Floods!

whitewave, there was no indication of where the quote came from

Thank you for the link to the actual article, dj.

Devastation!!!!

ana You can be assured that the article is absolutely factually correct, there is no bias.

We cannot think of the changing weather pattern in political terms. We have to face up to the challenge and understand that whilst most of the time the weather is benign we will be getting more and more of these episodes. This together with the fact that the sea levels are rising creates serious and life destroying issues for those involved.

The trouble is that those not directly affected tend to have short term memory and accept without question when cuts are made to our flood maintenance budget and capital budget in order to balance the books.

No one however who has experienced the utter devistation would ever forget and will live in fear every time torrential rain is forecast and at times of high spring tides.

theconversation.com/why-do-flood-defences-fail-52017

The gulf stream is too far south
Or is it the jet stream that is too far south?

whitewave, I was not questioning whether dj is right or wrong - those were not her words/opinions but a passage quoted from 'an article'.

As most of dj's links are from left-wing publications I felt it might be biased and would like to know where it came from.

I live in th north west where many areas are flooded. When we heard Cameron was visiting 'the north' today, we predicted he'd go to York rather than Rochdale, Radcliffe or Hebden Bridge because he'd be more likely to face hostility there. That's my left v right contribution.

ana I know that you question a lot of what dj says, but are you saying that she is wrong or incorrect in what she has said above? I mean if you are sure she is wrong it would be good and informative for other grans to know where the post is incorrect.

I expect we all noticed that there was no coverage of Cameron chatting to deferent flooded-out families or business owners on the news tonight. Steered him towards the army and other professional groups.
Unfortunately more rainfall on its way on Wednesday - another 24 hours worth starting tomorrow night (here in N Wales).
The weather is exceptional. It was 15deg here this evening. The gulf stream is too far south and the procession of storms that usually passes to the north of the UK is process-ing over us. This phenomenon is thought to be linked to the warming of the Arctic. Same weather pattern we had in the early months of 2013.

What article? Please disclose your sources.

"Coalition ministers made it more difficult for flood defence schemes to get funding by introducing tougher targets demanding 60% more "benefits" for every pound spent on protection, it has emerged.

Under the new rules brought in three years ago, the Department for Environment Food And Rural Affairs (Defra) wanted to see an average of £8 of damage avoided for every £1 they would spend on schemes.

Previously, projects were simply expected to deliver more than £1 of damage avoided for every £1 spent, with an average across all schemes of £5 of damage avoided for every £1 spent.

The more stringent targets were introduced after the coalition started to slash the Environment Agency's funding for flood defences, with central government expenditure cut from around £670m when the government came to power in 2010 to about £576m for the next three years.

Maria Eagle, Labour's shadow environment secretary, said it was "appalling that ministers apparently made it harder for vital schemes to secure approval" while the flood protection budget was cut by nearly £100m a year."

This is from an article a year ago.

What does Corbyn say about it? What's he promising the Labour Party would do if in power? Is he still on holiday?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

“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.