Cameron - Money No Object Re Floods

[Zacs-Master]

I do hope he means for prevention schemes and not for Mrs Miggins to have her carpets renewed otherwise I shall be very very cross.

[Kromovaracun]

Was tempted to post this on the other thread, but this one's more relevant.

Here's a nice collection of politicians trying to look important when there's not much they can really do about a flood:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/pictures-of-politicians-in-wellies-and-staring-at-floods

[Kromovaracun]

Also, does the cut the government introduced on flood defenses look a bit silly now?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12402284

[Zacs-Master]

Love it Kromo.
My favourite '14. Nick Clegg has nailed the “politician pointing at floods” look'

[ludwig]

They can't win though can they? If they stayed in Westminster everybody would be moaning about them being aloof and uncaring, but when they turn up to have a look around, they're called self-publicising tw7ts in wellies.

[Kromovaracun]

" If they stayed in Westminster everybody would be moaning about them being aloof and uncaring, "

That's because large numbers of the electorates are idiots. I appreciate what you're saying, but there's really nothing that standing around in wellies and pouting will do about the problem.

Voting for flood defense before we had the problem might have done something, though.

[Kromovaracun]

"of the electorates"

Oh dear.

[ludwig]

// That's because large numbers of the electorates are idiots //

Maybe so. All I'm saying is it's a no win situation for them. Stay at home get criticised, go and have a look, get criticised.

[Zacs-Master]

Well ludwig, this is the 'go look at the floods and get criticised' thread ;-)

[mikey4444]

Ed gave dave three opportunities to answer the question about the 550 forthcoming redundancies in the Environment Agency. But he sidestepped each time. If "money is no object", why are these 550 front line staff in the Agency going to lose their jobs ? What happens next winter, when we have serious flooding again ?

[TWR]

Where is the money coming from? look out pensioners, Heating allowance, TV Licence, Bus Passes, anything else that these basds can take off you. AND YES, I did hear them say where they said WHERE IT WAS COMING FROM.

[fbg40]

Me again Zacs master
Here's a story for you. Last Sunday, the son of a friend, a serving policeman in the Met, went off to work a night shift, returned the following morning only to find his house waist deep in water, his partner and two year old son moved out. To answer your question that I have no doubt you will ask, yes, he does have household B & C insurance and no doubt will get paid out. However, with all the hundreds of thousands of claims that are no doubt going to hit the insurance companies soon, somebody is going to have to pay. Who is that someone ? You, me and everybody else who has household insurance, who no doubt will see an increase in their premium the next time it is due for renewal. So whether it comes from our taxes or a rise in our insurance premiums, we will have to pay. What would you rather have ?
FBG40

[Zacs-Master]

A rise in premiums.

[naomi24]

Mikey, you're at it again. I'm surprised you don't spin yourself dizzy in your efforts to demonise whatever this government does. Mr Cameron said that money was no object in the "relief effort". He's not talking about the Environment Agency.

[Zacs-Master]

I think Mikey's point is that if the EA funding / staff hadn't been cut, there would be no need to have an apparently bottomless pit for the 'relief effort'.

[naomi24]

Zacs, I know what Mikey's point is - and it's not to talk about money being made available for flood relief - which is what the money is being made available for. Nothing to do with the Environment Agency or prevention schemes. It's to help the victims of flooding.

[Zacs-Master]

The victims of flooding which, if the environment agency had more money, might not have been so bad?

[naomi24]

And if the rivers had been dredged it might not have been so bad. That's not the point. This money is purely to help the victims of this dreadful flooding – no more than that. The rest is a separate issue, which, fine, discuss, but let us not be disingenuous. The money isn’t intended to resolve the matter of people losing their jobs and neither is it intended to resolve the problem of potential future floods as Mikey seems to expect.

[Zacs-Master]

I'm not sure that your point of view re the two (lack of funds / jobs at the EA and the amount of victims) can be so clearly separated. Unfortunately the truth is, neither of us know so I'm drawing a personal line under this particular aspect of the thread.

[naomi24]

Zacs, I think it's obvious. Mr Cameron has made it clear that this money is intended solely for the victims of flooding so where Mikey gets his ideas from is anyone's guess.

//If "money is no object", why are these 550 front line staff in the Agency going to lose their jobs ? What happens next winter, when we have serious flooding again ?//

Mikey needs to listen a bit more carefully to what's being said.