politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Each day the political potency of the flooding gets bigger

JackW said:

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.

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

Apparently Old Windsor has some flooding...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10627883/Flooding-crisis-weather-live.html

Let's hope HM has some wellies!

She'll be fine. She's on a hill.

Is Eton at risk? *Then* we'll see what a full-scale response looks like....

EA budget is 1.2 billion quid. WoW! What are they spending it on? Clearly not on flood defences.

anotherDave said:

Patrick said:

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!

Patrick said:

I'm watching Sky. Dear lord that Mr.Pickles is a large gentleman!

As I said, Baron Harkonnen from Dune. John Prescott was the Lord Jabba.

smithersjones2013 said:

RobD said:

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

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 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?

Eric Pickles is vast in so many ways, sadly today he's been vastly poor in the HoC.

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:

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.

Richard_Nabavi said:

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:

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.

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 ?

Alanbrooke said:

Polruan said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

Apparently Old Windsor has some flooding...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10627883/Flooding-crisis-weather-live.html

Let's hope HM has some wellies!

She'll be fine. She's on a hill.

Is Eton at risk? *Then* we'll see what a full-scale response looks like....

Nah it would have to be Oxford then all the Labour PPEs could join in too.

http://watermaps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiyby.aspx?topic=floodmap#x=496359&y=177804&scale=11 is the general risk map - Eton College seems to be partly on the higher ground.


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.

anotherDave said:

"Viviane Reding apparently boasting today that 70% of British laws are made in Brussels. "

twitter.com/Michael_Heaver/status/432901014543269890

One for the Euro election leaflets.

Not for the first time, I find myself wondering if the eurocrats are plain stupid, or if they're working for a British withdrawal.

smithersjones2013 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

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:

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.

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.

Carnyx said:

Alanbrooke said:

Polruan said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

Apparently Old Windsor has some flooding...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10627883/Flooding-crisis-weather-live.html

Let's hope HM has some wellies!

She'll be fine. She's on a hill.

Is Eton at risk? *Then* we'll see what a full-scale response looks like....

Nah it would have to be Oxford then all the Labour PPEs could join in too.

http://watermaps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiyby.aspx?topic=floodmap#x=496359&y=177804&scale=11 is the general risk map - Eton College seems to be partly on the higher ground.


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.

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/heritage/battle-lines-drawn-over-bannockburn-row-1-3300359

TGOHF said:

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..."

"The Speaker of the Commons John Bercow is to be a prosecution witness during the sex trial of his former deputy, Nigel Evans.

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

OblitusSumMe said:

Patrick said:

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."

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

Quite. Regardless of how the EU behaves, Cameron wishes us to remain a member of it.

So what if he does? You'd get the referendum, and it won't be Cameron who decides the outcome.

The important thing, in advance of any referendum, is to maximise support for, and elected representatives of, a party that campaigns for withdrawal.

The SNP would never have got their chance of winning a referendum, had they not built up electoral representation.

JosiasJessop said:

Hugh said:

smithersjones2013 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Patrick said:

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.

From the EA 2012/13 annual report: http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/LIT_8472_6b598a.pdf

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.

"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.

OblitusSumMe said:

JosiasJessop said:

Hugh said:

smithersjones2013 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Patrick said:

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.

From the EA 2012/13 annual report: http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/LIT_8472_6b598a.pdf

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 ...

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

Alanbrooke said:

Polruan said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

Apparently Old Windsor has some flooding...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10627883/Flooding-crisis-weather-live.html

Let's hope HM has some wellies!

She'll be fine. She's on a hill.

Is Eton at risk? *Then* we'll see what a full-scale response looks like....

Nah it would have to be Oxford then all the Labour PPEs could join in too.

http://watermaps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiyby.aspx?topic=floodmap#x=496359&y=177804&scale=11 is the general risk map - Eton College seems to be partly on the higher ground.


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.

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/heritage/battle-lines-drawn-over-bannockburn-row-1-3300359

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.

Carnyx said:

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

Alanbrooke said:

Polruan said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

Apparently Old Windsor has some flooding...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10627883/Flooding-crisis-weather-live.html

Let's hope HM has some wellies!

She'll be fine. She's on a hill.

Is Eton at risk? *Then* we'll see what a full-scale response looks like....

Nah it would have to be Oxford then all the Labour PPEs could join in too.

http://watermaps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiyby.aspx?topic=floodmap#x=496359&y=177804&scale=11 is the general risk map - Eton College seems to be partly on the higher ground.


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.

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/heritage/battle-lines-drawn-over-bannockburn-row-1-3300359

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.

@MikeK

'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 ?

"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.

HurstLlama said:

"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.

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?

MikeK said:

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?

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.

MarkSenior said:

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.

JosiasJessop said:

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.

(1): http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/gemi0710bsuv-e-e.pdf

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.

JohnO said:

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?

A new Guardian ICM poll will be out later.

It will also include European Election VI.

JohnO said:

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.

SouthamObserver said:

HurstLlama said:

"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.

JohnO said:

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?!!!

Socrates said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

MarkSenior said:

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.

Sean_F said:

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...

Sean_F said:

JohnO said:

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.

Richard_Nabavi said:

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.

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

Alanbrooke said:

.....

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/heritage/battle-lines-drawn-over-bannockburn-row-1-3300359

....

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.

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