3 Replies to “Saturday cartoon by Ralph Underhill”
Really, what ‘deal’ is that – what it does illustrate is what pointless pr and spin politicians indulge in. But yes, as a marketing man he will be delighted as will his two side-kicks with the diversion.
Even worse that it is us who finance it, what have all these jaunts to each member state cost us for these 1:1s? I reckon the readers of this blog could have spent it more wisely …. 28 countries, security and pr entourage &c. – a million?
Dump the spin, let’s see robust evidence of any claims from either side and then the nation will decide?
Actually, they say those 1:1’s came down to personal chemistry which is fairly cheap. That said, Dave’s resultant ‘battling for Britain’ package is a joke. In it, the only things of value are his unopened extra shirts.
All that time and effort wasted when the EU leaders were desperate to discuss the mass migration crisis on the southern borders of Europe and the war in Syria.
All those foreign politicians valiantly using the English language to appease us. And then all our moaning about £25 M child benefits going to the Poles. It’s embarrassing.
Shame on you Dave. And by the way, if it hadn’t been for Poland’s Battle of Britain fighter pilots we might well be speaking German now.
I note that Prefect Truss is following the Headmaster’s lead and backing Remain, since this will provide the opportunity to “focus on vital economic and social reform at home”.
No mention of the Nature Garden there but perhaps this means that Defra and the Treasury will be fully integrating Natural Capital into the Economy. After all even Defra’s Head of Science recognises that the environment makes up a quarter of the country’s net value. (One does wonder how much that net value has declined in real terms in relation to all those indicators. Perhaps Defra’s budget is index linked.) You can read his blog here
although ‘forensic’ usually refers to the application of science to the solving of crimes.
Might the crime in question be the loss of all that wildlife? Ian Boyd only refers to the counting of birds on farmland on the biodiversity front.
It’s certainly true that more and more information is being collected but that certainly doesn’t seem to have resulted in concerted positive action, the setting of targets (e.g. for the freshwater environment) or the targeting of resources to make a change.
Simply looking at how many fewer plovers, dung beetles, stoneworts etc. there are now compared to the 1970s (or the likely far greater number in the 1950s) is largely pointless. I’d be interested to know how well/badly we compare with other countries in the EU and beyond (and what the implications of Brexit would be in relation to that). Realistically though, it would be better to identify the minimum amount of ‘wildlifeness’ is needed. Not in relation to the very different views that I and George Osborne and Ginger Spice might have but in relation to what’s need to maintain the viability, integrity and resilience of the natural environment. It shouldn’t need to be pointed out that the value of the other 3/4 is somewhat questionable without a healthy, natural environment.
The very title of ‘Making Space for Nature’ was something of an apology. Perhaps the new report that is clearly needed to guide the vital ‘economic and social reform’ should be called “It’s the Environment, Stupid!”
On the crime front there is a definite need to retain the National Wildlife Crime Unit (which is due to close down within two months) https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-and-protect-the-national-wildlife-crime-unit. Shedding the bits of Defra that infringe on Natural England/NGO responsibilities “Oh, look an information note about Tawny Owls – just what I needed.” would help to pay for what is a vital service. More effective fine structures would help fund the NCWU and could also help to deter wildlife crime. Following outrage at Donkey Crushing, Porpoise Petting and the safari adventures of Minnesotan dentists, what will the Daily Mail say about future domestic outrages?
Perhaps the Government considers that the new forensic approach is the way to go with a ‘risk and market-based’ approach to Wildlife Crime. CSI Harrier may sound great but the problem is that there’s always at least one corpse. As for CSI Wildflower Meadows, where would one even begin? CSI Brock, perhaps?
The UK’s latest astronaut tweeted that the view of Earth from space prompted thoughts of what was really important. Sending the Cabinet into space probably isn’t feasible but perhaps theres’s a way of encouraging them to review their proposals ‘forensically’ or take the broader view that space travel apparently encourages?
At one stage, those in charge of administering the Isle of Wight proposed seceding from the UK. Somehow, I doubt they took a forensic approach. The same can probably be said for cutting through St Catherine’s Hlil near Winchester in order to save time (almost none) in driving to and from Southampton. Of course, with all our much greater accumulated wisdom now, I’m sure that we wouldn’t be eager to perpetrate similar ‘crimes’ at a larger scale. Or would we.
Taking comments and making decisions that use information out of context is of course a terrible crime and I’ll be happy to apologise as soon as those whose decisions actually have the potential for negative or positive outcomes do the same.
It’s great to have lots of data from ‘Open Defra’. Look at how much less we’re spending on food now as a proportion of the weekly budget! Gosh! Don’t know if there were statistics for food banks included though. I certainly spend more on food each year than on charity subs/donations. I wonder how much of that percolates through to farmers (blamed for the loss of all those plovers) in support of the stewardship of natural environment that makes up a quarter of our net worth. Probably less than it should, especially since a hard pressed Natural England managed to attract just over 50% of the planned for Countryside Stewardship applications last year (All the money that has been put into that over the years and there still isn’t a workable system). Of course, to save time(?) they did ignore local data.
Perhaps a more forensic approach is required?
It’s the outcomes, Stupid!
That’s my 54p worth.
Comments are closed.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.AcceptRejectRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Really, what ‘deal’ is that – what it does illustrate is what pointless pr and spin politicians indulge in. But yes, as a marketing man he will be delighted as will his two side-kicks with the diversion.
Even worse that it is us who finance it, what have all these jaunts to each member state cost us for these 1:1s? I reckon the readers of this blog could have spent it more wisely …. 28 countries, security and pr entourage &c. – a million?
Dump the spin, let’s see robust evidence of any claims from either side and then the nation will decide?
Actually, they say those 1:1’s came down to personal chemistry which is fairly cheap. That said, Dave’s resultant ‘battling for Britain’ package is a joke. In it, the only things of value are his unopened extra shirts.
All that time and effort wasted when the EU leaders were desperate to discuss the mass migration crisis on the southern borders of Europe and the war in Syria.
All those foreign politicians valiantly using the English language to appease us. And then all our moaning about £25 M child benefits going to the Poles. It’s embarrassing.
Shame on you Dave. And by the way, if it hadn’t been for Poland’s Battle of Britain fighter pilots we might well be speaking German now.
I note that Prefect Truss is following the Headmaster’s lead and backing Remain, since this will provide the opportunity to “focus on vital economic and social reform at home”.
No mention of the Nature Garden there but perhaps this means that Defra and the Treasury will be fully integrating Natural Capital into the Economy. After all even Defra’s Head of Science recognises that the environment makes up a quarter of the country’s net value. (One does wonder how much that net value has declined in real terms in relation to all those indicators. Perhaps Defra’s budget is index linked.) You can read his blog here
https://ianlboyd.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/a-forensic-approach-to-the-environment/
although ‘forensic’ usually refers to the application of science to the solving of crimes.
Might the crime in question be the loss of all that wildlife? Ian Boyd only refers to the counting of birds on farmland on the biodiversity front.
It’s certainly true that more and more information is being collected but that certainly doesn’t seem to have resulted in concerted positive action, the setting of targets (e.g. for the freshwater environment) or the targeting of resources to make a change.
Simply looking at how many fewer plovers, dung beetles, stoneworts etc. there are now compared to the 1970s (or the likely far greater number in the 1950s) is largely pointless. I’d be interested to know how well/badly we compare with other countries in the EU and beyond (and what the implications of Brexit would be in relation to that). Realistically though, it would be better to identify the minimum amount of ‘wildlifeness’ is needed. Not in relation to the very different views that I and George Osborne and Ginger Spice might have but in relation to what’s need to maintain the viability, integrity and resilience of the natural environment. It shouldn’t need to be pointed out that the value of the other 3/4 is somewhat questionable without a healthy, natural environment.
The very title of ‘Making Space for Nature’ was something of an apology. Perhaps the new report that is clearly needed to guide the vital ‘economic and social reform’ should be called “It’s the Environment, Stupid!”
On the crime front there is a definite need to retain the National Wildlife Crime Unit (which is due to close down within two months) https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-and-protect-the-national-wildlife-crime-unit. Shedding the bits of Defra that infringe on Natural England/NGO responsibilities “Oh, look an information note about Tawny Owls – just what I needed.” would help to pay for what is a vital service. More effective fine structures would help fund the NCWU and could also help to deter wildlife crime. Following outrage at Donkey Crushing, Porpoise Petting and the safari adventures of Minnesotan dentists, what will the Daily Mail say about future domestic outrages?
Perhaps the Government considers that the new forensic approach is the way to go with a ‘risk and market-based’ approach to Wildlife Crime. CSI Harrier may sound great but the problem is that there’s always at least one corpse. As for CSI Wildflower Meadows, where would one even begin? CSI Brock, perhaps?
The UK’s latest astronaut tweeted that the view of Earth from space prompted thoughts of what was really important. Sending the Cabinet into space probably isn’t feasible but perhaps theres’s a way of encouraging them to review their proposals ‘forensically’ or take the broader view that space travel apparently encourages?
At one stage, those in charge of administering the Isle of Wight proposed seceding from the UK. Somehow, I doubt they took a forensic approach. The same can probably be said for cutting through St Catherine’s Hlil near Winchester in order to save time (almost none) in driving to and from Southampton. Of course, with all our much greater accumulated wisdom now, I’m sure that we wouldn’t be eager to perpetrate similar ‘crimes’ at a larger scale. Or would we.
Taking comments and making decisions that use information out of context is of course a terrible crime and I’ll be happy to apologise as soon as those whose decisions actually have the potential for negative or positive outcomes do the same.
It’s great to have lots of data from ‘Open Defra’. Look at how much less we’re spending on food now as a proportion of the weekly budget! Gosh! Don’t know if there were statistics for food banks included though. I certainly spend more on food each year than on charity subs/donations. I wonder how much of that percolates through to farmers (blamed for the loss of all those plovers) in support of the stewardship of natural environment that makes up a quarter of our net worth. Probably less than it should, especially since a hard pressed Natural England managed to attract just over 50% of the planned for Countryside Stewardship applications last year (All the money that has been put into that over the years and there still isn’t a workable system). Of course, to save time(?) they did ignore local data.
Perhaps a more forensic approach is required?
It’s the outcomes, Stupid!
That’s my 54p worth.