build some 15,000 extra houses in the next 11 years. The majority of these houses are going to be built on flood plain to the south of the town.
You'd be very foolish to buy one of those houses. Surely insurers and mortgage lenders would avoid them like the plague. I wouldn't go near a house on a flood plain.
Smuts was a political giant of his time, and an interesting counterpoint to Mandela in the history of RSA. DH did not make him out to be better, just pointed out some similarities. It was a much more interesting slant than most of the forgetable hagiography written at that time.
Quite so. It was a very interesting comparison.
But of course the knee-jerk 'white South African, therefore evil' reaction of the left was astonishing in its historical ignorance. Smuts even ended up as one of the founders of the United Nations - a truly remarkable figure whose career, as David pointed out, had some interesting similarities to Mandela's, albeit in a very different world.
We have wet spells - the period you cite was in spring, not winter. The last four winters have been cold and snowy. I cannot understand why people expect anything other than variable, occasionally extreme, conditions in a windy island exposed to the ravages of the North Atlantic on one side, and the continental landmass of Eurasia on the other.
Last summer extraordinarily dry... Buying on a hill is always wise, but your original point suggested a series of warm, wet winters, which we have not had.
What a bizarre position to hold given the wording I have just quoted at you. You may be better conceding the point.
Which bit of 'similar' do you think is comparing one favourably compared to the other?
Here's a remedial English lesson for you. "A is similar to B in a particular respect" does not mean that A is better than B, or vice versa.
You are dancing on the head of a pin. The article lionised Smuts - a racist supporter of segregation - by creatng false comparisons with Mandela. If you fail to recognise that, more fool you, but I cannot help you further.
Why is the PB Left being beastly to the sagacious Richard Nabavi tonight? I can only assume that Dan Hodges was correct with his prediction about Ed's speech. I can think of no other reason for their gloom.
We have wet spells - the period you cite was in spring, not winter. The last four winters have been cold and snowy. I cannot understand why people expect anything other than variable, occasionally extreme, conditions in a windy island exposed to the ravages of the North Atlantic on one side, and the continental landmass of Eurasia on the other.
The 100 yard wide gulley (30 ft high as well) gauged out of the local hills for the nearby Motorway will have flooded completely and turned into a canal and then the waters would have to rise another 20 feet or more before my house even comes close to flooding. We're talking weather of biblical proportions!
Not so the local council offices. They're built right on the local river and their car parks flood regularly!
You are dancing on the head of a pin. The article lionised Smuts - a racist supporter of segregation - by creatng false comparisons with Mandela. If you fail to recognise that, more fool you, but I cannot help you further.
So ANY comparison against the saint is, by definition, false?
Quite so. Your prejudice and ignorance are blinding you to the most basic understanding of the English language. If you fail to understand that a comparison is not necessarily a favourable comparison, I cannot help you further, but the phenomenon is an interesting one to observe.
Smuts even ended up as one of the founders of the United Nations - a truly remarkable figure whose career, as David pointed out, had some interesting similarities to Mandela's, albeit in a very different world.
Bit of trivia. Did you know that Smuts was the only person to have put his signature to the treaties that ended both the First and Second World Wars?
Of course there's no evidence linking a single storm to a long-term warming trend, that's silly. But we know almost for certain that the long-term warming trend will cause more extreme weather events.
There has been climate warming in the last decade, it's just slowed down due to short-term weather fluctuations.
Rainfall in the past did produce massive flooding, and it will get worse (due to the increasing severity of storms, development reducing the ability of land to naturally hold water, and so on)
It is not just single storms. Atlantic Hurricane activity has been notably lower for several years both in numbers and in terms of the absolute total energy.
More importantly you are wrong on warming. Overall the global temperature has stayed static or dropped slightly according to both the UAH satellite data the CRU surface temperature data set over the last decade (actually since 2001). This is now accepted by both sides of the argument with the AGW proponents having moved from denial to trying to explain why.
You are right about development on flood plains but as I showed earlier with the link to the EA map, traditional flood plains include the homes of several million people.
Smuts was a political giant of his time, and an interesting counterpoint to Mandela in the history of RSA. DH did not make him out to be better, just pointed out some similarities. It was a much more interesting slant than most of the forgetable hagiography written at that time.
Quite so. It was a very interesting comparison.
But of course the knee-jerk 'white South African, therefore evil' reaction of the left was astonishing in its historical ignorance. Smuts even ended up as one of the founders of the United Nations - a truly remarkable figure whose career, as David pointed out, had some interesting similarities to Mandela's, albeit in a very different world.
It was vile and unspeakably stupid to compare an architect of apartheid to Nelson Mandela at a sensitive time.
Do my eyes deceive me.....does the gold standard show Labour on 38% and up 3%. John O any chance of more comments on polls, you do wonders to the Labour percentage.
You grab one end Basil and I will grab the other....onward march!
My longshot prediction for the next election is 39% Tory, 36% Labour, 13% LD and another Tory-LD Coalition. Take 5% from the UKIP score and give it to the Tories and 2% from Labour and give it to the Liberals and you almost have it
"Lord" Chris Smith has just taken a 50 cal, and blown both his feet off. People buy houses where builders, encouraged by local councils ( the Government in most peoples eyes), build 'em. If Smith thinks blaming people for buying house on flood plains is going to endear him to the public, he's thicker than I thought.
Indeed. The Government and local council in Newark have (against the wishes of the local population) made the town a 'Growth Point' which means they have to build some 15,000 extra houses in the next 11 years. The majority of these houses are going to be built on flood plain to the south of the town.
You'd be very foolish to buy one of those houses. Surely insurers and mortgage lenders would avoid them like the plague. I wouldn't go near a house on a flood plain.
The problem is that over the years the developers have developed a huge range of supposed mitigation systems which are supposed to prevent flooding of their nice shiny estates. The problem with these is that they are either stupid (in Newark they are going to dig big holes ponds and lakes in the flood plain on other side of the river from the development which will supposedly catch flood water - missing the point that the ground water level is only about 5 feet below the surface and so the ponds will immediately fill up with water naturally) or they simply transfer the problem up or downstream and so flood houses which did not previously flood.
Of course as I mentioned yesterday, the Somerset levels are a different case since this is reclaimed land not traditional flood plain and so if properly maintained is not subject to thesame flooding pressures.
What idiot made that decision? Some wonky rightwing Oxbridge halfwit who thought it would be a jolly good chance to attack Labour Quangos, what ho, what larks?
And that's the irony of it all. The EA is not a Labour quango. It was set up by John Major in the face of plentiful advice that it wouldn't work as well as its predecessor bodies.
RE: buyer beware The Indy have a story of a new build house, where the owner had wanted to build the house higher (to allow for flooding) but was denied planning permission.
What is an interesting in political dynamic about these floods is it is more ammo for UKIP in the south. Perfect just before the euros. Could we be about to see the Tories lose even more members and activists to UKIP?
My longshot prediction for the next election is 39% Tory, 36% Labour, 13% LD and another Tory-LD Coalition. Take 5% from the UKIP score and give it to the Tories and 2% from Labour and give it to the Liberals and you almost have it
Not at all clear that those figures would give us another Tory-LD Coalition. On a uniform swing Tory and Labour would be neck and neck.In addition, Labour could rely on support of SDLP and Lady Hermon.
Smuts was a political giant of his time, and an interesting counterpoint to Mandela in the history of RSA. DH did not make him out to be better, just pointed out some similarities. It was a much more interesting slant than most of the forgetable hagiography written at that time.
Quite so. It was a very interesting comparison.
But of course the knee-jerk 'white South African, therefore evil' reaction of the left was astonishing in its historical ignorance. Smuts even ended up as one of the founders of the United Nations - a truly remarkable figure whose career, as David pointed out, had some interesting similarities to Mandela's, albeit in a very different world.
I have never understood what Mandela is meant to have done other than sit in prison for 20 years while jcr common rooms were named in his honour. The biopic title The Long Walk To Freedom, boring as it is, actually overstates the interest-no walking involved.
His wife on the other hand made a keynote speech in 1986 advocating the torture and murder of poor South African blacks by"enslaving" and was found by the Truth and Reconciliation commission to have practised what she preached. It took him 6 years to divorce her and he never spoke out against
There is no record of Mrs Smuts making a similar speech.
My longshot prediction for the next election is 39% Tory, 36% Labour, 13% LD and another Tory-LD Coalition. Take 5% from the UKIP score and give it to the Tories and 2% from Labour and give it to the Liberals and you almost have it
Clearly you didn't bother taking on board OHG's comments the other day. The Tories need to win by 7% approximately to stand still. If they win by only 3 points effectively that is a 4 point step backwards and they would lose seats. With the Libdems losing a significant number of seats as well (there share having almost been halved) chances are the combined seat numbers could not command a majority and they would be thrown out. All it takes is for Labour to become the largest party and the Tories are gone........
Of course there's no evidence linking a single storm to a long-term warming trend, that's silly. But we know almost for certain that the long-term warming trend will cause more extreme weather events.
There has been climate warming in the last decade, it's just slowed down due to short-term weather fluctuations.
Rainfall in the past did produce massive flooding, and it will get worse (due to the increasing severity of storms, development reducing the ability of land to naturally hold water, and so on)
It is not just single storms. Atlantic Hurricane activity has been notably lower for several years both in numbers and in terms of the absolute total energy.
More importantly you are wrong on warming. Overall the global temperature has stayed static or dropped slightly according to both the UAH satellite data the CRU surface temperature data set over the last decade (actually since 2001). This is now accepted by both sides of the argument with the AGW proponents having moved from denial to trying to explain why.
You are right about development on flood plains but as I showed earlier with the link to the EA map, traditional flood plains include the homes of several million people.
Too late for global warming, but one thing. The "global temperature" has most certainly not "stayed static". It has increased, dramatically, and that staggering rate of warming has only slowed a bit recently.
You're right that scientists are trying to explain why the climate has continued to warm when so many short term trends should be cooling it recently though.
Wrong. Go and look at the data sets compiled by both UAH and CRU. If you are being really lazy you can even just go and look at the graphs on Wiki although I don't cite it as a source. Better to go and look at the actual data sets compiled by the people who do the measurements and see that the temperature has not risen.
"Lord" Chris Smith has just taken a 50 cal, and blown both his feet off. People buy houses where builders, encouraged by local councils ( the Government in most peoples eyes), build 'em. If Smith thinks blaming people for buying house on flood plains is going to endear him to the public, he's thicker than I thought.
Indeed. The Government and local council in Newark have (against the wishes of the local population) made the town a 'Growth Point' which means they have to build some 15,000 extra houses in the next 11 years. The majority of these houses are going to be built on flood plain to the south of the town.
You'd be very foolish to buy one of those houses. Surely insurers and mortgage lenders would avoid them like the plague. I wouldn't go near a house on a flood plain.
The problem is that over the years the developers have developed a huge range of supposed mitigation systems which are supposed to prevent flooding of their nice shiny estates. The problem with these is that they are either stupid (in Newark they are going to dig big holes ponds and lakes in the flood plain on other side of the river from the development which will supposedly catch flood water - missing the point that the ground water level is only about 5 feet below the surface and so the ponds will immediately fill up with water naturally) or they simply transfer the problem up or downstream and so flood houses which did not previously flood.
Of course as I mentioned yesterday, the Somerset levels are a different case since this is reclaimed land not traditional flood plain and so if properly maintained is not subject to thesame flooding pressures.
I imagine insurers would run a mile. My mother-in-law can't get flood-related insurance because there is a brook at the bottom of her garden which did flood 20 years ago.
I just don't know enough about the Levels to comment. However, flood management systems developed centuries ago for farmland might not work as well for the same land once it has become more built up. A few inches of water waiting to flow off an open field is very different to the same amount of water on land covered in housing.
Comments
Explaining support for the UK Independence Party at the 2009 European Parliament elections
The UK Independence Party (UKIP) achieved its best result in the 2009 European elections,
beating the governing Labour Party into second place. Despite its recent success we still
know relatively little about who votes for the party and how these supporters compare with
those of UKIP’s competitors. This paper analyses support for UKIP at the 2009 European
elections first at the aggregate level, to understand the social and economic context in which
the party performs best, and second at the individual level using a YouGov survey of over
32,000 voters, more than 4,000 of whom were UKIP supporters. We show that
Euroscepticism is the biggest explanatory factor but that UKIP voters are also concerned
about immigration and show dissatisfaction with and a lack of trust in the political system.Our findings add credence to the argument that views on European integration matter in voters’ decisions at European elections and we show how the balance of attitudinal
explanations of UKIP support makes its votersdistinct from those voting for far right parties.
https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/politics/documents/centre-right/UKIPvoteworkingpaper-1.pdf
I hardly think the situation has changed much when immigration is now neck nand neck with the economy as an issue according to Mori and full blown political and financial integration is now a realistic possibility for the EU. Even with expenses and the like, we now have the prospect of an 11% MPs pay rise to bolster the general view of a corrupt Westminster village (IPSA or no IPSA).
We need to find and deport this entity pronto!
Last time there was a big novelty aspect to UKIP and in particular I doubt many people had a very negative view about them.
This time, UKIP are much better known to a large proportion of the population. Whilst they obviously have many more definite supporters than in 2009, there are also far, far more people who now have a definite unfavourable view of UKIP.
This means it going to be far harder to gain lots of votes in the campaign on a sort of "bandwagon" effect - because any such "movement" is going to come up against stronger adverse forces.
I'm already stuffed with a 12% min prediction and 10 months to go. Suspect that goes for most of us.
Sod UKIP, these floods are pretty brutal. Amazing, not in a good way.
Expect a bold move from Cam to wrest back both the initiative and to stop the bickering. We will be hearing a lot about him "personally overseeing COBRA meetings", etc and I guess we will get some pretty strong visuals (army perhaps, under MACA?) to show how he and the Cons are getting a grip.
Not to say that he will politicise it but there are plenty of communities in need and a lot of water on screen that he needs to act upon.
http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/1076/sunday-mirror-independent-on-sunday-political-poll.htm
On an issue like the EU, where UKIP are clearly the strongest anti-EU option, I think even people that dislike UKIP might vote for them. The ambivalent certainly would.
But is he an EU citizen? If not, does he have a rare skill?
Better still he could jet off and go and help build a school with Taxpayers money in some god forsaken corner of Africa. That'll impress!
You want him orchestrating events in a cool, calm but concerned manner. Plus there are several places facing flooding; would you have him circling each one setting down, glad-handing, then heading off again immediately?
Of course you don't.
A leader must lead.
I am very honest and I think fair. The difference is, I think most of what the press talk about matters not a jot. What I think matters is members, activism and campaigning eg the ground game.
In a Lab vs Tory battle there is only one winner there.
PS And I never suggested any 'glad-handing' (there is nothing to be glad about). I suggested he rolled his sleeves up and lent a hand in the battle against the rising waters (e.g. doing some serious work with that Sikh charity down in Somerset for example would do him no harm ) and did a bit of leading by example rather than pontificating from one of those rather squalid and dishevelled towers in Westminster that politicians love to sanctimoniously preach from.
Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour have a six point lead: CON 33%, LAB 39%, LD 10%, UKIP 12%
As ALP pointed out, these elections coincide with the urban councils in particular, and not one that favours kippers.
I suspect it may be a bit higher than 20%, but not by much.
What is,lord smith or my grammar ;-)
"Lord Smith said people who bought homes on the flood plains needed to think about the "risk that property faces."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgJN-RDCEAAsUvq.jpg:large
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 7 mins
Tuesday's Guardian front page - "PM: stop flooding blame game" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/FVxCi9Spk2
I wonder how much Milliband is paying Clegg!!!!
Late I know but lots happening here.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/12/06/bookending-the-20th-century-south-africas-gifts-to-humanity/
Remarkably, for a relatively small country, South Africa produced two of the truly great figures of the 20th century, and for much the same reasons, even if the earlier is now rather unjustly forgotten. Mandela’s greatness lay not only in his moral leadership of the opposition to the oppression of apartheid (even if in absentia for much of that fight), but even more so in how he won without succumbing to bitterness and how, after winning that battle, he used his status to bind and unite rather than to impose a different oppression.
Likewise, nearly a century earlier, another South African, Jan Christian Smuts, used similar vision, empathy and leadership to bring his people to accept a settlement of reconciliation – though in his case from a position of their having been defeated – both after the Boer War and in the formation of the Union of South Africa.
Even better, zoom in on the Matt cartoon, which is an absolute classic.
Round here not too much flooding. A bit at Barrow on Soar.
Funnily enough on previous occasions the flooding in the Somerset levels has been nowhere as bad. But of course that was because on previous occasions the rivers and flood defences had been properly maintained.
The EA had a responsibility to maintain the rivers and flood defences. They have failed to do this and therefore should be held responsible. Actually the one person who could perhaps reasonably claim some lack of responsibility is Lord Smith since although he is now head of the EA, it was not on his watch that the decision was made to stop dredging.
I wonder what he would say if they cut the funding for the Thames barrier? Would he say that people in London should have though about the risks they might face? Politically it is the most desperately crass thing he could have said. Smith is a fool of immense proportions. I can only think he is close to being kicked out of the job.
"a February Westminster score of just 10% – Nick Clegg's worst ever score with ICM, and a depth the party has only once hit before during the last 20 years, in September 1997 – the height of Tony Blair's honeymoon."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/10/ukip-better-2009-european-elections-guardian-icm-poll
We have wet spells - the period you cite was in spring, not winter. The last four winters have been cold and snowy. I cannot understand why people expect anything other than variable, occasionally extreme, conditions in a windy island exposed to the ravages of the North Atlantic on one side, and the continental landmass of Eurasia on the other.
Indeed, since there has been no significant temperature increase in more than a decade one has to ask why we are seeing these events now and not decade ago?
One also has to ask why higher rainfalls in the past did not produce such massive flooding?
http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?x=357683.0&y=355134.0&scale=1&layerGroups=default&ep=map&textonly=off&lang=_e&topic=floodmap#x=532645&y=177354&lg=1,&scale=6
According to that map the Somerset levels are a Flood Zone 3. Exactly the same as central London including Battersea, Lambeth, Bermondsey, Barmes, Fulham and a fair part of the City including Westminster. Is he really suggesting that all those people should be reconsidering living there?
Or is it a case of one rule for the Townies and another for the Countryside?
As it happens, I spent most of 2011 on PB pointing out to despondent Labour supporters, most notably Henry G, that Ed Miliband wasn't as bad and as unelectable as they thought. I also, correctly, recommended betting on Labour Most Seats at the time, when the odds were very favourable.
Summer 2007 was bad too as I recall:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8464717.stm
So I bought on a hill, not such a bad move
People buy houses where builders, encouraged by local councils ( the Government in most peoples eyes), build 'em. If Smith thinks blaming people for buying house on flood plains is going to endear him to the public, he's thicker than I thought.
Here's a remedial English lesson for you. "A is similar to B in a particular respect" does not mean that A is better than B, or vice versa.
But of course the knee-jerk 'white South African, therefore evil' reaction of the left was astonishing in its historical ignorance. Smuts even ended up as one of the founders of the United Nations - a truly remarkable figure whose career, as David pointed out, had some interesting similarities to Mandela's, albeit in a very different world.
Whether this was a con, or a fortelling of the future, it was wise advice!
Be prepared! as the late great Boer warrior might have said to Jan Smuts.
If you read the argument David had with Tim in the argument you see that David meant it as you suggest.
Not so the local council offices. They're built right on the local river and their car parks flood regularly!
Quite so. Your prejudice and ignorance are blinding you to the most basic understanding of the English language. If you fail to understand that a comparison is not necessarily a favourable comparison, I cannot help you further, but the phenomenon is an interesting one to observe.
More importantly you are wrong on warming. Overall the global temperature has stayed static or dropped slightly according to both the UAH satellite data the CRU surface temperature data set over the last decade (actually since 2001). This is now accepted by both sides of the argument with the AGW proponents having moved from denial to trying to explain why.
You are right about development on flood plains but as I showed earlier with the link to the EA map, traditional flood plains include the homes of several million people.
Smuts party favoured gradual dismantling of racial barriers in SA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_general_election,_1948
You grab one end Basil and I will grab the other....onward march!
Of course as I mentioned yesterday, the Somerset levels are a different case since this is reclaimed land not traditional flood plain and so if properly maintained is not subject to thesame flooding pressures.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/iraqi-suicide-bomb-teacher-accidently-blows-himself-22-students-1435883
The Indy have a story of a new build house, where the owner had wanted to build the house higher (to allow for flooding) but was denied planning permission.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a-last-stand-against-the-floods-defiant-sam-notaros-home-appears-set-to-succumb-to-water-9119525.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388136/UK-weather-Another-scorcher-Michael-Fish-recalls-hot-summer-1976.htm
Interesting speech by Richard Dawkins
"Good historians don't judge statements from the past by the standards of their own time"
http://youtu.be/uwz6B8BFkb4
His wife on the other hand made a keynote speech in 1986 advocating the torture and murder of poor South African blacks by"enslaving" and was found by the Truth and Reconciliation commission to have practised what she preached. It took him 6 years to divorce her and he never spoke out against
There is no record of Mrs Smuts making a similar speech.
I just don't know enough about the Levels to comment. However, flood management systems developed centuries ago for farmland might not work as well for the same land once it has become more built up. A few inches of water waiting to flow off an open field is very different to the same amount of water on land covered in housing.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/10/stuart-hall