Tories caught fiddling the figures again - Flood defences this time

Sassy wrote:Perhaps Chris Smith had to make some difficult decisions?   Maybe?

Seamen Staines wrote:Let me see now for decades hey dredged the rivers when weather was normal. Now they don't. The same dept spent £2.5 million on PR but hadn't enough to find £100k.

You really are a stalwart for the Labour party but its wearing  bit thin your defence.

5/10 Must try harder

Try to introduce a little reality and a little originality into your argument next time.. Nice photograph self portrait?

Irn Bru wrote:

Seamen Staines wrote:Let me see now for decades hey dredged the rivers when weather was normal. Now they don't. The same dept spent £2.5 million on PR but hadn't enough to find £100k.

You really are a stalwart for the Labour party but its wearing  bit thin your defence.

5/10 Must try harder

Try to introduce a little reality and a little originality into your argument next time.. Nice photograph self portrait?

The Tories fiddled the figures on flood defence spending and they cut the budget as well - FACT.

Just live with it.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Seamen Staines wrote:Let me see now for decades hey dredged the rivers when weather was normal. Now they don't. The same dept spent £2.5 million on PR but hadn't enough to find £100k.

You really are a stalwart for the Labour party but its wearing  bit thin your defence.

5/10 Must try harder

Try to introduce a little reality and a little originality into your argument next time.. Nice photograph self portrait?

The Tories fiddled the figures on flood defence spending and they cut the budget as well - FACT.

Just live with it.

Dear me more of the blame game, whilst ignoring what little Labour did whilst in power, I think this highlights this point very well:




Ed Miliband was met with a fierce response by a local MP, who accused him of visiting the flood-hit town of Purley, Berkshire, for a "photo opportunity".
Alok Sharma, Tory MP for Reading West, branded Miliband a "Westminster flood tourist" and said that local residents were "not interested" in politicians coming to visit for a photo opportunity.
"The issue is Mr Miliband, why are you actually here?" he added.
The Labour leader said he would do "everything" possible to 'persuade the Government' to help the local residents, but Sharma attacked Labour's record on flood defences and accused them of not taking action in 2003.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/11/ed-miliband-floods-alok-sharma_n_4766468.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Captain May wrote:Let me see now for decades hey dredged the rivers when weather was normal. Now they don't. The same dept spent £2.5 million on PR but hadn't enough to find £100k.

You really are a stalwart for the Labour party but its wearing  bit thin your defence.

5/10 Must try harder

Try to introduce a little reality and a little originality into your argument next time.. Nice photograph self portrait?

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Dear me more of the blame game, whilst ignoring what little Labour did whilst in power, I think this highlights this point very well:




Ed Miliband was met with a fierce response by a local MP, who accused him of visiting the flood-hit town of Purley, Berkshire, for a "photo opportunity".
Alok Sharma, Tory MP for Reading West, branded Miliband a "Westminster flood tourist" and said that local residents were "not interested" in politicians coming to visit for a photo opportunity.
"The issue is Mr Miliband, why are you actually here?" he added.
The Labour leader said he would do "everything" possible to 'persuade the Government' to help the local residents, but Sharma attacked Labour's record on flood defences and accused them of not taking action in 2003.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/11/ed-miliband-floods-alok-sharma_n_4766468.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I posted my thoughts on the blame game a couple of days ago on here in that the politicians should pack it in and just get on with it. Thanks for the quote that you posted about Alok Sharma trying to pin the blame on Labour which just shows it hasn't stopped.

Of course that's the Alok Sharma that voted for the cuts in flood defence spending which was debated and voted on in the HoC in 2011.

You can read about here...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111026/debtext/111026-0003.htm#11102646000002

Poor choice Didge. He's part to the very problem he's complaining about.

Sassy wrote:

Captain May wrote:Let me see now for decades hey dredged the rivers when weather was normal. Now they don't. The same dept spent £2.5 million on PR but hadn't enough to find £100k.

You really are a stalwart for the Labour party but its wearing  bit thin your defence.



5/10 Must try harder

Try to introduce a little reality and a little originality into your argument next time.. Nice photograph self portrait?

Whoa, the mask is really slipping Mr Top Gear.

Sassy wrote:I saw Ed's interview, which he actually praised Cameron for 'upping the game' and said that this was far too important to play party politics with.   Good for him.

When the country faced severe flooding in 2007, Labour established the Pitt Review to ensure that lessons were learnt. Immediate action was taken to implement its 92 recommendations. Most importantly, funding for flood protection was significantly increased, from below half a billion before the 2007 floods to £670.1million by the time of the last election. Immediately on taking office David Cameron approved a £97million cut in funding for flood protection, taking it back to £573million in 2011/12 – a 17 per cent real terms cut in one year. Of course tough decisions have had to be made on spending to reduce the deficit, including within DEFRA, but abandoning flood protection was the wrong choice.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Dear me more of the blame game, whilst ignoring what little Labour did whilst in power, I think this highlights this point very well:




Ed Miliband was met with a fierce response by a local MP, who accused him of visiting the flood-hit town of Purley, Berkshire, for a "photo opportunity".
Alok Sharma, Tory MP for Reading West, branded Miliband a "Westminster flood tourist" and said that local residents were "not interested" in politicians coming to visit for a photo opportunity.
"The issue is Mr Miliband, why are you actually here?" he added.
The Labour leader said he would do "everything" possible to 'persuade the Government' to help the local residents, but Sharma attacked Labour's record on flood defences and accused them of not taking action in 2003.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/11/ed-miliband-floods-alok-sharma_n_4766468.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I posted my thoughts on the blame game a couple of days ago on here in that the politicians should pack it in and just get on with it. Thanks for the quote that you posted about Alok Sharma trying to pin the blame on Labour which just shows it hasn't stopped.

Of course that's the Alok Sharma that voted for the cuts in flood defence spending which was debated and voted on in the HoC in 2011.

You can read about here...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111026/debtext/111026-0003.htm#11102646000002

Poor choice Didge. He's part to the very problem he's complaining about.

No you and sassy thrive on such stupid blame games, when neither of you actually care about the situations, otherwise you would gladly open up with the failings of all those when in power doing little to stem this problem.
It is utterly pathetic Irn

What this shows is both sides do the same but you and sassy take it to new levels of absurdity to scoring points, so you claim people should pack it in and in the next breath post this, talk about a contradiction

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


No you and sassy thrive on such stupid blame games, when neither of you actually care about the situations, otherwise you would gladly open up with the failings of all those when in power doing little to stem this problem.
It is utterly pathetic Irn

What this shows is both sides do the same but you and sassy take it to new levels of absurdity to scoring points, so you claim people should pack it in and in the next breath post this, talk about a contradiction

No, they fiddled the figures to create a false impression on what is spent on flood defences. That's important and it is only right that these things are made known and I'll do that just that rather than just sweep it under the carpet.

Sassy wrote:That's really desperate.   Would you like to show where it has been done?

Sassy wrote:Well, you obviously think they have, so produce the evidence.   The evidence on this has already been produced.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


No you and sassy thrive on such stupid blame games, when neither of you actually care about the situations, otherwise you would gladly open up with the failings of all those when in power doing little to stem this problem.
It is utterly pathetic Irn

What this shows is both sides do the same but you and sassy take it to new levels of absurdity to scoring points, so you claim people should pack it in and in the next breath post this, talk about a contradiction

No, they fiddled the figures to create a false impression on what is spent on flood defences. That's important and it is only right that these things are made known and I'll do that just that rather than just sweep it under the carpet.

And Labour has never done the same over giving figures?

Do me a favour Irn, I bet you jumped up and down over Labour when they have done the same in the past also.

Not

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



And Labour has never done the same over giving figures?

Do me a favour Irn, I bet you jumped up and down over Labour when they have done the same in the past also.

Not

So because Labour may have done it in the past means we should just say nothing about the Tories fiddling the figures to create a false impression on the spending on flood defences. Is that what you are saying?

You were quick enough to jump right in with Tory attack on Miliband which just shows what a hypocrite he is when all the time he voted to cut the spending on flood defences. I'm sure the the bit about Sharma is doing the rounds elsewhere so if you see it I suppose you'll do the right thing and point out his voting record.

Sassy wrote:Put up or shut up.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



And Labour has never done the same over giving figures?

Do me a favour Irn, I bet you jumped up and down over Labour when they have done the same in the past also.

Not

So because Labour may have done it in the past means we should just say nothing about the Tories fiddling the figures to create a false impression on the spending on flood defences. Is that what you are saying?

You were quick enough to jump right in with Tory attack on Miliband which just shows what a hypocrite he is when all the time he voted to cut the spending on flood defences. I'm sure the the bit about Sharma is doing the rounds elsewhere so if you see it I suppose you'll do the right thing and point out his voting record.

I said you show hypocrisy as no doubt where labour have lied you have no doubt tried to defend them only to then have a go at when the Tories do, nothing more than pot kettle black, you either condemn both or your view is moot, as the same principles apply!

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I said you show hypocrisy as no doubt where labour have lied you have no doubt tried to defend them only to then have a go at when the Tories do, nothing more than pot kettle black, you either condemn both or your view is moot, as the same principles apply!

Show me the lies as confirmed by a reliable source and I'll condemn them.

Now be true to your values and condemn the Tories for fiddling the figures to create a false impression on flood defence spending and Sharma and the Tory Party voting to cut flood defence spending.

Sassy wrote:You made the allegation, you provide the evidence.   If you can't, then you have no case.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I said you show hypocrisy as no doubt where labour have lied you have no doubt tried to defend them only to then have a go at when the Tories do, nothing more than pot kettle black, you either condemn both or your view is moot, as the same principles apply!

Show me the lies as confirmed by a reliable source and I'll condemn them.

Now be true to your values and condemn the Tories for fiddling the figures to create a false impression on flood defence spending and Sharma and the Tory Party voting to cut flood defence spending.

Still not grasping the concept are you?

How about something close to home for you?

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/7408-labour-party-lied-over-true-worth-of-north-sea-oil-admits-former-chancellor

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Still not grasping the concept are you?

How about something close to home for you?

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/7408-labour-party-lied-over-true-worth-of-north-sea-oil-admits-former-chancellor

I''ll check that out but I see you still can't condemn the Tories can you?

You just can't do it.

PhilDidge wrote:So you are saying they did not lie over this then?

Odd


I though the point was about lying on figures, it seems to sassy it is a good joke, so the same rule applies that we can all laugh about the flood now with sassy's illogical views


How odd indeed

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:So you are saying they did not lie over this then?

Odd


I though the point was about lying on figures, it seems to sassy it is a good joke, so the same rule applies that we can all laugh about the flood now with sassy's illogical views


How odd indeed

Oh dear, who's not grasping what?   I was laughing that you had to go back to the 1970s lol

And I have been shouting about the floods on the The Levels for weeks, because I used to live in Somerset and have friends in Burrowbridge, a place I love.

I also, in the first thread about the floods said that THEY ALL needed to get their fingers out, because it was going to get worse, so stuff you condescending where the sun don't shine.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I''ll check that out but I see you still can't condemn the Tories can you?

You just can't do it.

As stated when anyone lies it is wrong, full stop, I do not use such methods as you do to score points but to point out complete hypocrisy.
Again you can hardly bash one when you do not bash the other, which is no wonder why many people are getting fed up of the main parties if this is how thy carry on

PhilDidge wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I''ll check that out but I see you still can't condemn the Tories can you?

You just can't do it.

As stated when anyone lies it is wrong, full stop, I do not use such methods as you do to score points but to point out complete hypocrisy.
Again you can hardly bash one when you do not bash the other, which is no wonder why many people are getting fed up of the main parties if this is how thy carry on

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:So you are saying they did not lie over this then?

Odd


I though the point was about lying on figures, it seems to sassy it is a good joke, so the same rule applies that we can all laugh about the flood now with sassy's illogical views


How odd indeed

Oh dear, who's not grasping what?   I was laughing that you had to go back to the 1970s lol

And I have been shouting about the floods on the The Levels for weeks, because I used to live in Somerset and have friends in Burrowbridge, a place I love.

I also, in the first thread about the floods said that THEY ALL needed to get their fingers out, because it was going to get worse, so stuff you condescending where the sun don't shine.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Oh dear, who's not grasping what?   I was laughing that you had to go back to the 1970s lol

And I have been shouting about the floods on the The Levels for weeks, because I used to live in Somerset and have friends in Burrowbridge, a place I love.

I also, in the first thread about the floods said that THEY ALL needed to get their fingers out, because it was going to get worse, so stuff you condescending where the sun don't shine.

Sassy, sorry to mention it but I really must: Labour, and in particular people in here, still repeatedly go back to the 1970's and 80's; Margaret Thatcher is still being blamed for practically ever ill that has befallen the country ever since.

You're right about "them all" needing to get their fingers out now, but Labour do have to take some of the stick for past deficiencies in flood protection policies.

You may well know the Somerset Levels far better than I do, but I do know that the protection of the Essex and Suffolk coastline has been a matter of serious contention for decades and that no government has been prepared to spend what was necessary.

In fact I think that it was felt by both governing parties, back to the time of Labour's agriculture minister Fred Peart and probably beyond, that thousands of acres of prime food-producing land in that area, and the homes and livelihoods of many of those working in farming and associated industries, should simply be abandoned in order to avoid the cost of schemes such as sea wall strengthening and lengthening, dredging and berm construction.

It is known as "coastal retreat."

I haven't been professionally involved since I retired in 1999, so I don't know how things stand now, but I do recall vividly the anger of many mainly rural people at the realisation that all the promises and usual talk of "lessons learned" after the deadly and disastrous 1953 east coast flood didn't amount to a row of beans...and that both Labour and Tory governments were responsible.

The east coast only narrowly escaped a similar tidal surge only a matter of months ago, and if these storms hitting us now happened to be coming across the North Sea rather than the Atlantic (I know that's far less likely, before any of the armchair experts tell me) then that's where most of the damage and destruction would be occurring now.

Joy Division wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Sassy, sorry to mention it but I really must: Labour, and in particular people in here, still repeatedly go back to the 1970's and 80's; Margaret Thatcher is still being blamed for practically ever ill that has befallen the country ever since.

You're right about "them all" needing to get their fingers out now, but Labour do have to take some of the stick for past deficiencies in flood protection policies.

You may well know the Somerset Levels far better than I do, but I do know that the protection of the Essex and Suffolk coastline has been a matter of serious contention for decades and that no government has been prepared to spend what was necessary.

In fact I think that it was felt by both governing parties, back to the time of Labour's agriculture minister Fred Peart and probably beyond, that thousands of acres of prime food-producing land in that area, and the homes and livelihoods of many of those working in farming and associated industries, should simply be abandoned in order to avoid the cost of schemes such as sea wall strengthening and lengthening, dredging and berm construction.

It is known as "coastal retreat."

I haven't been professionally involved since I retired in 1999, so I don't know how things stand now, but I do recall vividly the anger of many mainly rural people at the realisation that all the promises and usual talk of "lessons learned" after the deadly and disastrous 1953 east coast flood didn't amount to a row of beans...and that both Labour and Tory governments were responsible.

The east coast only narrowly escaped a similar tidal surge only a matter of months ago, and if these storms hitting us now happened to be coming across the North Sea rather than the Atlantic (I know that's far less likely, before any of the armchair experts tell me) then that's where most of the damage and destruction would be occurring now.

Why did the taxpayer have to foot some of her funeral bill Ed?, a woman who was vote rigging as Irn quite rightly pointed out.

She is a bad memory for the majority and only remembered fondly by those with more money than sense.

I'm not saying I'm glad she dies, as she was a human being too, but for the amount of lives she ruined , she is best forgotten now she is gone, what is done is done and the people she drove to their deaths should be the ones remembered more than her.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Joy Division wrote:



Why did the taxpayer have to foot some of her funeral bill Ed?, a woman who was vote rigging as Irn quite rightly pointed out.

She is a bad memory for the majority and only remembered fondly by those with more money than sense.

I'm not saying I'm glad she dies, as she was a human being too, but for the amount of lives she ruined , she is best forgotten now she is gone, what is done is done and the people she drove to their deaths should be the ones remembered more than her.

Because, as I have frequently said before, she was a former elected Prime Minister of this country and in my opinion deserved a full state funeral.

Whether you like her or not, she led the party which governed this country for getting on for a decade and was returned to power by popular vote on more than one occasion.

We certainly cannot say the same of Gordon Brown, who was never elected, stupidly ducked the opportunity of confronting the nation in a general election at a time when he might well have stood a sporting chance of winning it, and who was deservedly kicked out in May 2010.

Having said that, I strongly believe that Brown, too, should be afforded a state funeral when he pops his clogs, as should Tony Blair and John Major...because although none of them was Head of State under our constitution, they were certainly the Monarch's First Minister and that achievement alone is worthy of full recognition by the nation.





And as to "vote-rigging", JD, you don't have travel very far in Bonny Scotland to find pretty blatant and far more recent evidence of that, so you?

Joy Division wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Because, as I have frequently said before, she was a former elected Prime Minister of this country and in my opinion deserved a full state funeral.

Whether you like her or not, she led the party which governed this country for getting on for a decade and was returned to power by popular vote on more than one occasion.

We certainly cannot say the same of Gordon Brown, who was never elected, stupidly ducked the opportunity of confronting the nation in a general election at a time when he might well have stood a sporting chance of winning it, and who was deservedly kicked out in May 2010.

Having said that, I strongly believe that Brown, too, should be afforded a state funeral when he pops his clogs, as should Tony Blair and John Major...because although none of them was Head of State under our constitution, they were certainly the Monarch's First Minister and that achievement alone is worthy of full recognition by the nation.





And as to "vote-rigging", JD, you don't have travel very far in Bonny Scotland to find pretty blatant and far more recent evidence of that, so you?

...tbh Ed, I've never followed the Falkirk stuff, but last I did hear there was no evidence of rigging ?

But Miliband and Darling rightly called for an investigation, I don't like dishonesty like that, I've been no angel myself in the past, but have no time for cheating, be it MP's or Union members.

As for Margaret Thatchers's funeral, I thought you might say only she deserved a state funeral and none of the others...

So, I must agree after all on that if Blair, Brown and Major were to have one..
Yes, all ex heads of state should have one, never just one, as I thought you meant!   

Either all ex heads of state to have a state funeral or none.

Will they all get one for sure though?

Sassy wrote:Thatcher, who was more divisive than any other PM on record, should never have been given a state funeral.

But I digress, after the 2007 floods the money for flood defenses was upped.  Labour established the Pitt Review to ensure that lessons were learnt. Immediate action was taken to implement its 92 recommendations. Most importantly, funding for flood protection was significantly increased, from below half a billion before the 2007 floods to £670.1million by the time of the last election. Immediately on taking office David Cameron approved a £97million cut in funding for flood protection, taking it back to £573million in 2011/12 – a 17 per cent real terms cut in one year, followed by another of nearly the same amount the year after.