Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank2 mins ago
What's Happened To All The Water?
The news is all about the Ukraine. How are the floods in south of England?
Answers
They not be flooded now but their homes are ruined and inhabitable for months have some compassion please !
23:27 Mon 24th Feb 2014
The water levels have dropped and very few places if any are still flooded.
Sand bags still in place in case the weather gets worse but basically they are now drying out. Less than 6,000 homes were actually flooded , the news reports made it look a lot worse than it really was, so as to increase the 'newsworthiness of the story.In most cases the houses were near flood water but not actually under it.
Sand bags still in place in case the weather gets worse but basically they are now drying out. Less than 6,000 homes were actually flooded , the news reports made it look a lot worse than it really was, so as to increase the 'newsworthiness of the story.In most cases the houses were near flood water but not actually under it.
-- answer removed --
There are still vast tracts of land flooded. What has happened is that the publicity for the government’s latest round of munificence has been diverted from the floods (victims mainly British people, most of whom have paid large sums in tax over the years, sum pledged ££10m) to the Ukraine (former basket case of the USSR, nothing in it for the UK, sum pledged £500m).
The government likes to be shown splashing other people’s money about - the greater the sum, the more publicity they crave. Hence why Ukraine has replaced the floods on your TV.
The government likes to be shown splashing other people’s money about - the greater the sum, the more publicity they crave. Hence why Ukraine has replaced the floods on your TV.
in case you are wondering it's raining again, and many people have not recovered from the recent onslaught, that is going to take a very long time.
as to Ukraine this is George Osborne idea,
http://
as to Ukraine this is George Osborne idea,
http://
"
as to Ukraine this is George Osborne idea,
http://
"
The tabloid take on a serious issue ...
You can see from ichkeria's link, LG (just above "has Rebecca Adlington had a nose job?") that Mr Osborne is paving the way for large chunks of taxpayers' dosh to be handed over to the Ukranians. The £500m figure I quoted was not a sum "pledged" but a sum "bandied about" might be more appropriate. There was some government cove on the TV on Sunday morning who quoted this figure as being something "in the region that the UK should consider". Cannot remember his name.
However, the sum is not the issue. The principle is the issue in that once again this government is considering borrowing yet more money to give to somebody else whilst it can find only a paltry £10m (two thirds of Wayne Rooney's annual wages) to assist people who have been hit by the worst disaster the UK has seen for many years. They should take the view that either the Ukraine should remain independent or, failing that, the Russians are welcome to it. Of course they want closer ties with the EU (and ultimately full membership). This is as sound as my wanting to open a joint bank account with Bill Gates. But the EU has enough problems with its existing membership.
However, the sum is not the issue. The principle is the issue in that once again this government is considering borrowing yet more money to give to somebody else whilst it can find only a paltry £10m (two thirds of Wayne Rooney's annual wages) to assist people who have been hit by the worst disaster the UK has seen for many years. They should take the view that either the Ukraine should remain independent or, failing that, the Russians are welcome to it. Of course they want closer ties with the EU (and ultimately full membership). This is as sound as my wanting to open a joint bank account with Bill Gates. But the EU has enough problems with its existing membership.
@NJ If the sum is not the issue, why mention the size of it in the context you did? Clearly you thought the sum was an issue when you posted it, even though there appears to be little evidence to support the figure.
I was just interested to see where the figure had come from,since I had seen nothing in the media about the size of any prospective financial aid to the Ukraine.
And actually I would tend to agree with you in one respect - I am not sure why everyone seems so quick to fall over themselves in lending money to the Ukraine. The EU is talking about loaning billions, but I do not see how they will easily see a return on that investment.
I was just interested to see where the figure had come from,since I had seen nothing in the media about the size of any prospective financial aid to the Ukraine.
And actually I would tend to agree with you in one respect - I am not sure why everyone seems so quick to fall over themselves in lending money to the Ukraine. The EU is talking about loaning billions, but I do not see how they will easily see a return on that investment.
The sum was significant because this question was about the UK floods and the trouble in the Ukraine. I was trying to demonstrate the disparity between the government’ s concern for the Ukrainians and its (relative lack of) concern for UK citizens recently flooded out.
I cannot find any “evidence” to support the £500m figure. (I’m not used to having to provide evidence every time I quote something I have read or heard). However, perhaps you would accept, bearing in mind that Ukraine has said it needs £21bn over the next two years, that any sum we do provide is likely to be considerably unadjacent to the £10m pledged for the flood victims. Mr Osborne is quoted as having said “we [I like the “Royal we”] need to be there with a cheque book ready to help Ukraine rebuild its economy”. If I were Mr Osborne’s bank manager I would confiscate his cheque book until he recovers his sanity and pays off some of his debts.
I cannot find any “evidence” to support the £500m figure. (I’m not used to having to provide evidence every time I quote something I have read or heard). However, perhaps you would accept, bearing in mind that Ukraine has said it needs £21bn over the next two years, that any sum we do provide is likely to be considerably unadjacent to the £10m pledged for the flood victims. Mr Osborne is quoted as having said “we [I like the “Royal we”] need to be there with a cheque book ready to help Ukraine rebuild its economy”. If I were Mr Osborne’s bank manager I would confiscate his cheque book until he recovers his sanity and pays off some of his debts.
@NJ Well it seems to me if you are providing figures, there should be some indication of where that figure comes from, if asked. Otherwise, it could be just plucked, at random, out of your arse ;)
On the more general point though, I would tend to agree. I cannot quite fathom why everyone is so quick in falling over themselves to offer the Ukraine money. And is Osborne talking about offering UK money, separate from any EU offer?
It must presumably be politically motivated because I cannot see a good economic case for loaning the Ukraine "billions".
On the more general point though, I would tend to agree. I cannot quite fathom why everyone is so quick in falling over themselves to offer the Ukraine money. And is Osborne talking about offering UK money, separate from any EU offer?
It must presumably be politically motivated because I cannot see a good economic case for loaning the Ukraine "billions".
