Cameron government rejected flood risk warnings from climate advisers

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:03 pm

Committee on Climate Change had warned in October that the government must take action to protect homes from risk of flooding

The UK government was warned by its official climate change advisers in October that it needed to take action on the increasing number of homes at high risk of flooding but rejected the advice.

The decision not to develop a strategy to address increase flooding risk came just a few weeks before Storm Desmond brought about severe flooding in Cumbria, Lancashire and other parts of the north west causing an estimated £500m of damage.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) also told the Guardian that, despite David Cameron’s promise to do so, the government had failed to learn lessons from the widespread flooding in the winter of 2013-14. Those floods led to emergency financial bailouts to flood defence funds which had previously been cut under the coalition government.
The revelation came as George Osborne announced a £50m repair and renew scheme for Cumbria and Lancashire in the wake of the floods, promising that businesses and homeowners will quickly receive the help that they need.

Osborne said the scheme would be administered by local authorities, acknowledging that a centrally administered fund following the floods in 2014 had been slow to get funds to families in need.

The region had to deal with more heavy rain on Wednesday, causing more disruption, although flooding on the scale of last weekend is not expected. Cumbria police said that more than a thousand homes are still without power.

In June, the CCC’s statutory report on the UK’s progress on climate change highlighted dealing with floods from extreme weather as the government’s most serious failing in preparing for the impacts of global warming. It stated: “Plans and policies, or progress in addressing vulnerabilities, are lacking”.

The CCC said “residual” flood risk – the flooding resulting from extreme weather events that cannot be prevented by normal flood defences – was increasing. On Monday, environment secretary Liz Truss said the Storm Desmond floods had resulted from “extreme weather conditions” and “unprecedented amount of rainfall.”

The CCC recommended that the government should “develop a strategy to address the increasing number of homes in areas of high flood risk”. But in October the government replied: “We believe that a strategy to address future residual risk would not be appropriate at this time.”

“The CCC made a very clear recommendation in its statutory advice, but the government rejected it,” said Daniel Johns, the CCC’s head of adaptation.

“The government approach is to build and protect, but this only provides a certain level of protection,” Johns told the Guardian. “Defences can’t be considered to remove the risk of flooding entirely.”

He said that even in the best case scenario, with full flood defence funding, no building on flood plains and moderate climate change, the number of people in the high risk category for flooding will still increase by 45,000 by 2050 as global warming causes more extreme weather.

“But the government has no strategy to address this residual risk,” Johns said. Such a strategy would focus on reducing the impact of extreme floods by, for example, increasing protection on properties themselves and managing river catchments so rain runs off hills more slowly.

Johns also said the government had failed to learn lessons from the 2013-14 floods. “After 2013-14, the wettest year in instrumental records, it is notable that there was no systematic review of lessons learned in the same way as there was after 2007”, when severe flooding lead to the extensive Pitt Review.

In February 2014, prime minister Cameron visited the submerged Somerset Levels and said: “There are always lessons to be learned and I will make sure they are learned.”

“David Cameron promised a full review of the future capability of UK’s flood defences back in 2014, but has never delivered on this,” said Guy Shrubsole, at Friends of the Earth.

“With the government’s inadequate climate change preparations leaving thousands more homes at high flood risk by 2050, ministers clearly need to do far more,” Shrubsole said. “The prime minister must get tough on flooding and tough on the causes of flooding – and that means tackling carbon emissions as well as investing more in flood defences.”
A government spokeswoman said: “This government has been clear on its commitment to climate change action and we are pushing for an ambitious global deal in Paris as well as driving innovation to build a low-carbon economy. We are also investing £2.3bn over the next six years to better protect 300,000 homes. The Environment Agency’s figures take account of climate change and show that this investment will reduce flood risk.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/09/cameron-government-rejected-flood-risk-warnings-from-climate-advisers

This article was after the first floods at the beginning of December, now we are on the 3rd floods and they are at unprecedented levels all over the country, the situation for many is truly awful. Cameron pontificates on tv that more troops will be sent. Too little, too bloody late and questions are going to asked of why he ignored what he was told and did nothing. The fire service are trying to help, but have been cut back, as have other emergency services. Truly he is a waste of space and a liability.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:14 pm

Sorry but where there is natural disasters and only in October warned they must take action to only less than 2 months laters floods came, to then score political points off is so pathetic. No goverment within that timeframe could have done much let alone predicted the levels of rainb.
I can get people being angry at the NHS and pay, but scoring off events like these is utterlt beyond contempt, as no political party in power has prevented any of the many floods this nation has suffered.

There is always a potential risk for floods and what has to be weighed up is the cost to even try to defend such places from floods if at all is goiung to be possible. It may even mean such towns reolcating, because it would be enourmous the cost to resolve this.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:39 pm

The government rejected their own committee's advice on flood preparedness
The Committee for Climate Change encouraged the Tory government to introduce a strategy to deal with flooding earlier this year, but were told it was "not appropriate at this time".

Reports have emerged that the Government’s own climate change advisers warned comprehensive action was required to protect homes from flooding, but ministers rejected their advice.
The Committee on Climate Change published a report in June naming the government’s failure to act against the danger posed by extreme flooding as their worst failing. The report advised that the government “develop a strategy to address the increasing number of homes in areas of high flood risk”.
The Independent reports that a decision was made in October not to invest in a strategy to combat the increased risk, starting it would “not be appropriate at this time” - just weeks before flooding in Cumbria.
Daniel Johns, the CCC’s head of adaptation, told the Guardian that “the CCC made a very clear recommendation in its statutory advice, but the government rejected it”.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/12/government-rejected-their-own-committees-advice-flood-preparedness

No ifs, no buts, they fucked up big style.

They would not have been able to have done much towards what has been happening, but they would have started, and people would know that a plan was in place.

Useless twats.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:40 pm

So sassy just wants to use the forum to spam and promote her views and not debate.

Quelle surprise

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:42 pm

What a hypocrite you are.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:43 pm

Again a non reply.

Do you even begin to even comprehend how much money would be needed to be spent for flood defenses just in this one area? Let alone other areas that are under risk?
Can you for a minute stop being the hateful twat that you are and for once try to engage your brain

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:46 pm

You engage your brain (not that I think you have one). Latest figures say for every £1 NOT spent on flood defences they will have to pay £8 to clear up and try and right the damage.

by Major Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:47 pm

Do you not understand that this misgovernment does not give a flying frog about us.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:49 pm

NO governemn t has been able to prevent any floods, but some use this to political score, namely people who have utter hate for many things.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:55 pm

Some times you talk such utter rubbish. The Somerset levels now don't flood because of the actions that have been taken since the disasterous flooding 2014/14, and action has been taken along the Thames in Berkshire etc, because of course that's where all his rich Conservative pals live.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/reading-flood-action-plan-eight-8952847

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:57 pm

Stormee wrote:Do you not understand that this misgovernment does not give a flying frog about us.

I very rarely agree with you, but I do on that!

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:58 pm

Again what costs and what difference is there between the areas>
For goodness sake its like trying to tewach a child how to tie up their laces.
By posting up this does in any compare to what is needed to be done with the recent floods.
Have you evern researched into this or just relied on believeing what you read>

So unless you actually comprehend any of this, then you are proving again whaft an idiot you are

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:59 pm

You sound a total twat. Do you really think the country can get by with this going on and ignore it. What a bloody numpty.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:01 pm

It also shows you did not even read your own link, because there is still a risk of flooding there also,m so your link provided nothing

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:02 pm

sassy wrote:You sound a total twat. Do you really think the country can get by with this going on and ignore it. What a bloody numpty.

You have not the first clue about anything on this.
I asked if you comprehended the costs of what would need to be done or needed to be done to have prevented this recent flood.
You did not have a scooby doo and posted an irrelevent link, which further proves again how little you know

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:04 pm

I know there is still a risk of flooding, however, within a very short space of time they started doing something, and since then have done more. Now I'll leave you too it. When someone has no idea of the scale of the problem and the BIGGER scale of the problem is nothing is done, and the fact that this is going to happen more and more, they bore me rigid and are a total waste of time.

by Major Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:04 pm

Around here the rural outlying road areas have many many drains with vegetation growing out of them, not being cleared out.
Mind you, the gypos keep nicking the drain covers.

Rivers could be dredged and widened in strategic places.

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 27, 2015 9:28 pm

Aren't local councils/water companies responsible for drains..?

Anyway...

Cameron government rejected flood risk warnings from climate advisers Image14

Cameron government rejected flood risk warnings from climate advisers Image14

by Irn Bru Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:02 pm

Cameron also rejected applying for funds from the EU budget set up to deal with this sort of probem saying that money wasn't a problem. He said that on the back of cutting the funding for flood defences.
The rainfall has been extreme but the extra funding available from the EU budget that we pay into and maintaing the fumding for flood defences could at least have helped limit the damage done to all the homes and business in the North of England and Scotland.

by Irn Bru Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:19 pm

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:26 pm

If you stop a river flooding an area in one place, higher up, where it naturally would do, then you just increase the flow further down and increase the flood chances elsewhere...

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:29 pm

And again I see the two lefties fail to grasp that no floods have ever been prevented. Why?
Is what they really need to ask themselves and why such people who look to political score off such natural diasters, show up why their intentions are from a position of hate.

Nothing worse that people who seem to think they can run the country and predict that this would happen to set aside money for that area for floods, when it is ongoing already.

This is why the left can be some of the most vindictive, they fail to see whilst under Labour floods still happned.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:30 pm

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:31 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:If you stop a river flooding an area in one place, higher up, where it naturally would do, then you just increase the flow further down and increase the flood chances elsewhere...

Exactly and once the land cannot soak up anymore water, there is going to be an increased chance of floods anyway.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:31 pm

In October Gov cuts forced Yorkshire Flood committee to consider "formally discontinuing maintenance"

Cameron government rejected flood risk warnings from climate advisers CXQfuTSWwAAmOEh

Cameron government rejected flood risk warnings from climate advisers CXQfuTSWwAAmOEh

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:36 pm

Again how can you predict if and when a flood will happen?
You have to then valuate if that money is better needed elsewhere.
This is why if Labour had been in the same posiution here, the fllod would have happened. They would have looked at the risks and placed more emphasis loacally,. When you plan budgets, do these two lefties who use natural disasters to score points, not place such funding of a less significance to what is in the more pressing need? Are they saying they would cut monet elsewhere?
Flood Defences are always going to take a back foot to other needs, and why this would have still happened if Labour were in power.
Hence those trying to political score off this, show how utterly poor they are.

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:40 pm

Maybe it is just another example of labour idiots knee jerk huge spending to try to solve a problem in one place but then just resulting in creating an even bigger problem further along down the line...

I repeat... you can't stop a river flooding in one place without making it flood somewhere else!!!

And if you look at my earlier post of graph showing yearly rainfall over last 300 years... you will see that it is not the rain that has changed...

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:41 pm

The UK government was warned by its official climate change advisers in October that it needed to take action on the increasing number of homes at high risk of flooding but rejected the advice.

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:46 pm

Thing is didge...you are wrong...in many places flooding CAN be prevented OR AT LEAST PREVENTED FROM DOING HARM TO PEOPLE AND PROPERTY.

By not allowing building on flood plains , by not restricting rivers in built up areas..by providing adequate flood relief channels(and maintaining them) and by ensuring dykes ditches runaways etc are kept clean and open and by the provision of adequate and effective flood barriers

the effects of flooding can be MITIGATED when it DOES occur by similar measures.

Any one with an ounce of sense can see that this is only going to get worse as climate change increases the frequency and severity of winter storms...

also read this http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/flooding-cause-government-would-keep-10580092

which has had a huge negative effect on our rivers ability to drain water away from those areas prone to floods

another reason to get out the E.U.

Dont expect much in the way of help from camergoon

anywhere north of watford gap isnt on his map.....

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:47 pm

Agreed Tommy, hence trying to say they have been warned two months previous to protect homes from flooding, then which do they pick out as of in most need first? If you cannot actually predict how, exactly what areas are going to be effected. If we are being britally honet and like I stated early does anyone actually comprehend how much money to build so many defences needed and even worse fail to undertsand these will be only a temo measure for a set number of years
Its the absurd left showing the worst hypocrisy

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe it is just another example of labour idiots knee jerk huge spending to try to solve a problem in one place but then just resulting in creating an even bigger problem further along down the line...

I repeat... you can't stop a river flooding in one place without making it flood somewhere else!!!

erm ...yes you can...or at least you can direct the flooding to an agreed area ...thats what "flood plains" are for

And if you look at my earlier post of graph showing yearly rainfall over last 300 years... you will see that it is not the rain that has changed...

hmmm....

I can only say....dumb......

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:49 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Thing is didge...you are wrong...in many places flooding CAN be prevented OR AT LEAST PREVENTED FROM DOING HARM TO PEOPLE AND PROPERTY.

By not allowing building on flood plains , by not restricting rivers in built up areas..by providing adequate flood relief channels(and maintaining them) and by ensuring dykes ditches runaways etc are kept clean and open and by the provision of adequate and effective flood barriers

the effects of flooding can be MITIGATED when it DOES occur by similar measures.

Any one with an ounce of sense can see that this is only going to get worse as climate change increases the frequency and severity of winter storms...

also read this http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/flooding-cause-government-would-keep-10580092

which has had a huge negative effect on our rivers ability to drain water away from those areas prone to floods

another reason to get out the E.U.

Dont expect much in the way of help from camergoon

anywhere north of watford gap isnt on his map.....

Agree with most of that. Although there is a very large grant available from the EU for flood defences that Cameron has turned down, after all, it's not him being flooded is it!

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:52 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Thing is didge...you are wrong...in many places flooding CAN be prevented OR AT LEAST PREVENTED FROM DOING HARM TO PEOPLE AND PROPERTY.

By not allowing building on flood plains , by not restricting rivers in built up areas..by providing adequate flood relief channels(and maintaining them) and by ensuring dykes ditches runaways etc are kept clean and open and by the provision of adequate and effective flood barriers

the effects of flooding can be MITIGATED when it DOES occur by similar measures.

Any one with an ounce of sense can see that this is only going to get worse as climate change increases the frequency and severity of winter storms...

also read this http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/flooding-cause-government-would-keep-10580092

which has had a huge negative effect on our rivers ability to drain water away from those areas prone to floods

another reason to get out the E.U.

Dont expect much in the way of help from camergoon

anywhere north of watford gap isnt on his map.....

I never said flodding could not be prevented, first poor accusation and is going off no point I made
Again flooding can be prevented, but so many areas are at risk, at the cost to even then only at best have temp measures is staggering.
Not only that this daft leftist article is going off a warning to nothing area specific, but of increasingly more risks of floods. So do we then say, okay lets take this as precedent and lace other sectors at risk, or do we year and year try to build up these defences?
Where you build defences is always going to have a knock on effect elsewhere as the water has to go somewhere the point many miss here.
My issue is with the left as per usual being the nasty little hateful vipers that they are and even worse knowing full well the same would have happened under Labour, that they seek to use this to p;olitical score,
That is how pathetic they have become

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:52 pm

didge you are a typical londoner....

and london has the bare faced cheek to expect the regions...thats me and such like...to pay a levy on our water rates ...to stop london drowning in its own shit....

(becasue its sinking at 3cm per year, the outfall of all its sewers is now BELOW the water level and has to be pumped UP to the river...the sewers and ancient and falling to bits and need urgently replacing)

fook london....

by Irn Bru Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:53 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Again how can you predict if and when a flood will happen?
You have to then valuate if that money is better needed elsewhere.
This is why if Labour had been in the same posiution here, the fllod would have happened. They would have looked at the risks and placed more emphasis loacally,. When you plan budgets, do these two lefties who use natural disasters to score points, not place such funding of a less significance to what is in the more pressing need? Are they saying they would cut monet elsewhere?
Flood Defences are always going to take a back foot to other needs, and why this would have still happened if Labour were in power.
Hence those trying to political score off this, show how utterly poor they are.

No-one is trying to score points here other than you. It's right to hold the government to account over it's non-action and reducing the funding available to protect homes and businesses.

We can't stop floods but we can do something to limit the effects of them like they did in Cockermouth which I believe are holding up in the area where this has ben done.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/11/cockermouth-new-flood-barriers

Rivers need to be dredged to increase the capacity of water that can flow through the areas that are under threat and drains need to flushed out and cleaned instead of getting bunged uo with rubbish.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:57 pm

Lord Foul wrote:didge you are a typical londoner....

and london has the bare faced cheek to expect the regions...thats me and such like...to pay a levy on our water rates ...to stop london drowning in its own shit....

(becasue its sinking at 3cm per year, the outfall of all its sewers is now BELOW the water level and has to be pumped UP to the river...the sewers and ancient and falling to bits and need urgently replacing)

fook london....

I do not live in London anymore and have not for years, so no idea where that came from or of even what relevance

And on a seperate note, whe you get a chance, go watch "The Revenant".
Thunk you will love it

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:57 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:Thing is didge...you are wrong...in many places flooding CAN be prevented OR AT LEAST PREVENTED FROM DOING HARM TO PEOPLE AND PROPERTY.

By not allowing building on flood plains , by not restricting rivers in built up areas..by providing adequate flood relief channels(and maintaining them) and by ensuring dykes ditches runaways etc are kept clean and open and by the provision of adequate and effective flood barriers

the effects of flooding can be MITIGATED when it DOES occur by similar measures.

Any one with an ounce of sense can see that this is only going to get worse as climate change increases the frequency and severity of winter storms...

also read this http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/flooding-cause-government-would-keep-10580092

which has had a huge negative effect on our rivers ability to drain water away from those areas prone to floods

another reason to get out the E.U.

Dont expect much in the way of help from camergoon

anywhere north of watford gap isnt on his map.....

I never said flodding could not be prevented, first poor accusation and is going off no point I made
Again flooding can be prevented, but so many areas are at risk, at the cost to even then only at best have temp measures is staggering.

again you are wrong...the cost of dredging widening (where possible) deepening (again where possible) and the building of concrete walls to highten banks in very vulnerable areas is not so "staggering"
the cost of NOT building on flood plains is minimal (what part of flood plains are MEANT to flood cant folks grasp?)

Not only that this daft leftist article is going off a warning to nothing area specific, but of increasingly more risks of floods. So do we then say, okay lets take this as precedent and lace other sectors at risk, or do we year and year try to build up these defences?
Where you build defences is always going to have a knock on effect elsewhere as the water has to go somewhere the point many miss here.
My issue is with the left as per usual being the nasty little hateful vipers that they are and even worse knowing full well the same would have happened under Labour, that they seek to use this to p;olitical score,
That is how pathetic they have become

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:58 pm

If you prevent flooding in one area that is naturally prone to or engineered to flood... then you just push the problem further down stream!

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:59 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:Again how can you predict if and when a flood will happen?
You have to then valuate if that money is better needed elsewhere.
This is why if Labour had been in the same posiution here, the fllod would have happened. They would have looked at the risks and placed more emphasis loacally,. When you plan budgets, do these two lefties who use natural disasters to score points, not place such funding of a less significance to what is in the more pressing need? Are they saying they would cut monet elsewhere?
Flood Defences are always going to take a back foot to other needs, and why this would have still happened if Labour were in power.
Hence those trying to political score off this, show how utterly poor they are.

No-one is trying to score points here other than you. It's right to hold the government to account over it's non-action and reducing the funding available to protect homes and businesses.

We can't stop floods but we can do something to limit the effects of them like they did in Cockermouth which I believe are holding up in the area where this has ben done.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/11/cockermouth-new-flood-barriers

Rivers need to be dredged to increase the capacity of water that can flow through the areas that are under threat and drains need to flushed out and cleaned instead of getting bunged uo with rubbish.

Again which shows you have not got the first clue what you are tslking about.
Many areas are at rick from floods and goong off after an event, whih is point scoring not understanding again cost and what Labour would do, shows how fundementally you do not know what you are talking about.
Look I know you and sassy cannot reason for yourself and need endless links, but try actually researching the topic and see how difficult a taslk this is

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:02 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

I never said flodding could not be prevented, first poor accusation and is going off no point I made
Again flooding can be prevented, but so many areas are at risk, at the cost to even then only at best have temp measures is staggering.

again you are wrong...the cost of dredging widening (where possible) deepening (again where possible) and the building of concrete walls to highten banks in very vulnerable areas is not so "staggering"
the cost of NOT building on flood plains is minimal (what part of flood plains are MEANT to flood cant folks grasp?)

Not only that this daft leftist article is going off a warning to nothing area specific, but of increasingly more risks of floods. So do we then say, okay lets take this as precedent and lace other sectors at risk, or do we year and year try to build up these defences?
Where you build defences is always going to have a knock on effect elsewhere as the water has to go somewhere the point many miss here.
My issue is with the left as per usual being the nasty little hateful vipers that they are and even worse knowing full well the same would have happened under Labour, that they seek to use this to p;olitical score,
That is how pathetic they have become

I am not wrong at all Victor and some land no matter how many prevent measures you put in place will still flood as the ground can only soak up so much water .I really think people do not even begin to comprehend how so many areas are at risk.

by Irn Bru Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:03 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:Again how can you predict if and when a flood will happen?
You have to then valuate if that money is better needed elsewhere.
This is why if Labour had been in the same posiution here, the fllod would have happened. They would have looked at the risks and placed more emphasis loacally,. When you plan budgets, do these two lefties who use natural disasters to score points, not place such funding of a less significance to what is in the more pressing need? Are they saying they would cut monet elsewhere?
Flood Defences are always going to take a back foot to other needs, and why this would have still happened if Labour were in power.
Hence those trying to political score off this, show how utterly poor they are.

No-one is trying to score points here other than you. It's right to hold the government to account over it's non-action and reducing the funding available to protect homes and businesses.

We can't stop floods but we can do something to limit the effects of them like they did in Cockermouth which I believe are holding up in the area where this has ben done.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/11/cockermouth-new-flood-barriers

Rivers need to be dredged to increase the capacity of water that can flow through the areas that are under threat and drains need to flushed out and cleaned instead of getting bunged uo with rubbish.

Again which shows you have not got the first clue what you are tslking about.
Many areas are at rick from floods and goong off after an event, whih is point scoring not understanding again cost and what Labour would do, shows how fundementally you do not know what you are talking about.
Look I know you and sassy cannot reason for yourself and need endless links, but try actually researching the topic and see how difficult a taslk this is

You don't know what you are talking about and it shows. As far as cost is concerned the overall cost for all that has happened in the NE will dwarf what has been saved by not doing more to limit the effects.

Stop trying to score points on this because that's what you are doing.

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:07 pm

Well all I can say is...pity this lot DIDNT land on london and the home counties

I'm certain that a cure would be found and the money available almost instantly...

perhaps some of the money used to maintain the thames barrier could be diverted to help the north....??

perhaps some of those banks etc that paid NO tax could be pursuaded to "generously assist"...on pain of being immediately nationalised without compensation if they fail to oblige??

perhaps the billions being squandered on syria etc could be diverted to help?

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:10 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

No-one is trying to score points here other than you. It's right to hold the government to account over it's non-action and reducing the funding available to protect homes and businesses.

We can't stop floods but we can do something to limit the effects of them like they did in Cockermouth which I believe are holding up in the area where this has ben done.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/11/cockermouth-new-flood-barriers

Rivers need to be dredged to increase the capacity of water that can flow through the areas that are under threat and drains need to flushed out and cleaned instead of getting bunged uo with rubbish.

Again which shows you have not got the first clue what you are tslking about.
Many areas are at rick from floods and goong off after an event, whih is point scoring not understanding again cost and what Labour would do, shows how fundementally you do not know what you are talking about.
Look I know you and sassy cannot reason for yourself and need endless links, but try actually researching the topic and see how difficult a taslk this is

Compared to how much money was lost by not putting in place the flood prevention measures that should have been taken for Somerset, the actual cost of the measures that they had to take to stop the flooding was no where near as much.

Dredging the Parret and Tone, repairing roads that had sunk to below field level, making permanent flood defences and pumping stations that were temporary, helping the Somerset Rivers Authority set up an intermanagement board, repairing and cleaning drains and making sure new drains met the highest standards were some of the things done. If they had been done before the area flooded, as local people had requested, a huge cleaning up bill would have been avoided.

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:11 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Well all I can say is...pity this lot DIDNT land on london and the home counties

I'm certain that a cure would be found and the money available almost instantly...

perhaps some of the money used to maintain the thames barrier could be diverted to help the north....??

perhaps some of those banks etc that paid NO tax could be pursuaded to "generously assist"...on pain of being immediately nationalised without compensation if they fail to oblige??

perhaps the billions being squandered on syria etc could be diverted to help?

Spot on.

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:12 pm

It would be interesting to see what flood defences have been recently installed/improved further up the rivers of places that have now suffered from flooding...?

Also... if any of these areas have ever flooded before... then can hardly be claimed to be something new...

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:14 pm

sassy wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Again which shows you have not got the first clue what you are tslking about.
Many areas are at rick from floods and goong off after an event, whih is point scoring not understanding again cost and what Labour would do, shows how fundementally you do not know what you are talking about.
Look I know you and sassy cannot reason for yourself and need endless links, but try actually researching the topic and see how difficult a taslk this is

Compared to how much money was lost by not putting in place the flood prevention measures that should have been taken for Somerset, the actual cost of the measures that they had to take to stop the flooding was no where near as much.

Dredging the Parret and Tone, repairing roads that had sunk to below field level, making permanent flood defences and pumping stations that were temporary, helping the Somerset Rivers Authority set up an intermanagement board, repairing and cleaning drains and making sure new drains met the highest standards were some of the things done. If they had been done before the area flooded, as local people had requested, a huge cleaning up bill would have been avoided.

What on eartha dn of what revelance are you barking on about bnow you mad woman
Again so many areas need defenses.
Where is moeny going to best spend.
Labour have already stated they woulod have kept in line with the tory cuts.
Again we are talking about risks to floods and if that takes precedent.
Hence again to political score off such events is thge most slimiest double faced weael reasoning a poster can use

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:16 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

I am not wrong at all Victor and some land no matter how many prevent measures you put in place will still flood as the ground can only soak up so much water .I really think people do not even begin to comprehend how so many areas are at risk.

I KNOW you havnt the foggiest....

yes , some places will flood....as the ground becomes saturated....THEN you need to manage the water...If rivers streams dykes and ditches are in good heart and properly maintained this can to a large extent be achieved

if the rivers in cumbria had been a foot or two deeper and a couple of foot wider they likely would have coped...yes the water then goes downstream...so those ares need to be cleared...untill you get to a FLOOD PLAIN

where the water can be left to "do its thing."

then the river below the flood plain needs to be maintained...all the way to the sea,,,

I have seen the Severn flood plains in use...that is ...flooded.....all part of the natural cycle.

and again wrong didge the areas which CAN flood are well known......where any particular flood will occur is decided by the weather..... but sooner or later all "flood prone" areas will cop it

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:16 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Again which shows you have not got the first clue what you are tslking about.
Many areas are at rick from floods and goong off after an event, whih is point scoring not understanding again cost and what Labour would do, shows how fundementally you do not know what you are talking about.
Look I know you and sassy cannot reason for yourself and need endless links, but try actually researching the topic and see how difficult a taslk this is

You don't know what you are talking about and it shows. As far as cost is concerned the overall cost for all that has happened in the NE will dwarf what has been saved by not doing more to limit the effects.

Stop trying to score points on this because that's what you are doing.

Wow what a reply, telling me I am wrong by utterly failing to show in anyway that I am.
Its you two poltically scoring off natural disasters.

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:18 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It would be interesting to see what flood defences have been recently installed/improved further up the rivers of places that have now suffered from flooding...?

Also... if any of these areas have ever flooded before... then can hardly be claimed to be something new...

cumbria was flooded 2 years back...and despite "promises" fook all done so???

by Guest Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:19 pm

I think what Didge is saying is he doesn't give a fuck about these people and is perfectly prepared to (I was going to say hang them out to dry but not applicable) hang them out to drown.

by Sponsored content