Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Why Should We Spend £600M On Third World Flood Defences, When We Have A Flood Problem Of Our Own?
64 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.interesting that when devon and cornwall were cut off from the national rail network by the collapse of the sea wall at Dawlish, the government was full of strategies to minimize the effects of a repeat (diversion routes, etc). since when the repairs were made, the line re-opened and all the schemes were quietly dropped. now, after one winter storm, there are already holes in the repaired wall........
No it is not a ridiculous story, ichkeria.
There are arguments over who should pay for essential flood protection work in Somerset. The BBC (not renowned for the same level of sensationalism as the Daily Mail) reports this in connection with the funding:
"...Communities Minister, Eric Pickles has said that council tax should not be raised while the Environment Secretary Liz Truss has said local authorities should contribute."
This IS ridiculous. Whilst it is true that nobody has specifically told the people of Somerset "...they can't have flood defences because there's no money because we spent it all on third world flood defences"? the implication is just as insolent. The government IS sending money abroad (whether for flood defences or to buy a few new Mercs for African despots) and they ARE prevaricating over the funding for vital work to protect areas where the residents have not even recovered from the pasting they took last year.
This is why people get the hump and this is why the likes of UKIP have developed a strong following. People do not like to see the safety of their homes jeopardised for the want of a few bob when they have paid out vast sums to the Exchequer, only to see £11bn pa sent abroad. If governments (of whatever persuasion) don't get this then they deserve to be held in as much contempt as they clearly hold the electorate.
There are arguments over who should pay for essential flood protection work in Somerset. The BBC (not renowned for the same level of sensationalism as the Daily Mail) reports this in connection with the funding:
"...Communities Minister, Eric Pickles has said that council tax should not be raised while the Environment Secretary Liz Truss has said local authorities should contribute."
This IS ridiculous. Whilst it is true that nobody has specifically told the people of Somerset "...they can't have flood defences because there's no money because we spent it all on third world flood defences"? the implication is just as insolent. The government IS sending money abroad (whether for flood defences or to buy a few new Mercs for African despots) and they ARE prevaricating over the funding for vital work to protect areas where the residents have not even recovered from the pasting they took last year.
This is why people get the hump and this is why the likes of UKIP have developed a strong following. People do not like to see the safety of their homes jeopardised for the want of a few bob when they have paid out vast sums to the Exchequer, only to see £11bn pa sent abroad. If governments (of whatever persuasion) don't get this then they deserve to be held in as much contempt as they clearly hold the electorate.
It's surely a case of balance. One assigns priorities and tries to maximise 'good'.
In this case the answer to both is not to build/farm/live on the flood risk areas.
Any foreign aid decided on is best given in terms of providing the resource and doing the job, rather than handing over wads of folding stuff.
In this case the answer to both is not to build/farm/live on the flood risk areas.
Any foreign aid decided on is best given in terms of providing the resource and doing the job, rather than handing over wads of folding stuff.
If that's a valid argument, Donald then all funding to save people overseas from death, blindness, preventable diseases and drowning should be stopped until everyone in the UK has a detached bungalow, a new car and £40K a year income.
(or perhaps we should just carry on sorting out our own relatively small scale problems and giving up a small percentage of the cost to help others in dire straits - like we normally do)
(or perhaps we should just carry on sorting out our own relatively small scale problems and giving up a small percentage of the cost to help others in dire straits - like we normally do)
AOG - if you examine what appears to be a simple matter of millions going abroad while the UK suffer, you must realise that it cannot be that simple.
Although this appears to be the case - and it makes for some serious tempertature-rising headlines in the nationals, it would be political suicide for any party of any hue to be sanctioning such profligacy.
Therefore it must follow that this is simply a simplification of a far more complex set if circumstances - not least of which is the need for compassion as indicated by posters below.
We should not stop trying to save our fellow human beings who do not have the resources available to save themselves, that is simply inhuman.
It would be more appropriate if the government explained to the public exactly what the costs (I believe it is a fraction of GDP) compared with the benefits to the tax payer.
That would alleviate this type of headline (and attendent outrage!) which occurs as regularly as the turns of the seasons.
Although this appears to be the case - and it makes for some serious tempertature-rising headlines in the nationals, it would be political suicide for any party of any hue to be sanctioning such profligacy.
Therefore it must follow that this is simply a simplification of a far more complex set if circumstances - not least of which is the need for compassion as indicated by posters below.
We should not stop trying to save our fellow human beings who do not have the resources available to save themselves, that is simply inhuman.
It would be more appropriate if the government explained to the public exactly what the costs (I believe it is a fraction of GDP) compared with the benefits to the tax payer.
That would alleviate this type of headline (and attendent outrage!) which occurs as regularly as the turns of the seasons.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.