Floods!

The impression I get is that there is an awful lot of money in this country that is siphoned offshore without being taxed. The sort of billions that could easily pay for flood defence or prevention ( is it possible to prevent floods? It did not work for Noah or Canute- the Ouse is tidal) without taking money away from Bangladesh.

Well, I shouldn't think they are going to let Hinkley flood again. New houses are needed for all the workers building the new power station. They will have to put in flood prevention schemes, won't they, alongside any new building scheme, and build flood-proof homes.
As DH would say, in all probability along with a squadron of flying pigs.

Then all we'll need will be a tsunami! I hope I am joking.

Oh course some flooding can be prevented, though obviously not from the sea. Coastal flooding and erosion due to exceptionally high tides and rising sea levels is a completely different matter.

But yes, the effects of increased rainfall can be mitigated by 'joined up' strategies involving the Government (of whatever flavour), the Environment Agency, The Forestry Commision, farmers, landowners, experts ( eg the Dutch), local communities and Uncle Tom Cobley and all.

Oh, I'd better shut up, then hadn't I, and leave this discussion to a higher authority.

Best we leave The Almighty out of this, don't you think

When you say that a unified flood defence strategy is needed, that is exactly what the EA does.
Sea levels are also rising and communities in the UK will need defending.

The south coast has a vunerable nuclear installation which is in danger of flooding and this should be looked at as a matter of urgency imo.

The problem with nuclear power stations is that they all have to be on the coast because of the amount of water needed in cooling.

Dungeness is built on a shifting shingle spit next to the sea. They seem to have defencess between the installation and the sea, but none at the sides or back which seems a tad short sighted imo

Cross off an s in defences?

Is that the one where people seem to want to go to live in wooden houses?
Seems mad to me, wanting to live that close to danger.

Now if all that extra water could be diverted to cool the power stations and then sent out to sea . . . Pity nothing is that simple.

“HOW TO DEAL WITH THE FLOODS

“1. Lay a large bet that the Conservative Government will allow your house to flood again.

“2. Collect your winnings.

“3. Move house.”

Can't remember where I read it.

Only if you can sell it to some idiot who would buy it.

If the bet was big enough, you could keep the flooded house and rent it out.

Or do you think the odds would be too small to win much?

There was a tsunami up the river Severn once before, heaven forbid that there will ever be another one.

Lona your OP was very kind and well-meaning. I hope people are safe too.

Pity it had to descend into a Tory-bashing thread if anyone dares to mention that perhaps all governments have failed to face up to what may happen with changes in climate, but so often these well-meaning threads do.

Of course, it is not so long ago that we were being urged to plant Mediterranean plants because of the long, hot, dry summers we would be expecting. The experts don't seem to have a clue, and any government has to rely on 'experts' to advise them, Labour or Tory.

Sadly a lot of serious threads do tend to turn as this one has rosequartz .

Instead of a reasonable discussion/argument about what any government/politician/task force etc. could do to help make things better. Its easier just to say it's all the Tories fault.

Mind you my late grandad, a pitman and labour man through and through blamed "thatcher" (he couldn't even bring himself to say her full name) for everything from the weather, to the fact that food didn't taste as good as it had in the past.

Yes, rose quartz, I remember when we were told that droughts were inevitable and we should all be growing drought loving plants that didn't need watering. The next summer was one of the wettest ever.

How many Environment Agency staff have the Tories got rid of, roseq?

Gillybob, I take this very seriously.

This is from a Unison article. They take job cuts and cuts in finance very seriously. This was last year. There have been more cuts since this article.

"The Environment Agency has been cut and cut again by government, but the costs could be huge for people and our environment.

The recent floods were just one example of that, but there is so much more at risk.

Recent incidents of extreme weather – resulting in tidal surges and flooding – have brought aspects of the work carried out by the Environment Agency into sharp focus.

The government’s own scientific advisors have estimated that the impact of climate change will increase the amount of flooding that the UK experiences – four times as many homes will be at risk over the next 20 years.

The government has, by and large, protected capital investment in flood defences, but that’s rather less impressive than it sounds when you consider that it has also slashed revenue spending – the money for maintenance and repairs.
Did you know?

At a time when inflation has increased by 11%: in real terms, the Environment Agency grant has been cut by more than a quarter.
How much are we spending?

In 2009-10, total grants to the Environment Agency were £846.7m.

For 2010-11, these were cut to £799.6m, then to £749.5m in 2011-12.

Further cuts in 2012-13 brought the figure down to £723m.

There was another cut, of £14m, for this year. This is a reduction of 16% – at a time when inflation has increased by 11%: in real terms, the grant has been cut by more than a quarter."

This is very serious. Over half of the Environment agency's money goes on flood alleviation.

By the way, I criticised Simon Danczuk, who is a Labour MP, just in case you've forgotten. He appears to have.

Yes, I know djen, but then everyone criticises Simon Danczuk, or seems to
Perhaps he thinks we should all be pulling together for the good of the UK.
Don't know enough about him to comment really.

Successive governments make promises about flood defences (for example) but move or withdraw the funds at a later date. It doesn't matter who is responsible for serving the public. I agree that the current round of cuts (in all areas of public spending) are excessive and dangerous in the short, medium and long term. I share the views expressed by others, that it would be interesting to have a less polarised and better informed discussion without the tedious way in which discussions are cut short or derailed by a left v right polemic

Just thinking about the amount of money promised is meaningless. It always sounds a lot. Does anyone know how much it buys?
And anyway, it isn't extra, it's just the amount already in the budget.

While we are busy discussing it, it's the right wing government that is cutting jobs in important areas and reducing the amount of money spent on flood defences.
Cameron has not said anything important in York today; just saying that we should be looking at what we are planning to spend and whether we could be doing more is just PR spin.
This discussion is not being derailed by right/ left polemic. Osborne is not going to promise any more money, is he, because it would go against his philosophy.