Saturday 9th January 2016

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:20 pm

My spouse has brought me scones, clotted cream and jam.
Life don't get much better than that.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:22 pm

Talking of ironies, are we all prepared for the Guardians new agony aunt ?

I think I might write to her

[youtube]tft8jGnWqLs[/youtube]

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:22 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Good point.

I assume you're not taking this article too seriously?

Not really. Some of the stuff seems very gimmicky for the sake of it. Great if they're ready to learn right from the off but hardly new. Ours are too - just need to be good at classroom management.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:23 pm

Willow904 wrote:
gilsey wrote:A missive from Planet Osborne.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... lence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Britain’s capital spending should insulate us from global turbulence
The UK government has also been keen to support investment in housing and public infrastructure, despite the constraints on public borrowing
By Andrew Sentance

I can't wait to see what Blanchflower has to say about it.
Osborne has some gall and no mistake. Reminds me of when he started going around saying he was "allowing the automatic stabilisers to operate" at the exact same time he cut the link between benefits and inflation, which is, of course, interfering with the automatic stabilizers and stopping them from operating fully. He's just so blatant.

God damn scarier than hell is what Chancellor Osborne is.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:24 pm

Do we even know the prior attainment of the pupils?

I have trouble finding that for schools generally.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:25 pm

http://www.independentliving.co.uk/wher ... ime-homes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where are the lifetime homes?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:25 pm

btw did you see Mikey Sheriff faffing about inspectors wearing appropriate jewelry the other day?

Laughable.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:26 pm

A report by Landman Economics looking at the cost implications of the lack of accessible homes in the UK found that:

• If all UK homes had been built to Lifetime Homes Standards, and all the necessary adaptations for disabled people were made to them, the Treasury would now be saving £1.6bn every year, mostly in health and social care costs. If all social housing had been built to LTH standards then the Treasury would be saving almost £500m every year.

• If every new home was built to LTH Standards, and every necessary adaptation was made to them, they would pay for themselves within 20 years, which is about 40 per cent of the typical lifespan of a house.

• If housing developers were required to cover the initial cost of building LTH, councils would recoup their investment within 10 years.

It is instructive to compare the situations in Scotland and England

In Scotland, the total number of disabled people on housing waiting lists has fallen by 18.2 per cent, while the number of people on housing waiting lists has fallen by 11 per cent over the past five years. The Scottish Government has taken positive steps to deliver more ‘disabled-friendly’ homes since 2007, which seems to have contributed to a decline in the number of disabled people on housing waiting lists.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:33 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning / afternoon all.

Sam Freedman ‏@Samfr 2h2 hours ago
If you haven't heard of Michaela yet - it's a very different type of school. Here's @jo_facer on her first week: http://readingallthebooks.com/2016/01/0 ... -michaela/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Why does this account make me feel a bit uneasy?

You're paying attention.

"Teachers work hard at Michaela. We teach intensely, making every moment count.
We have lots of duties, maximising the time we are with pupils. We are reminded
to engage the pupils at break time and lunch time: they are our top priority. We
have lunch together every day, talking and chatting with them. And yet teachers
do not work late: the work is intense, but manageable; with pre-planned resources,
my own ‘planning’ can be done on half a post-it note, and most of that is reminding
me to give the books out."

- 'a normal teacher'

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:34 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1319 ... p_Trident/

Reliable?
As reliable as any poll, but given we had the best polling indicator in May and the SNP won 50% of the vote in Scotland, I would say it looks pretty spot on that SNP voters overwhelmingly dont want trident. The only pro trident parties left in Scotland are the Tories and Liberals. Collectively they managed 22% of the general election vote. If trident was so important to the scots they would have done a lot better, no?
How do the Scots feel about NATO membership and spending what the UK does anyway on Defence? They voted for that too.

I've hardly seen a Cybernat make a point about Trident as a flawed strategy. I've just seen stuff about what it costs, and all the stuff it could pay for- ie virtually nothing in Scotland compared with the cost of independence in the short term.

As with most things, the anti-Trident arguments made by the SNP and their supporters are largely false. The cost to Scotland is small when spread over the projected lifespan of Trident. The only other 'argument' they raise is that it makes Glasgow a prime target (the 'Scotland is a victim' stance). There are two fallacies here - (1) any large city is a potential target and (2) the actual missiles aren't there - they're at sea. They also forget that Aldermaston would be a more important target.

(I'm not saying that there isn't a valid argument against Trident, just that the cybernats are not making one).

I've often wondered whether the population of Helensburgh are anti-Trident. A large part of the local economy must be dependent on Faslane, not to mention the improved infrastructure it brought.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:35 pm

Yeah. Does she think that other teachers don't plan their lessons or use ready made resources?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:36 pm

"intense teaching"-WTF?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:39 pm

I'm happy to read you, TobyLatimer.
Accept my love and wishes for your good health.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:39 pm

@TobyLatimer
You're right about US health care - it costs individuals millions.
People die younger and live in pain because they've not the
money to pay for health care.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:41 pm

HindleA wrote:"intense teaching"-WTF?

That's just one point of the intensely spooky missive.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:41 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Yeah. Does she think that other teachers don't plan their lessons or use ready made resources?

Teachers are entitled to half a day a week PPA (planning, preparation and assessment time). Our timetable is scheduled so that all of our year group have their PPA at the same time while the classes are taken by specialists in art, PE or in the library reading.

That timetabling is done by one of the office staff not a teacher or even the DHT.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:50 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
Temulkar wrote: As reliable as any poll, but given we had the best polling indicator in May and the SNP won 50% of the vote in Scotland, I would say it looks pretty spot on that SNP voters overwhelmingly dont want trident. The only pro trident parties left in Scotland are the Tories and Liberals. Collectively they managed 22% of the general election vote. If trident was so important to the scots they would have done a lot better, no?
Polls also indicate people trust Labour more on the NHS than the Tories and that the NHS is an important issue for many voters, but the Tories still won.
We're getting very off topic though. Even if we agree half of Scotland, where Trident is based with the natural concerns that raises for those living nearby, are keen to vote for an anti-Trident party, it doesn't follow an anti-Trident Labour could win a general election. England and Wales only need to be very slightly more pro-Trident than Scotland and Labour will struggle with such a policy, especially given Scotland, where the policy could be more popular, has become less fertile ground for them for other reasons. So I still think Lonewolfie is over optimistic about the chances of an anti -Trident Labour winning a GE.
Whys being anti-Trident the be all and end all to winning an election!!!!!

How about making it impossible for a Government doing eff all about climate change being unelectable? Or one that sells of all the country's assets to overseas, or who is destroying our health service, or is failing to provide a home for the people, or who allows corporations to run roughshod over our society!

But no, Labour MPs starts wittering on about Trident as if keeping it is the only thing that matters......we can, and should, spend that money on something else!

It is stupidity in the greater extreme.....

Perhaps if we focused on what security actually means rather than a theoretical construct such as MAD ad how it applies to the current world then we may get somewhere!!!

We should shove Trident into the bin of irrelevance where it belongs and make a case for spending the money on something more relevant to our needs!

I'm not particularly a Trident supporter myself, I'm just being pragmatic. If the Tories win a vote to renew Trident this parliament, then it won't be an issue in 2020 unless Labour make it an issue. Unilateralism is a really hard sell. A position not to renew might succeed, but to reverse a decision to renew? I just think it will be a very uphill climb to convince voters and feel it would distract from far more immediate concerns such as the NHS, housing and welfare. It will be hard enough to fight Tory propaganda on austerity, taking on the right wing press on defence as well on an issue that will be considered closed in 2020 seems pointless to me. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I'm getting no sense at all that Corbyn is inspiring any kind of sea change in public sentiment and on the subject of unilateral disarmament he appears to be swimming against the tide and it's not just Tory influence, unless they somehow managed to arrange for North Korea to test an H bomb recently.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:55 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote:
Temulkar wrote: Easy to find out - google is your friend: 48% of Scots want rid of Trident. 25% dont, 27% dont know.

Just 25% of UK respondents want it scrapped compared with 48% in Scotland, the poll of 1,656 adults on January 25 and 26 found.
When Scotland's 144 respondents are removed, support for Trident south of the border rises to around three-fifths while support for scrapping it falls further.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1319 ... p_Trident/

Reliable?
As reliable as any poll, but given we had the best polling indicator in May and the SNP won 50% of the vote in Scotland, I would say it looks pretty spot on that SNP voters overwhelmingly dont want trident. The only pro trident parties left in Scotland are the Tories and Liberals. Collectively they managed 22% of the general election vote. If trident was so important to the scots they would have done a lot better, no?

Whether we can rely on the Scottish sub-sample depends on whether it is 'balanced' for Scotland in the same way that the overall sample is 'balanced' for the UK.

I doubt whether Trident was the major reason for many to vote SNP in May. The rhetoric about 'keeping the Tories out' and 'writing the Labour budget' probably had more of an effect!

Personally, I don't understand the level of SNP support (apart from the die-hard separatists), given their appalling record in Holyrood. They make Teflon Tony look Superglue Tony.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 2:55 pm

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/22582" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Moving people off disability benefits is not the same as getting them into work

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:00 pm

Willow904 wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
Willow904 wrote: Polls also indicate people trust Labour more on the NHS than the Tories and that the NHS is an important issue for many voters, but the Tories still won.
We're getting very off topic though. Even if we agree half of Scotland, where Trident is based with the natural concerns that raises for those living nearby, are keen to vote for an anti-Trident party, it doesn't follow an anti-Trident Labour could win a general election. England and Wales only need to be very slightly more pro-Trident than Scotland and Labour will struggle with such a policy, especially given Scotland, where the policy could be more popular, has become less fertile ground for them for other reasons. So I still think Lonewolfie is over optimistic about the chances of an anti -Trident Labour winning a GE.
Whys being anti-Trident the be all and end all to winning an election!!!!!

How about making it impossible for a Government doing eff all about climate change being unelectable? Or one that sells of all the country's assets to overseas, or who is destroying our health service, or is failing to provide a home for the people, or who allows corporations to run roughshod over our society!

But no, Labour MPs starts wittering on about Trident as if keeping it is the only thing that matters......we can, and should, spend that money on something else!

It is stupidity in the greater extreme.....

Perhaps if we focused on what security actually means rather than a theoretical construct such as MAD ad how it applies to the current world then we may get somewhere!!!

We should shove Trident into the bin of irrelevance where it belongs and make a case for spending the money on something more relevant to our needs!
I'm not particularly a Trident supporter myself, I'm just being pragmatic. If the Tories win a vote to renew Trident this parliament, then it won't be an issue in 2020 unless Labour make it an issue. Unilateralism is a really hard sell. A position not to renew might succeed, but to reverse a decision to renew? I just think it will be a very uphill climb to convince voters and feel it would distract from far more immediate concerns such as the NHS, housing and welfare. It will be hard enough to fight Tory propaganda on austerity, taking on the right wing press on defence as well on an issue that will be considered closed in 2020 seems pointless to me. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I'm getting no sense at all that Corbyn is inspiring any kind of sea change in public sentiment and on the subject of unilateral disarmament he appears to be swimming against the tide and it's not just Tory influence, unless they somehow managed to arrange for North Korea to test an H bomb recently.

I agree it is a distraction but the whole point is that we are cutting everything at the moment and the decision to renew will cost us money....I think we need to start making the argument and put the Tories on the back foot to explain why we need to renew Trident when we are cutting everything else.

If the vote goes to renew then we will have to live with that, although we should still make the argument that nuclear weapons have no value at all....and actually take money that could be used to counter real threats

If we have not got money to pay Junior Doctors or for flood defences then we do not have the money for big boy's toys like Trident!

And the fact that North Korea have just exploded something (what we do not know) is completely irrelevant and it is only the propaganda that makes it seem so

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:02 pm

Nimbus or Pegasus;Harry Potter or Winged Horse;either way I hope it helps,if neither the same hope of course,beware flatulence and the vibratory effect.@Toby.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:04 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote: As reliable as any poll, but given we had the best polling indicator in May and the SNP won 50% of the vote in Scotland, I would say it looks pretty spot on that SNP voters overwhelmingly dont want trident. The only pro trident parties left in Scotland are the Tories and Liberals. Collectively they managed 22% of the general election vote. If trident was so important to the scots they would have done a lot better, no?
How do the Scots feel about NATO membership and spending what the UK does anyway on Defence? They voted for that too.

I've hardly seen a Cybernat make a point about Trident as a flawed strategy. I've just seen stuff about what it costs, and all the stuff it could pay for- ie virtually nothing in Scotland compared with the cost of independence in the short term.
As with most things, the anti-Trident arguments made by the SNP and their supporters are largely false. The cost to Scotland is small when spread over the projected lifespan of Trident. The only other 'argument' they raise is that it makes Glasgow a prime target (the 'Scotland is a victim' stance). There are two fallacies here - (1) any large city is a potential target and (2) the actual missiles aren't there - they're at sea. They also forget that Aldermaston would be a more important target.

(I'm not saying that there isn't a valid argument against Trident, just that the cybernats are not making one).

I've often wondered whether the population of Helensburgh are anti-Trident. A large part of the local economy must be dependent on Faslane, not to mention the improved infrastructure it brought.

Their arguments against Trident are just as good as those that are made in favour of it!

Also, many communities have had their local industries ripped away from them by Government decisions - what would make Helensburgh (or Barrow for that matter) any different? What I would hope another Government apart from the Tories would do is understand this and do their best to ensure that new opportunities are in place to replace those jobs lost. Contrast this with the Tory approach to the steel industry in Redcar?

There are many far more important industries we could support, such as renewables and electricity storage, instead of supporting a white elephant that brings us nothing!

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:08 pm

HindleA wrote:http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/22582

Moving people off disability benefits is not the same as getting them into work

And forcing people to try and work by threatening them with destitution is not the same as getting them into disability/illness-friendly sustainable jobs or self-employment.

But that doesn't matter so long as they no longer receive ESA/DLA/PIP. And at least some will break their entitlement to contributory ESA so when they have to give the job up they'll be means tested against their partner or household's income. Even better from the government point of view they may end up claiming JSA with all that implies. And try convincing the DWP you're ESA material when you've just been "working" for a few months with exactly the same medical situation you're now trying to claim ESA for.

It's all about letting those with jobs know that they can not afford to go sick because if they do they are likely to become destitute if not entitled to ESA and a social pariah who "everyone" resents if they are entitled.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:08 pm

I've asked the Michaela teacher a couple of things. Looks like comments are pre-modded. Fair enough, will see if I show up.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:18 pm

Posting this not for the blog piece itself (although it's a good summary - inc timelines etc) but for the comments BTL. Read the last few and be sickened - it's all a lovely little tight chumocracy.

Daily Politics On The Rack
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/ ... -rack.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:23 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: How do the Scots feel about NATO membership and spending what the UK does anyway on Defence? They voted for that too.

I've hardly seen a Cybernat make a point about Trident as a flawed strategy. I've just seen stuff about what it costs, and all the stuff it could pay for- ie virtually nothing in Scotland compared with the cost of independence in the short term.
As with most things, the anti-Trident arguments made by the SNP and their supporters are largely false. The cost to Scotland is small when spread over the projected lifespan of Trident. The only other 'argument' they raise is that it makes Glasgow a prime target (the 'Scotland is a victim' stance). There are two fallacies here - (1) any large city is a potential target and (2) the actual missiles aren't there - they're at sea. They also forget that Aldermaston would be a more important target.

(I'm not saying that there isn't a valid argument against Trident, just that the cybernats are not making one).

I've often wondered whether the population of Helensburgh are anti-Trident. A large part of the local economy must be dependent on Faslane, not to mention the improved infrastructure it brought.

Their arguments against Trident are just as good as those that are made in favour of it!

Also, many communities have had their local industries ripped away from them by Government decisions - what would make Helensburgh (or Barrow for that matter) any different? What I would hope another Government apart from the Tories would do is understand this and do their best to ensure that new opportunities are in place to replace those jobs lost. Contrast this with the Tory approach to the steel industry in Redcar?

There are many far more important industries we could support, such as renewables and electricity storage, instead of supporting a white elephant that brings us nothing!

Defence industries aren't a white elephant, whatever their questionable morality- they earn high value exports. See how eg Germany and Sweden have lots of defence exports. Sure, other rich countries don't, like Ireland, but it would be a bit of a hole for Scotland to fill.

The SNP wrote a white paper trying to make out that there wouldn't be any problem with defence jobs if they scrapped Trident. That was probably where the sudden volte-face on NATO membership came from, and their defence white paper.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:24 pm

Controlling versions of news seen and heard constructs the threads of conversation,
diverting attention away from who and what control our resources. We don't need
to be forbidden to speak of things, we just get distracted.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:37 pm

Am I utterly doomed and / or lacking an ounce of intelligence and principle - I happen to like both Sadiq Khan and Corbyn and don't have a problem with a Labour party that has both at its forefront?

To read BTL on the Khan piece in the G you would think everybody has, or must have, a completely binary view of everything and every group.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:39 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote: As with most things, the anti-Trident arguments made by the SNP and their supporters are largely false. The cost to Scotland is small when spread over the projected lifespan of Trident. The only other 'argument' they raise is that it makes Glasgow a prime target (the 'Scotland is a victim' stance). There are two fallacies here - (1) any large city is a potential target and (2) the actual missiles aren't there - they're at sea. They also forget that Aldermaston would be a more important target.

(I'm not saying that there isn't a valid argument against Trident, just that the cybernats are not making one).

I've often wondered whether the population of Helensburgh are anti-Trident. A large part of the local economy must be dependent on Faslane, not to mention the improved infrastructure it brought.

Their arguments against Trident are just as good as those that are made in favour of it!

Also, many communities have had their local industries ripped away from them by Government decisions - what would make Helensburgh (or Barrow for that matter) any different? What I would hope another Government apart from the Tories would do is understand this and do their best to ensure that new opportunities are in place to replace those jobs lost. Contrast this with the Tory approach to the steel industry in Redcar?

There are many far more important industries we could support, such as renewables and electricity storage, instead of supporting a white elephant that brings us nothing!
Defence industries aren't a white elephant, whatever their questionable morality- they earn high value exports. See how eg Germany and Sweden have lots of defence exports. Sure, other rich countries don't, like Ireland, but it would be a bit of a hole for Scotland to fill.

The SNP wrote a white paper trying to make out that there wouldn't be any problem with defence jobs if they scrapped Trident. That was probably where the sudden volte-face on NATO membership came from, and their defence white paper.

The morals about a defence industry selling death to dictatorships is debatable but, of course, morals are exchangeable for cash!

It is though irrelevant to my argument which is that the decision on whether to renew Trident is not linked to the industry that supports it.....or do you think that it should be?

I would rather that the cash, and other money, is spent on supporting other industry that actually can improve our society.....if necessary retraining the highly skilled workforce previously working on nuclear submarines

Many highly skilled people who worked on things that would help our society have been thrown on the scrap heap......but subsidy is okay when it comes to things that kill people

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:40 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Posting this not for the blog piece itself (although it's a good summary - inc timelines etc) but for the comments BTL. Read the last few and be sickened - it's all a lovely little tight chumocracy.

Daily Politics On The Rack
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/ ... -rack.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is a corruption of our society...pure and simple

A shame no-one is interested

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:41 pm

I agree with you and your priorities- I'd much rather be like Ireland than Germany in this respect.

But the SNP haven't been as upfront as you're being- they'd apparently save money on defence (compared with what the UK spends), do what NATO wants them to, and protect Defence jobs.

I'm not convinced by that. I also don't think Labour should have gone so hard at following them. Free vote on it would be fine.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:43 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... eaningless" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Claims flood defence spending up 'essentially meaningless'
Committee on Climate Change questions ministers’ claims of increased investment and urges more spending on defences

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:44 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016 ... hs-bursary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Student nurses and midwives protest over NHS bursary plans

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:44 pm

I notice on twitter that there's a #BursaryorBust trending about student nurse bursaries being removed (and presumably for midwives).

Worth pointing out that a fair proportion of nurses and midwives time on their degree is actually spent in placement i.e. they're working. Quite why anyone should think they should work while not being able to be paid for what they do is beyond me. Just looked up and my other half's bursary was about £2,400 p.a. while I was still working. Cheap labour although admittedly they're still training.

Incidentally, household income is taken into account when calculating bursaries so if a partner works and earns more than what ever the figure is, then the amount is minimal.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:51 pm

Who's the cutter of these bursaries? Sajid Javid?

Joined up politics- there's a shortage of midwives, and apparently it's bad if we import them.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 3:57 pm

Some info here:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/collectio ... -education" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... -workforce" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ary-reform" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hobiejoe · Post by **Hobiejoe** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 4:05 pm

Could it get any worse? Why yes, yes it could.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -interview

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 4:09 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-netw ... SApp_Other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hate having to explain the housing crisis to women who feel life couldn’t get worse

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 4:12 pm

Danczuk's obviously never heard of the concept of self control.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 4:12 pm

Hobiejoe wrote:Could it get any worse? Why yes, yes it could.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -interview

When asked about the Sun payment, Danczuk said: “I am not talking to the press.”

Well, that's a first!

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 4:14 pm

For less than £10,000

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 4:19 pm

Treasury minister David Gauke dismissed revelations last week that
the government was warned that cuts to funding meant flood defences
were being abandoned or maintained to only a minimal level.

Responding to a report compiled by the Association of Drainage Authorities
and published by the Observer last week, Gauke claimed the government
had increased flood-defence spending after they were warned a shortfall
had weakened readiness.

He said of the warning: “[The report] was written in the run up to
the autumn spending review, when we set out our £2.3bn that
we’re spending over six years on flood defences.”

(my emphasis)

Gauke, you're mistaken, revealing a disorganisation of thought and recall
alarming in one occupying so important a post. Or maybe you're lying.

...the £2.3bn commitment had in fact been announced in December 2014
– almost a year before George Osborne’s autumn Statement, and the ADA
report was presented to the government five days after his statement
was delivered to the House of Commons.

Daniel Johns, head of adaptation at the Committee on Climate Change...

Moreover, the money that Gauke drew attention to, said Johns,
“is not the part of the flood defence budget that pays for the
maintenance of ongoing defences”.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... eaningless" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(my emphasis)

Gauke is Osborne's man through and through, denying reality, telling
stories demonstrably inaccurate.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 4:22 pm

Deleted

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 4:27 pm

Flood warnings for:
England and Wales
4:07pm Saturday 09 January 2016

20 Flood warnings - flooding is expected. Immediate action required.
► 20 Flood warnings - flooding is expected. Immediate action required.
130 Flood alerts - flooding is possible. Be prepared.
► 130 Flood alerts - flooding is possible. Be prepared.
23 Warnings no longer in force - flood warnings and flood alerts removed in the last 24 hours.
► 23 Warnings no longer in force - flood warnings and flood alerts removed in the last 24 hours.

https://flood-warning-information.servi ... k/warnings" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There were only nineteen (19) flood warnings indicating flooding is going to happen
when I started on my post about Gauke's memory losses or deliberate falsifications.
Whatever they are, his inaccuracies concern me, they do indeed. What else is he
forgetting, that's the question I ask.

The rain is lashing against the windows here at the moment, has been for awhile.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 4:33 pm

As if waiting the house decides to need repairs,luckily/judiciously the cost of which will be reduced somewhat and spread to a manageable level due to various insurance coverages.Learnt a lesson,because I was bemoaning the cost of such,thankfully I did not follow through with cancelling them,I can have two baked beans on a slice of toast instead of one.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 4:34 pm

HindleA wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... eaningless

Claims flood defence spending up 'essentially meaningless'
Committee on Climate Change questions ministers’ claims of increased investment and urges more spending on defences

Snap. Apologies for duplicating your post. I can only say it's well worth reading. I've quoted from the article indicating why.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 4:43 pm

HindleA wrote:As if waiting the house decides to need repairs,luckily/judiciously the cost of which will be reduced somewhat and spread to a manageable level due to various insurance coverages.Learnt a lesson,because I was bemoaning the cost of such,thankfully I did not follow through with cancelling them,I can have two baked beans on a slice of toast instead of one.

The simple wisdom in your post is an example to us all.
A good representative of people acts with this foresight.

▼ River Derwent at Old Malton
https://flood-warning-information.servi ... k/warnings" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More flooding happening at another location (bringing us up to twenty-one (21) flooding warnings)
and four (4) additional flooding possibles, (totalling one-hundred forty-two [142]) according to
the UKgov website.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 4:46 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Flood warnings for:
England and Wales
4:07pm Saturday 09 January 2016

20 Flood warnings - flooding is expected. Immediate action required.
► 20 Flood warnings - flooding is expected. Immediate action required.
130 Flood alerts - flooding is possible. Be prepared.
► 130 Flood alerts - flooding is possible. Be prepared.
23 Warnings no longer in force - flood warnings and flood alerts removed in the last 24 hours.
► 23 Warnings no longer in force - flood warnings and flood alerts removed in the last 24 hours.

https://flood-warning-information.servi ... k/warnings" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There were only nineteen (19) flood warnings indicating flooding is going to happen
when I started on my post about Gauke's memory losses or deliberate falsifications.
Whatever they are, his inaccuracies concern me, they do indeed. What else is he
forgetting, that's the question I ask.

The rain is lashing against the windows here at the moment, has been for awhile.

We are used to rain here being in the watershed of the Cambrian mountains, but the last month or so has been something else.

Walking our regular route past the (now sadly closed) village school water was literally cascading off the fields at the back and running like a river down the steps. Streams have appeared in the most unlikely places, all torrenting down to find the lowest point.
Scary.

Not just the risk of river or flash flooding but damage to homes too.

Everything is turning green, house walls covered in mossy mould.
A neighbour spending her second winter here after moving from south coast of England was in tears the other day after finding black mould growing behind her furniture.
Our dehumidifier is on 24 hours a day. Hard to air the house when it is 90degrees humidity outside, so have to rely on technology.

The local sheep have been moved back up the hills to help avoid painful foot problems from standing in sodden fields.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 4:51 pm

Hobiejoe wrote:Could it get any worse? Why yes, yes it could.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -interview

Very sensible of the fellow, if you think about it. He's got to charge for everything he can get away with, whilst he can still get away with it. Even a man so clueless when it comes to self-perception knows that his shelf-life is now extremely limited.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 09 Jan, 2016 4:55 pm

This was our local Co-Op in Lampeter on 30th December.
When I did my Christmas food shop there the lower half was under water, but not as far up as that !