He's a phucking idiot and the climate change mugs are even worse.
I think that is quite unbecoming, despite your rather poor attempts at hiding it from the profanity filter.
Unbecoming? People have had their livelihoods devestated and you call me unbecoming? Get a grip man.
Yes, the floods are the direct fault of Cameron.
Get a grip indeed.
Where have I said the floods are his fault?
It's a very simple question which you'll no doubt be able to answer directly.
My original comment was on your rather unsavoury language. "Fucking idiot" I think you meant.
Fine, so we're agreed I didn't blame Cameron caused the floods and I stand by his response makes him a phucking idiot.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't really approve of calling anyone a fucking idiot. He is clearly going to do as much as possible to help mitigate what has happened, but that would never be enough for someone like you clearly.
He's a phucking idiot and the climate change mugs are even worse.
I think that is quite unbecoming, despite your rather poor attempts at hiding it from the profanity filter.
Unbecoming? People have had their livelihoods devestated and you call me unbecoming? Get a grip man.
Yes, the floods are the direct fault of Cameron.
Get a grip indeed.
Where have I said the floods are his fault?
It's a very simple question which you'll no doubt be able to answer directly.
My original comment was on your rather unsavoury language. "Fucking idiot" I think you meant.
Fine, so we're agreed I didn't blame Cameron caused the floods and I stand by his response makes him a phucking idiot.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't really approve of calling anyone a fucking idiot. He is clearly going to do as much as possible to help mitigate what has happened, but that would never be enough for someone like you clearly.
But his appearance on the BBC News about the floods, takes this seasons biscuit. There he was, self satisfied, as he had the temerity to say that the flood defences now in place did their job and -listen to this - slowed down the flooding. The most transparent lie ever uttered by him. Whats more, I'm sure that he himself believes it.
With the most extensive and deep floods ever to appear in the last 100 years in Britain, (Canvey Island excepted) he suggests that another 500 troops will help. Well they will, but what a poltroon Cammo is.
The man is a buffoon. Hundreds of years ago we irrigated the countryside, there was a reason we built dykes and regularly cleared them. Now he is calling in the army and metropolitan goons are blaming climate change.
He's a phucking idiot and the climate change mugs are even worse.
This kind of event will become more common in a warmer climate (according to people far more qualified than you!)
Kipper and Kipper in agreement surprise surprise.. what is surprising is that you didn't find some way to blame it on immigrants.
LOL!
I can see that the Xmas juice hasn't quite exited the bloodstream yet....
Me a kipper? LOL
I see no real denial there People have some curious political conversions sometimes - why we've even seen Green to Tory conversions.
I am hiding from my rellies and working (albeit with Matt Smith era Dr Who episodes on in the background) so cannot comment overmuch. However this is an appropriate moment for Meme#2, to wit:
"The EU is an Universal Villain. Anything good that it does must be dismissed as "it would have happened anyway". Anything bad that happens must be blamed on it, no matter how implausibly"
(Meme#1 is of course "If Cameron had negotiated X then I would have voted REMAIN, but he didn't so I'll vote LEAVE, such a pity", where X is a member of the set of all possible things)
I am not doctrinally against the EU. Indeed, I would be for it if it functioned (to my mind) properly - that is if it: 1. concentrated only on issues where a supranational approach is sensible and lived by the doctrine of subsidiarity to the letter and spirit for the rest; 2. did so competently, fairly and transparently.
It succeeds sometimes and fails sometimes on 1 and there will be good faith differences between Member States occasionally on what should be a supranational issue - such as hosting refugees. It is pretty hit and miss on each element of 2.
So the question is how can you get the best overall result - through staying in the EU or via some other arrangement. It is the answer to that question that will determine my stance, although I am biased towards leave at this point.
Weirdly this is the essence of the question. The EU is changing to involve an inner core and an outer shell. The question for the UK is whether it is better for it to be in the outer core or out of the EU. Although I suspect we will disagree on the answer, we are at least agreeing on the question
I now return you to the PB discussion on whether the EU causes rain in winter...
The real question is, is there more than a semantic difference between the core and the shell. Since the core refuse to let the shell have even the most unadventurous changes to their membership, and since the shell is going to be ruled on by the ECJ and outvoted by the Core in QMV, the would seem to be significant room for doubt.
He's a phucking idiot and the climate change mugs are even worse.
I think that is quite unbecoming, despite your rather poor attempts at hiding it from the profanity filter.
Unbecoming? People have had their livelihoods devestated and you call me unbecoming? Get a grip man.
Yes, the floods are the direct fault of Cameron.
Get a grip indeed.
Where have I said the floods are his fault?
It's a very simple question which you'll no doubt be able to answer directly.
My original comment was on your rather unsavoury language. "Fucking idiot" I think you meant.
Fine, so we're agreed I didn't blame Cameron caused the floods and I stand by his response makes him a phucking idiot.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't really approve of calling anyone a fucking idiot. He is clearly going to do as much as possible to help mitigate what has happened, but that would never be enough for someone like you clearly.
You're old fashioned
Old fashioned and not a Kipper? What has the world come to.
Some selective recollection of events on here - that's the problem with many counter factual histories. The false memory of what happened prejudices the revised timeline. To answer the question "could the LDs have prevented the 2015 wipeout ?" Is to presuppose there was an alternative once the decision to go into Coalition in 2010 had been taken.
I've yet to read any convincing or coherent alternative course of action given the actual 2010 result.
On Cameron, he is, quite literally, here there and everywhere. He has a Home Secretary and an Environment Secretary but they are relegated to the sidelines. Cameron is de facto President - apart from Osborne, the rest of the Cabinet are irrelevant. It is an activist, interventionist Government he leads - a Government that needs to be seen to be there all the time because, in truth, that's what we want.
The problem for the Conservatives is that Cameron won the 2015 election, not the Conservative Party. I am convinced the majority was won by hundreds of thousands of people voting for the Cameron Party and its candidates. Once Cameron leaves the scene, his successor will have to maintain the bloc. As prospective successors find themselves marginalised, the question then becomes whether the winning bloc will fragment once the glue has gone.
There were also reports of a tiny Conservative membership in Morley & Outwood constituency - perhaps David Herdson could verify whether that was true.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I failed to renew my membership of my local constituency, because I got so fed up with some of the right wing Tory MP's. I thought the Coalition was actually good for Britain, irrespective of the beard wearing/ sandal types that made up part of the coalition. And I am not going to renew either, some of the Kipper types in the Tory party make me feel uncomfortable so I am in limbo.
I'd vote Tory to keep Labour out pretty much 24/7/365 but I am not happy about it. I feel for poor old Dave and the types on here who are so critical of him.. They don't know how damned lucky they are.
Don't worry we'll all think gratefully of Dave as we pay back all those hundreds of billions extra he borrowed in order to buy his reelection.
I'd vote Tory to keep Labour out pretty much 24/7/365 but I am not happy about it. I feel for poor old Dave and the types on here who are so critical of him.. They don't know how damned lucky they are.
One can't help thinking that both you an Dave would vote LD if you thought it had a realistic chance of keeping Labour out. You both seem to be ill at ease with the "conservative" bit of being a Conservative.
Mr. Stodge, I think a large part of that is true, but the corollary is that the Ed Miliband Party lost the election. The Jeremy Corbyn and Mao Party seems unlikely to attract swing voters.
There were also reports of a tiny Conservative membership in Morley & Outwood constituency - perhaps David Herdson could verify whether that was true.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I failed to renew my membership of my local constituency, because I got so fed up with some of the right wing Tory MP's. I thought the Coalition was actually good for Britain, irrespective of the beard wearing/ sandal types that made up part of the coalition. And I am not going to renew either, some of the Kipper types in the Tory party make me feel uncomfortable so I am in limbo.
I'd vote Tory to keep Labour out pretty much 24/7/365 but I am not happy about it. I feel for poor old Dave and the types on here who are so critical of him.. They don't know how damned lucky they are.
I've never really understood what horrors right wing Conservatives and UKIP are supposed to unleash on the population. We want the type of government we hand under Margaret Thatcher, albeit more eurosceptic.
But his appearance on the BBC News about the floods, takes this seasons biscuit. There he was, self satisfied, as he had the temerity to say that the flood defences now in place did their job and -listen to this - slowed down the flooding. The most transparent lie ever uttered by him. Whats more, I'm sure that he himself believes it.
With the most extensive and deep floods ever to appear in the last 100 years in Britain, (Canvey Island excepted) he suggests that another 500 troops will help. Well they will, but what a poltroon Cammo is.
The man is a buffoon. Hundreds of years ago we irrigated the countryside, there was a reason we built dykes and regularly cleared them. Now he is calling in the army and metropolitan goons are blaming climate change.
He's a phucking idiot and the climate change mugs are even worse.
This kind of event will become more common in a warmer climate (according to people far more qualified than you!)
Kipper and Kipper in agreement surprise surprise.. what is surprising is that you didn't find some way to blame it on immigrants.
LOL!
I can see that the Xmas juice hasn't quite exited the bloodstream yet....
Me a kipper? LOL
I was referring to previous posters , it just so happened you replied first perhaps I should have looked for the original reply.
But his appearance on the BBC News about the floods, takes this seasons biscuit. There he was, self satisfied, as he had the temerity to say that the flood defences now in place did their job and -listen to this - slowed down the flooding. The most transparent lie ever uttered by him. Whats more, I'm sure that he himself believes it.
With the most extensive and deep floods ever to appear in the last 100 years in Britain, (Canvey Island excepted) he suggests that another 500 troops will help. Well they will, but what a poltroon Cammo is.
The man is a buffoon. Hundreds of years ago we irrigated the countryside, there was a reason we built dykes and regularly cleared them. Now he is calling in the army and metropolitan goons are blaming climate change.
He's a phucking idiot and the climate change mugs are even worse.
This kind of event will become more common in a warmer climate (according to people far more qualified than you!)
Kipper and Kipper in agreement surprise surprise.. what is surprising is that you didn't find some way to blame it on immigrants.
LOL!
I can see that the Xmas juice hasn't quite exited the bloodstream yet....
Me a kipper? LOL
I was referring to previous posters , it just so happened you replied first perhaps I should have looked for the original reply.
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I think a month's worth of rain in a day may qualify as unprecedented.
Or not, since the record for the highest daily rainfall in England was set in Dorset in 1955, presumably more that a month fell then, with rather less "climate change".
The problem for the Conservatives is that Cameron won the 2015 election, not the Conservative Party. I am convinced the majority was won by hundreds of thousands of people voting for the Cameron Party and its candidates. Once Cameron leaves the scene, his successor will have to maintain the bloc. As prospective successors find themselves marginalised, the question then becomes whether the winning bloc will fragment once the glue has gone.
I don't know how much more support Cameron personally than the Tories generally(or just fear the SNP-Labour axis) but in tight contests I think it probably does make the difference. Being frank, although I have concerns about Cameron's competence, I do generally feel he is worthy of being given a chance, he doesn't seem too reckless and is generally middle of the road, so though I did not actually vote conservative (not that it would have made a difference as I live in a safe seat), had my vote mattered, he probably could have helped sway me, and his successor might well have greater trouble.
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I think a month's worth of rain in a day may qualify as unprecedented.
Or not, since the record for the highest daily rainfall in England was set in Dorset in 1955, presumably more that a month fell then, with rather less "climate change".
I hadn't realised the latest flooding was in Dorset. My mistake.
The correct comparison would be the highest rate of rainfall in the current areas affected.
There were also reports of a tiny Conservative membership in Morley & Outwood constituency - perhaps David Herdson could verify whether that was true.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I failed to renew my membership of my local constituency, because I got so fed up with some of the right wing Tory MP's. I thought the Coalition was actually good for Britain, irrespective of the beard wearing/ sandal types that made up part of the coalition. And I am not going to renew either, some of the Kipper types in the Tory party make me feel uncomfortable so I am in limbo.
I'd vote Tory to keep Labour out pretty much 24/7/365 but I am not happy about it. I feel for poor old Dave and the types on here who are so critical of him.. They don't know how damned lucky they are.
Don't worry we'll all think gratefully of Dave as we pay back all those hundreds of billions extra he borrowed in order to buy his reelection.
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I think a month's worth of rain in a day may qualify as unprecedented.
Or not, since the record for the highest daily rainfall in England was set in Dorset in 1955, presumably more that a month fell then, with rather less "climate change".
I hadn't realised the latest flooding was in Dorset. My mistake.
The correct comparison would be the highest rate of rainfall in the current areas affected.
It isn't and neither is it record, or as you put it "unprecedented".
The correct comparison would appear to be with any set of numbers that let you win the arguement, rather than say the records for rainfall in the UK, or do you think climate change is a special phenomena to a small area of Yorkshire.
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I think a month's worth of rain in a day may qualify as unprecedented.
Yes and global climate change is centred around a small area of NW England.
I see you've picked up my habit of thinking someone had said something they hadn't.
Re your other post, I don't think it is as simple as just dredging rivers. If it was, that would have been done.
Have you read the EU Directive of 2000?
We dredged waterways for centuries, they fill up with silt, farmers used to spread it on their fields, it was a double whammy. Perhaps in your obsequious obedience to all things Dave/EU you might find a reason why large fertiliser companies might want to discourage that.
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I think a month's worth of rain in a day may qualify as unprecedented.
Or not, since the record for the highest daily rainfall in England was set in Dorset in 1955, presumably more that a month fell then, with rather less "climate change".
I hadn't realised the latest flooding was in Dorset. My mistake.
The correct comparison would be the highest rate of rainfall in the current areas affected.
It isn't and neither is it record, or as you put it "unprecedented".
What is the highest rainfall recorded in the area then?
Now Hilary Benn on BBC is blaming climate change. This is beyond ridicule, dredge the rivers, turn the silt into fertiliser, no floods.
Why? Increased levels of rainfall intensity has been well documented as one of the impacts of climate change - this has been happening for a while now...
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I think a month's worth of rain in a day may qualify as unprecedented.
Yes and global climate change is centred around a small area of NW England.
I see you've picked up my habit of thinking someone had said something they hadn't.
Re your other post, I don't think it is as simple as just dredging rivers. If it was, that would have been done.
Have you read the EU Directive of 2000?
We dredged waterways for centuries, they fill up with silt, farmers used to spread it on their fields, it was a double whammy. Perhaps in your obsequious obedience to all things Dave/EU you might find a reason why large fertiliser companies might want to discourage that.
LOL. My "obsequious obedience". I'm actually on the fence/leaning leave if you must know.
Why did flooding also happen in previous centuries then, if dredging was so successful?
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I think a month's worth of rain in a day may qualify as unprecedented.
Or not, since the record for the highest daily rainfall in England was set in Dorset in 1955, presumably more that a month fell then, with rather less "climate change".
I hadn't realised the latest flooding was in Dorset. My mistake.
The correct comparison would be the highest rate of rainfall in the current areas affected.
It isn't and neither is it record, or as you put it "unprecedented".
What is the highest rainfall recorded in the area then?
Since it wasn't a record, it wasn't recorded, and since climate change isn't restricted to a small part of Yorkshire, its irrelevant. Or maybe you want the rainfall figures for Acacia Avenue in West Yorkshire because it makes your point better. I hear the rainfall of Mr Smith's Potting Shed is complete "unprecedented".
The problem for the Conservatives is that Cameron won the 2015 election, not the Conservative Party. I am convinced the majority was won by hundreds of thousands of people voting for the Cameron Party and its candidates. Once Cameron leaves the scene, his successor will have to maintain the bloc. As prospective successors find themselves marginalised, the question then becomes whether the winning bloc will fragment once the glue has gone.
This can't be said often enough. A great many swing voters disregard "the ishoos" completely these days and just vote on which President they would prefer. God knows how many times at the last two elections I've heard things like "I'm usually Labour, but I just can't stand that Brown / can't see that Miliband standing next to Putin in photos / think that Cameron seems a nice dad and husband".
The PBTories who think that the public are going to overlook Osborne's personality flaws for the sake of (supposedly) the stronger economic management don't want to acknowledge that, of course.
There were also reports of a tiny Conservative membership in Morley & Outwood constituency - perhaps David Herdson could verify whether that was true.
Yes, the M&O membership was pretty small. I don't know the exact number as the local office only quoted numbers for members who paid to it i.e. excluded those who paid nationally. Also, the constituency has left the Wakefield District Federation now it has it's own MP so such information as I did have is out of date. All the same, dozens rather than hundreds would be the right measure. All the same, Andrea regularly had 20-30 local activists out helping her through the first four months of the year.
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I think a month's worth of rain in a day may qualify as unprecedented.
Or not, since the record for the highest daily rainfall in England was set in Dorset in 1955, presumably more that a month fell then, with rather less "climate change".
I hadn't realised the latest flooding was in Dorset. My mistake.
The correct comparison would be the highest rate of rainfall in the current areas affected.
It isn't and neither is it record, or as you put it "unprecedented".
What is the highest rainfall recorded in the area then?
Since it wasn't a record, it wasn't recorded, and since climate change isn't restricted to a small part of Yorkshire, its irrelevant. Or maybe you want the rainfall figures for Acacia Avenue in West Yorkshire because it makes your point better. I hear the rainfall of Mr Smith's Potting Shed is complete "unprecedented".
Of course it was recorded. We have records going back hundreds of years, they don't just keep the most extreme record.
I am not saying at all this was due to global warming (in fact, my previous posts on this on an earlier thread will show how much I dislike global warming being ascribed to every major weather event), just that the rainfall levels are at the very high end of the distribution of rainfall levels. I'd like the rainfall levels in that particular area as it will show just how much of an outlier it is or is not. It isn't as if Cornwall and Yorkshire are the same place.
Now Hilary Benn on BBC is blaming climate change. This is beyond ridicule, dredge the rivers, turn the silt into fertiliser, no floods.
Why? Increased levels of rainfall intensity has been well documented as one of the impacts of climate change - this has been happening for a while now...
No it hasn't, rainfall is in no way exception today in history terms. High, yes. Record breaking, nope. The goal of climate enthusiasts at the moment appears to be to reduce the time frame under consideration to a sufficiently small window that any awkward occurrences of similar weather phenomena happening in the past are discounted.
Some selective recollection of events on here - that's the problem with many counter factual histories. The false memory of what happened prejudices the revised timeline. To answer the question "could the LDs have prevented the 2015 wipeout ?" Is to presuppose there was an alternative once the decision to go into Coalition in 2010 had been taken.
I've yet to read any convincing or coherent alternative course of action given the actual 2010 result.
They didn't need to spend half the last parliament acting like an internal opposition.
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I think a month's worth of rain in a day may qualify as unprecedented.
Yes and global climate change is centred around a small area of NW England.
I see you've picked up my habit of thinking someone had said something they hadn't.
Re your other post, I don't think it is as simple as just dredging rivers. If it was, that would have been done.
Have you read the EU Directive of 2000?
We dredged waterways for centuries, they fill up with silt, farmers used to spread it on their fields, it was a double whammy. Perhaps in your obsequious obedience to all things Dave/EU you might find a reason why large fertiliser companies might want to discourage that.
LOL. My "obsequious obedience". I'm actually on the fence/leaning leave if you must know.
Why did flooding also happen in previous centuries then, if dredging was so successful?
Hang on a minute, flooding occurred previously, but this is unprecedented, make your mind up.
Look, this is straightforward, it rains, rivers swell, farmers used to dredge them now they don't.
Exactly what part of that are you either disputing or don't understand?
The problem for the Conservatives is that Cameron won the 2015 election, not the Conservative Party. I am convinced the majority was won by hundreds of thousands of people voting for the Cameron Party and its candidates. Once Cameron leaves the scene, his successor will have to maintain the bloc. As prospective successors find themselves marginalised, the question then becomes whether the winning bloc will fragment once the glue has gone.
This can't be said often enough. A great many swing voters disregard "the ishoos" completely these days and just vote on which President they would prefer. God knows how many times at the last two elections I've heard things like "I'm usually Labour, but I just can't stand that Brown / can't see that Miliband standing next to Putin in photos / think that Cameron seems a nice dad and husband".
The PBTories who think that the public are going to overlook Osborne's personality flaws for the sake of (supposedly) the stronger economic management don't want to acknowledge that, of course.
Er...I acknowledge it every time Osborne for PM is mentioned. And unlike most who go on about it, I will actually be voting on the matter...
Now Hilary Benn on BBC is blaming climate change. This is beyond ridicule, dredge the rivers, turn the silt into fertiliser, no floods.
Why? Increased levels of rainfall intensity has been well documented as one of the impacts of climate change - this has been happening for a while now...
Rainfall records go back about 130 years, as I understand it. If you're going to troll like this, at least find something that might have a slight chance of being fractionally convincing.
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I think a month's worth of rain in a day may qualify as unprecedented.
Yes and global climate change is centred around a small area of NW England.
I see you've picked up my habit of thinking someone had said something they hadn't.
Re your other post, I don't think it is as simple as just dredging rivers. If it was, that would have been done.
Have you read the EU Directive of 2000?
We dredged waterways for centuries, they fill up with silt, farmers used to spread it on their fields, it was a double whammy. Perhaps in your obsequious obedience to all things Dave/EU you might find a reason why large fertiliser companies might want to discourage that.
LOL. My "obsequious obedience". I'm actually on the fence/leaning leave if you must know.
Why did flooding also happen in previous centuries then, if dredging was so successful?
Hang on a minute, flooding occurred previously, but this is unprecedented, make your mind up.
Look, this is straightforward, it rains, rivers swell, farmers used to dredge them now they don't.
Exactly what part of that are you either disputing or don't understand?
Did I say the flooding was unprecedented?
I do understand it, what I don't understand is if why dredging was so successful in the past, it still flooded?
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I think a month's worth of rain in a day may qualify as unprecedented.
Or not, since the record for the highest daily rainfall in England was set in Dorset in 1955, presumably more that a month fell then, with rather less "climate change".
I hadn't realised the latest flooding was in Dorset. My mistake.
The correct comparison would be the highest rate of rainfall in the current areas affected.
Don't bother Rob.
You can't even discuss the consequences of climate change here without having insults thrown at you.
This is undoubtedly a weather event but the chances of such a weather event are increased in a warmer climate - FACT.
Anyway, want to be popular on a right-wing blog like this - mention stuff like "AGW trough" and the like. Those kind of comments are very popular with the loons that reside here.
As a labour supporter I think the lib Dems were right to go into the co-alition. They had little choice and a deal with labour would have collapsed very quickly. But I've been reading the seldon book on Cameron in number 10 and I really can't get my head round what clegg and alexander thought they were doing. They convinced themselves that they'd got the better of the co-alition deal when the Tories knew they'd destroyed them. And (if the book is true) they were offered a way out on tuition fees but didn't take it. And in return got a referendum on something they didn't even want. The rose garden/first six months love in was a very bad look for them as well - they've always needed labour tactical voters. They would have got hammered in 2015 regardless but I don't think it had to be that bad.
The problem for the Conservatives is that Cameron won the 2015 election, not the Conservative Party. I am convinced the majority was won by hundreds of thousands of people voting for the Cameron Party and its candidates. Once Cameron leaves the scene, his successor will have to maintain the bloc. As prospective successors find themselves marginalised, the question then becomes whether the winning bloc will fragment once the glue has gone.
This can't be said often enough. A great many swing voters disregard "the ishoos" completely these days and just vote on which President they would prefer. God knows how many times at the last two elections I've heard things like "I'm usually Labour, but I just can't stand that Brown / can't see that Miliband standing next to Putin in photos / think that Cameron seems a nice dad and husband".
The PBTories who think that the public are going to overlook Osborne's personality flaws for the sake of (supposedly) the stronger economic management don't want to acknowledge that, of course.
Er...I acknowledge it every time Osborne for PM is mentioned. And unlike most who go on about it, I will actually be voting on the matter...
Richard Nabavi and DavidL (to name just two) have repeatedly said it doesn't matter how dislikeable Osborne is, if the supposed "economic miracle" is still going on.
As any Labour canvasser from the last two elections will tell you, the view that you can convince voters to overlook the personality of leaders is rather optimistic.
There were also reports of a tiny Conservative membership in Morley & Outwood constituency - perhaps David Herdson could verify whether that was true.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I failed to renew my membership of my local constituency, because I got so fed up with some of the right wing Tory MP's. I thought the Coalition was actually good for Britain, irrespective of the beard wearing/ sandal types that made up part of the coalition. And I am not going to renew either, some of the Kipper types in the Tory party make me feel uncomfortable so I am in limbo.
I'd vote Tory to keep Labour out pretty much 24/7/365 but I am not happy about it. I feel for poor old Dave and the types on here who are so critical of him.. They don't know how damned lucky they are.
Don't worry we'll all think gratefully of Dave as we pay back all those hundreds of billions extra he borrowed in order to buy his reelection.
Err you know that is untrue..so why post it
It is true.
So why do you lie about it ?
As I said its untrue.., you know its untrue, and however you try to spin it, and however much you loathe Dave , it isn't true now... nor ever.
It's worth remembering that there are two significant difference between the SNP post independence referendum, and UKIP post Brexit referendum:
1. The SNP was the only voice of Scottish nationalism. There were no major Labour, Conservative or LibDem figures campaigning for Independence; and all those parties were seen as impacable opponents of Independence. At least a third of Tory MPs, and a significant minority of Labour MPs will campaign for Brexit.
2. Independence and Brexit do not - outside of PB - attract the same degree of passions. Most people in Scotland were either vehemently for, or vehemently against, Independence. Most people in the UK are vehemently indifferent to the EU. In - or out - very little will change in most people's lives in the event of us choosing to exit the EU.
For that reason, I think UKIP will not be beneficiaries of a close In vote to the same extent that the SNP was.
Maybe, but a majority of the main parties representatives will back Remain and if it is a narrow In UKIP will be the main vehicle will the main vehicle for disillusioned Outers. Most people in Scotland were actually not vehemently for or anti independence prior to indyref, other than a few diehard nationalists, but the full force of the referendum campaign set passions aflame, even if EUref sets passions only a little alight that still benefits UKIP. The SNP won almost all the Yes backers in 2015, even if UKIP win less than half the Out voters in 2020 they would still be on 20% or so and likely to win at least 10+ MPs
I think the biggest difference is that the SNP, love it or hate it, is a formidable political party. It has iron message-discipline and has ruthlessly eliminated policy positions that would give people a reason not to vote for it. UKIP, love it or hate it, is the opposite.
The SNP only saw their big jump after the referendum, in 2010 they won only 6 MPs, it was the referendum which boosted them not the iron discipline though that may have followed
The SNP won a landslide at Holyrood in 2011 and their Westminster polling overtook Labour in August 2011 and again in April - June 2014. The signs were there.
Now Hilary Benn on BBC is blaming climate change. This is beyond ridicule, dredge the rivers, turn the silt into fertiliser, no floods.
Why? Increased levels of rainfall intensity has been well documented as one of the impacts of climate change - this has been happening for a while now...
Rainfall records go back about 130 years, as I understand it. If you're going to troll like this, at least find something that might have a slight chance of being fractionally convincing.
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I think a month's worth of rain in a day may qualify as unprecedented.
Yes and global climate change is centred around a small area of NW England.
I see you've picked up my habit of thinking someone had said something they hadn't.
Re your other post, I don't think it is as simple as just dredging rivers. If it was, that would have been done.
Have you read the EU Directive of 2000?
We dredged waterways for centuries, they fill up with silt, farmers used to spread it on their fields, it was a double whammy. Perhaps in your obsequious obedience to all things Dave/EU you might find a reason why large fertiliser companies might want to discourage that.
LOL. My "obsequious obedience". I'm actually on the fence/leaning leave if you must know.
Why did flooding also happen in previous centuries then, if dredging was so successful?
Hang on a minute, flooding occurred previously, but this is unprecedented, make your mind up.
Look, this is straightforward, it rains, rivers swell, farmers used to dredge them now they don't.
Exactly what part of that are you either disputing or don't understand?
Did I say the flooding was unprecedented?
I do understand it, what I don't understand is if why dredging was so successful in the past, it still flooded?
Cameron said it clearly on the BBC, you berated me for calling him a phucking idiot.
Surely you understand that as a result of no dredging floods are more prevalent?
Take an empty 4 gallon bucket and pour 4 gallons of water in. Now half fill a 4 gallon bucket with mud and pour 4 gallons in.
Someone should set up a PB2 thread, that says that its ALL Dave's fault, that everything that happens is Dave's fault and let the Kippers get on with it on another thread without polluting this one with untruths, bile and anti immigrant/immigration/xenophopbic/racist stuff..
As a labour supporter I think the lib Dems were right to go into the co-alition. They had little choice and a deal with labour would have collapsed very quickly. But I've been reading the seldon book on Cameron in number 10 and I really can't get my head round what clegg and alexander thought they were doing. They convinced themselves that they'd got the better of the co-alition deal when the Tories knew they'd destroyed them. And (if the book is true) they were offered a way out on tuition fees but didn't take it. And in return got a referendum on something they didn't even want. The rose garden/first six months love in was a very bad look for them as well - they've always needed labour tactical voters. They would have got hammered in 2015 regardless but I don't think it had to be that bad.
What I'll never understand (and said so at the time) is why they didn't formally disengage 6 months or so before the election.
The only excuse - and a ludicrous one - that I've heard is that their ministers would have been entitled to a payoff, and the LDs thought this would look bad, in expectation of their re-appointment to Coalition II in May 2015...
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I think a month's worth of rain in a day may qualify as unprecedented.
Yes and global climate change is centred around a small area of NW England.
I see you've picked up my habit of thinking someone had said something they hadn't.
Re your other post, I don't think it is as simple as just dredging rivers. If it was, that would have been done.
Have you read the EU Directive of 2000?
We dredged waterways for centuries, they fill up with silt, farmers used to spread it on their fields, it was a double whammy. Perhaps in your obsequious obedience to all things Dave/EU you might find a reason why large fertiliser companies might want to discourage that.
LOL. My "obsequious obedience". I'm actually on the fence/leaning leave if you must know.
Why did flooding also happen in previous centuries then, if dredging was so successful?
Hang on a minute, flooding occurred previously, but this is unprecedented, make your mind up.
Look, this is straightforward, it rains, rivers swell, farmers used to dredge them now they don't.
Exactly what part of that are you either disputing or don't understand?
Did I say the flooding was unprecedented?
I do understand it, what I don't understand is if why dredging was so successful in the past, it still flooded?
Cameron said it clearly on the BBC, you berated me for calling him a phucking idiot.
Surely you understand that as a result of no dredging floods are more prevalent?
Take an empty 4 gallon bucket and pour 4 gallons of water in. Now half fill a 4 gallon bucket with mud and pour 4 gallons in.
Are we getting there?
Hold on. Your quote was:
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I was going on nothing more than that.
Yes, but flooding still happened while dredging was going on. Which suggests that other approaches may be needed.
The problem for the Conservatives is that Cameron won the 2015 election, not the Conservative Party. I am convinced the majority was won by hundreds of thousands of people voting for the Cameron Party and its candidates. Once Cameron leaves the scene, his successor will have to maintain the bloc. As prospective successors find themselves marginalised, the question then becomes whether the winning bloc will fragment once the glue has gone.
This can't be said often enough. A great many swing voters disregard "the ishoos" completely these days and just vote on which President they would prefer. God knows how many times at the last two elections I've heard things like "I'm usually Labour, but I just can't stand that Brown / can't see that Miliband standing next to Putin in photos / think that Cameron seems a nice dad and husband".
The PBTories who think that the public are going to overlook Osborne's personality flaws for the sake of (supposedly) the stronger economic management don't want to acknowledge that, of course.
Except even Osborne was preferred to Corbyn in the last Opinium poll
Someone should set up a PB2 thread, that says that its ALL Dave's fault, that everything that happens is Dave's fault and let the Kippers get on with it on another thread without polluting this one with untruths, bile and anti immigrant/immigration/xenophopbic/racist stuff..
Quite, I blame immigrants for not dredging rivers.
It's worth remembering that there are two significant difference between the SNP post independence referendum, and UKIP post Brexit referendum:
1. The SNP was the only voice of Scottish nationalism. There were no major Labour, Conservative or LibDem figures campaigning for Independence; and all those parties were seen as impacable opponents of Independence. At least a third of Tory MPs, and a significant minority of Labour MPs will campaign for Brexit.
2. Independence and Brexit do not - outside of PB - attract the same degree of passions. Most people in Scotland were either vehemently for, or vehemently against, Independence. Most people in the UK are vehemently indifferent to the EU. In - or out - very little will change in most people's lives in the event of us choosing to exit the EU.
For that reason, I think UKIP will not be beneficiaries of a close In vote to the same extent that the SNP was.
Maybe, but a majority of the main parties representatives will back Remain and if it is a narrow In UKIP will be the main vehicle will the main vehicle for disillusioned Outers. Most people in Scotland were actually not vehemently for or anti independence prior to indyref, other than a few diehard nationalists, but the full force of the referendum campaign set passions aflame, even if EUref sets passions only a little alight that still benefits UKIP. The SNP won almost all the Yes backers in 2015, even if UKIP win less than half the Out voters in 2020 they would still be on 20% or so and likely to win at least 10+ MPs
I think the biggest difference is that the SNP, love it or hate it, is a formidable political party. It has iron message-discipline and has ruthlessly eliminated policy positions that would give people a reason not to vote for it. UKIP, love it or hate it, is the opposite.
The SNP only saw their big jump after the referendum, in 2010 they won only 6 MPs, it was the referendum which boosted them not the iron discipline though that may have followed
The SNP won a landslide at Holyrood in 2011 and their Westminster polling overtook Labour in August 2011 and again in April - June 2014. The signs were there.
LOL HUFFY has no clue about Scottish politics
April-June 2014 was in the run-up to the referendum and the SNP first won most seats at Holyrood in 2007, not 2011
There were also reports of a tiny Conservative membership in Morley & Outwood constituency - perhaps David Herdson could verify whether that was true.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I failed to renew my membership of my local constituency, because I got so fed up with some of the right wing Tory MP's. I thought the Coalition was actually good for Britain, irrespective of the beard wearing/ sandal types that made up part of the coalition. And I am not going to renew either, some of the Kipper types in the Tory party make me feel uncomfortable so I am in limbo.
I'd vote Tory to keep Labour out pretty much 24/7/365 but I am not happy about it. I feel for poor old Dave and the types on here who are so critical of him.. They don't know how damned lucky they are.
Don't worry we'll all think gratefully of Dave as we pay back all those hundreds of billions extra he borrowed in order to buy his reelection.
Err you know that is untrue..so why post it
It is true.
So why do you lie about it ?
As I said its untrue.., you know its untrue, and however you try to spin it, and however much you loathe Dave , it isn't true now... nor ever.
Now stop being a crybaby, put down your CCHQ bleatsheets and you might learn something:
How many hundreds of billions more has this government borrowed / is borrowing than it said it would ? All very useful for funding triple lock pensions and the like.
Borrowing excessively to buy votes is something numerous government have done - Labour did it in 2010 and 2005, likewise the Conservatives did it in 1992.
The only differences are how many votes they try to buy, whose votes they try to buy and how successful they are at it.
Now Hilary Benn on BBC is blaming climate change. This is beyond ridicule, dredge the rivers, turn the silt into fertiliser, no floods.
Why? Increased levels of rainfall intensity has been well documented as one of the impacts of climate change - this has been happening for a while now...
Rainfall records go back about 130 years, as I understand it. If you're going to troll like this, at least find something that might have a slight chance of being fractionally convincing.
Comments
Discussions about patriotism will feature heavily.
*Must be magnanimous in victory*
http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2011/12/green-party-councillor-defects-to-conservatives.html
Can someone just post the fat arse tweet for me when the Reckless thread presents itself center stage to the adoring kipper public? Ta
Some selective recollection of events on here - that's the problem with many counter factual histories. The false memory of what happened prejudices the revised timeline. To answer the question "could the LDs have prevented the 2015 wipeout ?" Is to presuppose there was an alternative once the decision to go into Coalition in 2010 had been taken.
I've yet to read any convincing or coherent alternative course of action given the actual 2010 result.
On Cameron, he is, quite literally, here there and everywhere. He has a Home Secretary and an Environment Secretary but they are relegated to the sidelines. Cameron is de facto President - apart from Osborne, the rest of the Cabinet are irrelevant. It is an activist, interventionist Government he leads - a Government that needs to be seen to be there all the time because, in truth, that's what we want.
The problem for the Conservatives is that Cameron won the 2015 election, not the Conservative Party. I am convinced the majority was won by hundreds of thousands of people voting for the Cameron Party and its candidates. Once Cameron leaves the scene, his successor will have to maintain the bloc. As prospective successors find themselves marginalised, the question then becomes whether the winning bloc will fragment once the glue has gone.
Re your other post, I don't think it is as simple as just dredging rivers. If it was, that would have been done.
The correct comparison would be the highest rate of rainfall in the current areas affected.
So why do you lie about it ?
The correct comparison would appear to be with any set of numbers that let you win the arguement, rather than say the records for rainfall in the UK, or do you think climate change is a special phenomena to a small area of Yorkshire.
We dredged waterways for centuries, they fill up with silt, farmers used to spread it on their fields, it was a double whammy. Perhaps in your obsequious obedience to all things Dave/EU you might find a reason why large fertiliser companies might want to discourage that.
Why did flooding also happen in previous centuries then, if dredging was so successful?
The PBTories who think that the public are going to overlook Osborne's personality flaws for the sake of (supposedly) the stronger economic management don't want to acknowledge that, of course.
I am not saying at all this was due to global warming (in fact, my previous posts on this on an earlier thread will show how much I dislike global warming being ascribed to every major weather event), just that the rainfall levels are at the very high end of the distribution of rainfall levels. I'd like the rainfall levels in that particular area as it will show just how much of an outlier it is or is not. It isn't as if Cornwall and Yorkshire are the same place.
Look, this is straightforward, it rains, rivers swell, farmers used to dredge them now they don't.
Exactly what part of that are you either disputing or don't understand?
I do understand it, what I don't understand is if why dredging was so successful in the past, it still flooded?
You can't even discuss the consequences of climate change here without having insults thrown at you.
This is undoubtedly a weather event but the chances of such a weather event are increased in a warmer climate - FACT.
Anyway, want to be popular on a right-wing blog like this - mention stuff like "AGW trough" and the like. Those kind of comments are very popular with the loons that reside here.
As any Labour canvasser from the last two elections will tell you, the view that you can convince voters to overlook the personality of leaders is rather optimistic.
Read and learn the impacts of anthropogenic forcing...
Surely you understand that as a result of no dredging floods are more prevalent?
Take an empty 4 gallon bucket and pour 4 gallons of water in. Now half fill a 4 gallon bucket with mud and pour 4 gallons in.
Are we getting there?
New Thread New Thread
The only excuse - and a ludicrous one - that I've heard is that their ministers would have been entitled to a payoff, and the LDs thought this would look bad, in expectation of their re-appointment to Coalition II in May 2015...
Cameron on the news just mentioned "unprecedented levels of rain".
I was going on nothing more than that.
Yes, but flooding still happened while dredging was going on. Which suggests that other approaches may be needed.
This is Osborne's 2010 Budget Speech:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/7846849/Budget-2010-Full-text-of-George-Osbornes-statement.html
Take a look at what the predicted government borrowing was.
And compare it to how much the government actually borrowed:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=J5II&dataset=pusf&table-id=PSA1
How many hundreds of billions more has this government borrowed / is borrowing than it said it would ? All very useful for funding triple lock pensions and the like.
Borrowing excessively to buy votes is something numerous government have done - Labour did it in 2010 and 2005, likewise the Conservatives did it in 1992.
The only differences are how many votes they try to buy, whose votes they try to buy and how successful they are at it.