Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Floods: Is this going to start impacting on Voting Inte

SystemSystem Posts: 11,019
edited February 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Floods: Is this going to start impacting on Voting Intentions?

How has Cameron has responded to the recent flooding?

Total well 29 (+4), Total Badly 60 (-2), Net -31 (+6)

(changes since last week)

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Where is Osborne ? After all, he made the cuts.
  • Options
    I may be missing something you guys on the ground can see but it's not exactly Katrina, and the government response doesn't look horrendously bad. It might set some soft Con supporters wavering to UKIP but they'll waver back sooner or later.

    The bit that will stick in people's memories once the water's drained away will be Cameron's "money is no object" comment, which blows another hole in the austerity narrative.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    On topic: I think Cameron has not done too badly ! There is very little a British government can do. The cuts over many years have taken care of that.

    WE can't deal with floods, we can't deal with two inches of snow and we can't deal with leaves on our rails ! This is Britain with it's disdain for public services.

    We have built on floods plains because these were the places where there would be least resistance from planning objectors; the NIMBY's.

    As we get more prone to the vagaries of the climate, more such calamity's will take place. And you cannot build flood defences for huge swathes of the countryside. Why should the Levels expect to be flood-free ? They are below the sea level as i understand it and it's mostly agricultural land. What would be the cost of protection per acre ?
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited February 2014

    I may be missing something you guys on the ground can see but it's not exactly Katrina, and the government response doesn't look horrendously bad. It might set some soft Con supporters wavering to UKIP but they'll waver back sooner or later.

    The bit that will stick in people's memories once the water's drained away will be Cameron's "money is no object" comment, which blows another hole in the austerity narrative.

    The coverage only got serious when the floods started to approach the western outskirts of London. We are still talking of thousands of households and NOT hundreds of thousands. No city like New Orleans have been evacuated. In fact, no village has been evacuated !

    But these are Tory / Lib Dem voters. The Tories are very acutely aware of this and indeed "money will be no object" when it comes to their own voters ! Sod the rest !
  • Options
    It's the BBC, the EU and bankstas that are to blame. Their evil plot will drag Cameron down so that indigenous British culture can be destroyed and replaced by sharia law, or something like that.
  • Options

    It's the BBC, the EU and bankstas that are to blame. Their evil plot will drag Cameron down so that indigenous British culture can be destroyed and replaced by sharia law, or something like that.

    I'll go with that...

    ... actually, I suppose the question ought to be "would Miliband, Clegg or Farage have done any better?" - which answers itself. For reasons which have been thrashed to death on this site, the quality of political leadership across the spectrum is pretty poor.

  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    I'm not sure if it will have much impact politically, but it's had a lot of impact on my TV news watching. I'm sorry, but continual pictures of wet carpets, damp gardens and whining householders is very wearing.

    Fires (as in Australia) are slightly more interesting, but only slightly.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    It's the BBC, the EU and bankstas that are to blame. Their evil plot will drag Cameron down so that indigenous British culture can be destroyed and replaced by sharia law, or something like that.

    I'll go with that...

    ... actually, I suppose the question ought to be "would Miliband, Clegg or Farage have done any better?" - which answers itself. For reasons which have been thrashed to death on this site, the quality of political leadership across the spectrum is pretty poor.

    What do we want our Prime Minister to do ? Stand like King Canute and order the floods not to cross the blue line !

    It is a surprise that these places have not been flooded more often. They are after all called a "flood plain". There is a reson for that.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    It's the BBC, the EU and bankstas that are to blame. Their evil plot will drag Cameron down so that indigenous British culture can be destroyed and replaced by sharia law, or something like that.

    Nice try but you left out the political classes. Which suggests to me you are a member of the political classes trying to divert attention from yourself.

  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    Hard to say. It may be that the political battle and any change to policies and polling will be more about how we go forward rather than how the floods were 'handled' (there's a limited degree to which a manner can affect tons of rain falling from the sky).

    There seems, from the badly worded polling, to be a view in the country about global warming being to blame. Miliband's wibbled about it in The Observer. But when his green policies of taxing energy bills (directly contrary to his Marxist price freeze, let us recall) and so forth filter through to the public, will they be for that, or against it?
  • Options
    Its a flood. That it happened to Tory voters down south is why its in the news, when Labour supporters up north got repeatedly battered in previous years the media didn't really care.

    So blaming any party or politician for a flood is silly. However, two things for me that resonate that could well have VI impact as this drags on.

    First the impact of the cuts. The Environment Agency were targeted first by the incompetent government attack dogs - Ed M was minister in charge, led by another ex Labour minister, LETS BLAME THEM. So we had the extraordinary sight of Eric the Silurian on TV last weekend saying the EA were incompetent, then within 24 hours he's being told to say that no one has more faith in their excellence than him. Also, the story that the EA have got hundreds of people out there mopping upo who government cuts have sacked - they've been told that they'll get an extension on their redundancy period for the floods. Start totting up the shambolic attack on the EA, the budget cut and perhaps the media will bring us a kiss and tell from a sacked EA staffer and its going to look increasingly nasty for the government.

    Second the money's no object line. That the government immediately started spinning this that its money taken from other budgets, that the cash announced for the railways was announced last year etc etc etc - none of that has stuck over the top of "money is no object". That being the case then any and every cut is done for ideological grounds not economic. Imagine campaign posters of people arpt food banks, kids sent to school hungry, another disabled victim of ATOS killing themselves, overlaid with "money is no object" in the way of the "we can't go on like this" Dave airbrushed poster from 2010.

    Like the cut to the 50p tax rate its astonishingly stupid politics. Which either proves ho out of touch the Cameroon clique is with reality or just how incompetent they are at political strategy.
  • Options
    CD13 said:

    I'm not sure if it will have much impact politically, but it's had a lot of impact on my TV news watching. I'm sorry, but continual pictures of wet carpets, damp gardens and whining householders is very wearing.

    Fires (as in Australia) are slightly more interesting, but only slightly.

    We've been having unusual amounts of snow here. On the plus side, the famous Hachikō dog in front of Shibuya station now has a bunch of friends:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgfWoFLCEAA44_C.jpg
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,990
    At least 250,000 homes have been built on floodplains in the last 25 years.That's because:

    a) They're flatter and easy to build on;
    b) Many of our existing towns and settlements are based around coasts and rivers, and therefore floodplains are nearer areas of demand;
    c) Developers kid councils that they can manage excess water cheaply.

    This trend will not stop; floodplains will still be built on because they are often where there is demand. The government and local councils need to be more rigorous in accepting new developments, and developers need to make developments and houses more resilient to floods.

    But there is also another problem with localised flooding away from floodplains, and this often occurs without much media attention. And this is very often caused by poor water management in developments that could be avoided.
  • Options
    Mr. Pioneers, that's only partly right (also, the north isn't 'full' of Labour supporters). In 2007 Yorkshire got lots of media coverage (including a piece introduced by grinning cretin George Alagiah[sp]). However, when Gloucestershire and Worcestershire were hit, Yorkshire's flood were barely mentioned for weeks.

    Media laziness is a fair comment about how things often work.
  • Options

    At least 250,000 homes have been built on floodplains in the last 25 years.

    Out of interest how many have been flooded, and how badly? The numbers don't seem to be huge this time around - if this is a typical year it might be best just to go ahead and keep building.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    EiT,

    Snow's better. I've been forced to watch the snowball fighting or whatever in Socchi, and now I know something about Curling.

    As kids, February was always known as "February Fill dyke", and the proper time for floods.

    What next? Winds in March?

  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,334
    I don't think it's doing much more than reinforcing current views. If you look at today's YouGov (which is 39/32/12/9 again, much as usual), the people who think David Cameron has responded well are 62% of Tories, 13% of Labour voters, 27% of LibDems and 29% of UKIP - which is extremely like the usual figures for what people think of him anyway. EiT is right that the "money no object" line was a gaffe for the Tory long-term strategy - he can't keep switching the "there is no money left" meme on and off at will and expect to be taken seriously. Obviously if floods get seriously worse it might impact VI, but even then opinion seems too entrenched. (There is better news for Chris Smith, who people don't think very much of but reckon across all parties should not resign.)

    Note that Labour's lead isn't really declining "over the last year" while economic ratings improved, in the usual sense that there's been a gradual process. There hasn't. It quite explicitly declined last July from 8-10 to 5-7ish (because the Tory rating picked up by 3 points), and it's been largely unchanged every since, even though most of the good economic news stories have come more recently. Labour had a frothy rating over 40 earlier in the Parliament which declined last February to the 38ish level that's it's remainined ever since. While this may seem like hair-splitting (since it does mean the lead is down since last February), it's important to note that there doesn't seem to be a correlation with good economic news. I don't think bad news would change it much either: most people have made up their minds, and I can't remember a time with fewer "don't knows" on the doorstep. Table (excluding today's data):

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/re213g1tfi/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Voting-Trends-with-UKIP-120214.pdf
  • Options
    Fantastic story in the Torygraph showing the flood lake that Zummerzet councils have approved for new house developments.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10641488/Flood-hit-areas-earmarked-for-more-homes.html
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited February 2014

    Also, the story that the EA have got hundreds of people out there mopping up who government cuts have sacked - they've been told that they'll get an extension on their redundancy period for the floods.

    What ought to be the takeaway from this is that spare capacity is necessary for dealing with emergencies, so it is dangerous to cut the Environment Agency, London Fire Brigade, Army or any other service to a level at which it can just about tick over.

    It will be interesting to see if the cuts and redundancies are reversed. If not, then I guess Downing Street will be hoping for a dry start to 2015.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,990

    At least 250,000 homes have been built on floodplains in the last 25 years.

    Out of interest how many have been flooded, and how badly? The numbers don't seem to be huge this time around - if this is a typical year it might be best just to go ahead and keep building.
    I think around a thousand or two houses have been evacuated. And that small number is why they'll keep on being built on the floodplain, and why making such houses more resilient is vital.

    It's nowhere near the crisis that the media have built it into, but the issues that it has highlighted are very important for the future.
  • Options
    Mr. L, you're quite right. You may well have had this in mind, but I'd also include Defence capabilities (not just for helping out when fire brigades are striking or we have very bad flooding, but also for their main purpose of conducting warfare when necessary).
  • Options

    Its a flood. That it happened to Tory voters down south is why its in the news, when Labour supporters up north got repeatedly battered in previous years the media didn't really care.

    So blaming any party or politician for a flood is silly. However, two things for me that resonate that could well have VI impact as this drags on.

    First the impact of the cuts. The Environment Agency were targeted first by the incompetent government attack dogs - Ed M was minister in charge, led by another ex Labour minister, LETS BLAME THEM. So we had the extraordinary sight of Eric the Silurian on TV last weekend saying the EA were incompetent, then within 24 hours he's being told to say that no one has more faith in their excellence than him. Also, the story that the EA have got hundreds of people out there mopping upo who government cuts have sacked - they've been told that they'll get an extension on their redundancy period for the floods. Start totting up the shambolic attack on the EA, the budget cut and perhaps the media will bring us a kiss and tell from a sacked EA staffer and its going to look increasingly nasty for the government.

    Second the money's no object line. That the government immediately started spinning this that its money taken from other budgets, that the cash announced for the railways was announced last year etc etc etc - none of that has stuck over the top of "money is no object". That being the case then any and every cut is done for ideological grounds not economic. Imagine campaign posters of people arpt food banks, kids sent to school hungry, another disabled victim of ATOS killing themselves, overlaid with "money is no object" in the way of the "we can't go on like this" Dave airbrushed poster from 2010.

    Like the cut to the 50p tax rate its astonishingly stupid politics. Which either proves ho out of touch the Cameroon clique is with reality or just how incompetent they are at political strategy.


    The truth of the matter (notwithstanding the fact that in reality, there isn't a lot any government could have done), is that Ed Milliband does indeed share some of the blame, as he was the Minister Responsible during that fruitcake Brown's time. He shares the blame with politicians from all sides, for the last few decades, who have all been far more keen on playing politics than actually taking the uncomfortable decisions on house building, the environment and flood protection.
    You, like most on here, let your tribalism blind you to the reality.

  • Options
    Any fule who believes it is the Army that has to respond to national incidents must have missed the explosion of public-sector parasites (such as the Environment Agency) that have been specifically allocated such roles. Fighting floods is not a Defence requirement.

    The fact that the public-sector is not fit-for-purpose should cause concerns to the tax-payer. Unfortunately there are so many "happy-clappy" wannabe Tromso trolls being funded by England's wealth-creators that sanity is no longer a political requirement....
  • Options

    Any fule who believes it is the Army that has to respond to national incidents must have missed the explosion of public-sector parasites (such as the Environment Agency) that have been specifically allocated such roles. Fighting floods is not a Defence requirement.

    The fact that the public-sector is not fit-for-purpose should cause concerns to the tax-payer. Unfortunately there are so many "happy-clappy" wannabe Tromso trolls being funded by England's wealth-creators that sanity is no longer a political requirement....

    Hmm. When I mentioned the *London* Fire Brigade and Army, I was thinking of their roles in fighting fires and wars, not floods. The point remains that spare capacity is needed to cope with emergencies.
  • Options
    Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    I think the biggest impact on VI from the floods will be the aftermath. If there's a lot of pictures from lots of different parts of the country, showing a mass clean up effort this will be positive for the Tories. If this is also supported with obvious money spend on repairs, flood defences, dredging, it will add to the perception that the government is doing something practical.

    Longer term we need a revision of the planning guidance and a regulatory body with teeth.
  • Options
    Dunno about the floods, but if Farage could find a way of rowing back on his opinion re handguns, I think that would benefit his party greatly. Most people won't be aware of it now but increasingly they will be. He's given ammunition to his opponents which they will use come election time. It was a crazy thing for him to have said. And using the outlook for the British Olympian Handgun Team as a reason for changing the law is ridiculous. Next time he's asked about it he needs an elegant response. Might be worth countering on the never-enforced five year tariff for carrying a knife.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,990

    Also, the story that the EA have got hundreds of people out there mopping up who government cuts have sacked - they've been told that they'll get an extension on their redundancy period for the floods.

    What ought to be the takeaway from this is that spare capacity is necessary for dealing with emergencies, so it is dangerous to cut the Environment Agency, London Fire Brigade, Army or any other service to a level at which it can just about tick over.

    It will be interesting to see if the cuts and redundancies are reversed. If not, then I guess Downing Street will be hoping for a dry start to 2015.
    But what level is 'enough' to cope with any potential future issue? How do you decide how many back-room and frontline staff are needed, and the split between the two? How do you keep the excess staff trained so they can be useful when a crisis strikes, and indeed not danger themselves? What do these staff do when there is not a crisis? How do you equip them? How do you pay for them?

    Cuts can certainly go too far. But keeping swollen numbers of unproductive staff 'just in case' is crazy. Governments need to define a service level, and provide people and equipment to provide that service.

    Flexibility is key. As an example, a few years ago I met a few BT engineers in a hotel in rural mid-Wales. They all had Geordie accents, and usually worked in the centre of Newcastle. They had been sent to work in rural Wales for a couple of weeks in order to refamiliarise themselves with rural phone networks: in city centre most are routed underground rather than overground. Apparently BT did this every so often, and rural engineers would go to work in cities. That way, if there was a critical short-term need for more engineers in an area, there would be staff with up-to-date experience that could be moved around the country.
  • Options
    I don't think it will make alot of difference - Redward is still going to be PM in 2015. So plan your own finances and life hopes accordingly.

    One thing is very clear from this - we will need to plan and manage flood defences much more pro-actively going forwards. Even the Guardian editorial and Redward say so! I don't think as a nation we can afford to spend money on dealing with the effects of climate change and also trying to prevent it. What happens in the UK will have close to zero impact in the future direction of climate change. We should concentrate 100% of our time and efforts on making the place more robust to handling stormier weather. We should learn from the Dutch and build canals, dykes, polders, water pumping stations, etc and put ourselves back in control. That'd be a way better use of money that wind subsidies.
  • Options
    TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    edited February 2014

    Any fule who believes it is the Army that has to respond to national incidents must have missed the explosion of public-sector parasites (such as the Environment Agency) that have been specifically allocated such roles. Fighting floods is not a Defence requirement.

    The fact that the public-sector is not fit-for-purpose should cause concerns to the tax-payer. Unfortunately there are so many "happy-clappy" wannabe Tromso trolls being funded by England's wealth-creators that sanity is no longer a political requirement....

    That's bang on. There really is no need for the Armed Forces to get involve too much, unless there's a bridge needs building, sharpish, or something needs blowing up (although I'm trained to be able to build a stable, safe bridge suitable to take light vehicles, and I'm a dab hand with a stone cutting chainsaw!). Maybe a bit of boating to keep the Commandos happy.

    There has been a lot of inter county cooperation on this, brigades from all over the country have been sending crews and equipment to bolster the areas involved, but there could have been much more use of the Fire Service in this time of national emergency. Most of my brigade let it be known to SMT that we'd like to get involved in the relief and rescue effort. We've got the skills, got the equipment, got the motivation, and we damned sure have the time, we're under utilised. There needs to be a serious rethink on our strategies.

  • Options

    Also, the story that the EA have got hundreds of people out there mopping up who government cuts have sacked - they've been told that they'll get an extension on their redundancy period for the floods.

    What ought to be the takeaway from this is that spare capacity is necessary for dealing with emergencies, so it is dangerous to cut the Environment Agency, London Fire Brigade, Army or any other service to a level at which it can just about tick over.

    It will be interesting to see if the cuts and redundancies are reversed. If not, then I guess Downing Street will be hoping for a dry start to 2015.
    But what level is 'enough' to cope with any potential future issue? How do you decide how many back-room and frontline staff are needed, and the split between the two? How do you keep the excess staff trained so they can be useful when a crisis strikes, and indeed not danger themselves? What do these staff do when there is not a crisis? How do you equip them? How do you pay for them?

    Cuts can certainly go too far. But keeping swollen numbers of unproductive staff 'just in case' is crazy. Governments need to define a service level, and provide people and equipment to provide that service.

    Flexibility is key. As an example, a few years ago I met a few BT engineers in a hotel in rural mid-Wales. They all had Geordie accents, and usually worked in the centre of Newcastle. They had been sent to work in rural Wales for a couple of weeks in order to refamiliarise themselves with rural phone networks: in city centre most are routed underground rather than overground. Apparently BT did this every so often, and rural engineers would go to work in cities. That way, if there was a critical short-term need for more engineers in an area, there would be staff with up-to-date experience that could be moved around the country.
    The CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board) used to do the same thing, which is why the lights were back on so quickly after the 1987 hurricane.
  • Options
    compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    As stated numerous times by numerous posters, the problem lies with all parties across many decades, and whoever was in power at the moment would be taking the flack. However, the fact that any real urgency and the most stupid political gaffe of "money no object" only appeared when the leafy parts of the Thames Estuary was flooded re-enforced peoples ideas about Cameron. This could be clearly seen on this weeks Questiontime when people were asking where was the rush and open checkbook a couple of months ago when other areas were flooded, and the governments defence was not helped when it's representative blamed some of it on the fact that 24 hour tv can get to the Thames Estuary quicker that it can to other parts of the country.
  • Options

    Also, the story that the EA have got hundreds of people out there mopping up who government cuts have sacked - they've been told that they'll get an extension on their redundancy period for the floods.

    What ought to be the takeaway from this is that spare capacity is necessary for dealing with emergencies, so it is dangerous to cut the Environment Agency, London Fire Brigade, Army or any other service to a level at which it can just about tick over.

    It will be interesting to see if the cuts and redundancies are reversed. If not, then I guess Downing Street will be hoping for a dry start to 2015.
    But what level is 'enough' to cope with any potential future issue? How do you decide how many back-room and frontline staff are needed, and the split between the two? How do you keep the excess staff trained so they can be useful when a crisis strikes, and indeed not danger themselves? What do these staff do when there is not a crisis? How do you equip them? How do you pay for them?

    Cuts can certainly go too far. But keeping swollen numbers of unproductive staff 'just in case' is crazy. Governments need to define a service level, and provide people and equipment to provide that service..
    You could train other Government staff to help in emergencies. For example, you could extract staff from Jobcentres fairly easily - they could run a skeleton service for a week or two as they do over Christmas - and those staff are distributed all over the country. Give those people a couple of days training a year and then call them up in the event of a flood. Actually, the Government could also call out TA members for home service.

  • Options
    Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Slightly off topic but I have a question for the legal eagles on here. Would it be possible to lay a charge on a local authority if they approve planning after the EA has objected or if they haven't considered all the evidence properly and the approved development results in flooding ?
  • Options
    CD13 said:

    EiT,

    Snow's better. I've been forced to watch the snowball fighting or whatever in Socchi, and now I know something about Curling.

    As kids, February was always known as "February Fill dyke", and the proper time for floods.

    What next? Winds in March?

    In Old English February was "Winterfilth" which supposedly comes from "Winter filleth" ie it reaches its full extent - but I'm not sure. What I do like about February is the bright cold sunny days you get from the middle of the month - like today - great for going walking or for a run (which I am just about to do).

  • Options

    Also, the story that the EA have got hundreds of people out there mopping up who government cuts have sacked - they've been told that they'll get an extension on their redundancy period for the floods.

    What ought to be the takeaway from this is that spare capacity is necessary for dealing with emergencies, so it is dangerous to cut the Environment Agency, London Fire Brigade, Army or any other service to a level at which it can just about tick over.

    It will be interesting to see if the cuts and redundancies are reversed. If not, then I guess Downing Street will be hoping for a dry start to 2015.
    But what level is 'enough' to cope with any potential future issue? How do you decide how many back-room and frontline staff are needed, and the split between the two? How do you keep the excess staff trained so they can be useful when a crisis strikes, and indeed not danger themselves? What do these staff do when there is not a crisis? How do you equip them? How do you pay for them?

    Cuts can certainly go too far. But keeping swollen numbers of unproductive staff 'just in case' is crazy. Governments need to define a service level, and provide people and equipment to provide that service..
    You could train other Government staff to help in emergencies. For example, you could extract staff from Jobcentres fairly easily - they could run a skeleton service for a week or two as they do over Christmas - and those staff are distributed all over the country. Give those people a couple of days training a year and then call them up in the event of a flood. Actually, the Government could also call out TA members for home service.

    And if it's just untrained musclepower you need - we should allow unemployed people to earn money without it affecting their benefits if they are called up to shovel snow or help with flood relief etc. Another pool of people Government could call on.

  • Options

    As stated numerous times by numerous posters, the problem lies with all parties across many decades, and whoever was in power at the moment would be taking the flack. However, the fact that any real urgency and the most stupid political gaffe of "money no object" only appeared when the leafy parts of the Thames Estuary was flooded re-enforced peoples ideas about Cameron. This could be clearly seen on this weeks Questiontime when people were asking where was the rush and open checkbook a couple of months ago when other areas were flooded, and the governments defence was not helped when it's representative blamed some of it on the fact that 24 hour tv can get to the Thames Estuary quicker that it can to other parts of the country.

    It is thick eejits like you that encourage the separatist talk of Norfolk's finest lawyer [sic]. London and the South-East fund the rest of the UK: Without it Wales, Ulster and other communities would be ghost-towns....

    [NOTE: An independent London would face a Sutton-at-Hone revolt. Six-fingers may have to be trimmed back to size....]
  • Options

    At least 250,000 homes have been built on floodplains in the last 25 years.That's because:

    a) They're flatter and easy to build on;
    b) Many of our existing towns and settlements are based around coasts and rivers, and therefore floodplains are nearer areas of demand;
    c) Developers kid councils that they can manage excess water cheaply.

    This trend will not stop; floodplains will still be built on because they are often where there is demand. The government and local councils need to be more rigorous in accepting new developments, and developers need to make developments and houses more resilient to floods.

    But there is also another problem with localised flooding away from floodplains, and this often occurs without much media attention. And this is very often caused by poor water management in developments that could be avoided.

    Can't we change the building regs? Any house built on a floodplain should be built on stilts,or the first floor used only for garage and storage space, the lowest dwelling floor to be the first.

  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,990

    Also, the story that the EA have got hundreds of people out there mopping up who government cuts have sacked - they've been told that they'll get an extension on their redundancy period for the floods.

    What ought to be the takeaway from this is that spare capacity is necessary for dealing with emergencies, so it is dangerous to cut the Environment Agency, London Fire Brigade, Army or any other service to a level at which it can just about tick over.

    It will be interesting to see if the cuts and redundancies are reversed. If not, then I guess Downing Street will be hoping for a dry start to 2015.
    But what level is 'enough' to cope with any potential future issue? How do you decide how many back-room and frontline staff are needed, and the split between the two? How do you keep the excess staff trained so they can be useful when a crisis strikes, and indeed not danger themselves? What do these staff do when there is not a crisis? How do you equip them? How do you pay for them?

    Cuts can certainly go too far. But keeping swollen numbers of unproductive staff 'just in case' is crazy. Governments need to define a service level, and provide people and equipment to provide that service..
    You could train other Government staff to help in emergencies. For example, you could extract staff from Jobcentres fairly easily - they could run a skeleton service for a week or two as they do over Christmas - and those staff are distributed all over the country. Give those people a couple of days training a year and then call them up in the event of a flood. Actually, the Government could also call out TA members for home service.

    That comes under the 'flexibility' mentioned below. Certainly it would make sense for any able-bodied EA staff member to know how to fill and deploy sandbags and other flood-protection devices, even if they usually work in offices.

    Training them to drive and use machinery is a different matter; that might best be left in an emergency to experienced staff. In other words, train them to do the grunt work (and pay them well when they are called on - after all, 'money is no object'), releasing experienced staff to use that experience effectively.

    However these floods might just be a case where there would never be enough people available due to the quantity of water; you can divert it slightly (usually at the cost of others), but that still leaves the same amount of water.

    This is why the Dawlish and other storm damage, the Levels flooding, and the Thames/Severn/Itchen/Kent flooding are actually three difference issues with different solutions.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    The answer is simple: stilt houses!

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stilt_house

    Fantastic story in the Torygraph showing the flood lake that Zummerzet councils have approved for new house developments.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10641488/Flood-hit-areas-earmarked-for-more-homes.html

  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Any fule who believes it is the Army that has to respond to national incidents must have missed the explosion of public-sector parasites (such as the Environment Agency) that have been specifically allocated such roles. Fighting floods is not a Defence requirement.

    The fact that the public-sector is not fit-for-purpose should cause concerns to the tax-payer. Unfortunately there are so many "happy-clappy" wannabe Tromso trolls being funded by England's wealth-creators that sanity is no longer a political requirement....

    That's bang on. There really is no need for the Armed Forces to get involve too much, unless there's a bridge needs building, sharpish, or something needs blowing up (although I'm trained to be able to build a stable, safe bridge suitable to take light vehicles, and I'm a dab hand with a stone cutting chainsaw!). Maybe a bit of boating to keep the Commandos happy.

    There has been a lot of inter county cooperation on this, brigades from all over the country have been sending crews and equipment to bolster the areas involved, but there could have been much more use of the Fire Service in this time of national emergency. Most of my brigade let it be known to SMT that we'd like to get involved in the relief and rescue effort. We've got the skills, got the equipment, got the motivation, and we damned sure have the time, we're under utilised. There needs to be a serious rethink on our strategies.

    Why can't the Army help out in emergencies ? They are being paid to do what in peacetime ? And why are paying the TAs / Again, they could help out in emergencies.

    In the US, they call out the National Guard.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Are the floods really an argument for throwing more money at the environment agency??? an argument that people will support???

    The spending stories are seeping into the popular papers even as we speak.

    Many thousands on pet projects and bonuses. Gargantuan redundancy payments.

    In the coming months this institution is going to get its insides torn out. Dave's being nice now - but it won't last.
  • Options
    compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    edited February 2014

    The answer is simple: stilt houses!

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stilt_house



    Fantastic story in the Torygraph showing the flood lake that Zummerzet councils have approved for new house developments.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10641488/Flood-hit-areas-earmarked-for-more-homes.html

    At a quick glance I thought you were swearing then. I was going to ask if you wanted the old standard brick out house or something more modern.
  • Options
    It's a shame the Six Nations is having a little breather, because all the matches in the third round are very interesting.

    Wales play France on Friday night. The French have had a cracking start, but the Welsh, despite an Irish mauling, are capable of giving them difficulty. And the Welsh need to win to keep their title hopes alive.

    Italy versus Scotland is probably the wooden spoon decider. I fear for our northern countrymen [for now, at least] that the Italians will beat them.

    England and Ireland should be a cracking match. Easy to see it going either way, but hopefully home advantage (as in Cardiff) will tell.
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,010
    edited February 2014

    First the impact of the cuts. The Environment Agency were targeted first by the incompetent government attack dogs - Ed M was minister in charge, led by another ex Labour minister, LETS BLAME THEM. So we had the extraordinary sight of Eric the Silurian on TV last weekend saying the EA were incompetent, then within 24 hours he's being told to say that no one has more faith in their excellence than him. Also, the story that the EA have got hundreds of people out there mopping upo who government cuts have sacked - they've been told that they'll get an extension on their redundancy period for the floods. Start totting up the shambolic attack on the EA, the budget cut and perhaps the media will bring us a kiss and tell from a sacked EA staffer and its going to look increasingly nasty for the government.

    Hmm. But wtf has the EA been up to? The only EA person we have seen is Chris Smith, who has got a lot of stick - some of it rightly in my opinion, he has been giving a good impression of Nero - but he isn't in charge of operational issues, the Chief Executive is. Looks like my Lord Smith, who leaves in July anyway (and even if he is fired will probably pick up his full pay and benefits until then) has agreed to take the flak.

    We know there are EA bods on the ground working their socks off, good for them and I hope they get well rewarded for it. But who is in charge? Have we seen the National Flood Relief Coordinator on telly giving us a daily briefing? Is there one? Who is in charge of all the firemen, soldiers etc? Who is in charge of each local flood relief or prevention area? The EA seems to have gone to ground at management level.

  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Blueberry said:

    Dunno about the floods, but if Farage could find a way of rowing back on his opinion re handguns, I think that would benefit his party greatly. Most people won't be aware of it now but increasingly they will be. He's given ammunition to his opponents which they will use come election time. It was a crazy thing for him to have said. And using the outlook for the British Olympian Handgun Team as a reason for changing the law is ridiculous. Next time he's asked about it he needs an elegant response. Might be worth countering on the never-enforced five year tariff for carrying a knife.

    I don't see why that would be a negative. Setting out positions that differ from Con/Lab/LD is necessary for UKIP, and handguns is as good a choice as any.

    The shooting/hunting/fishing community might like having a party on their side. They have votes too.
  • Options
    surbiton said:

    Why can't the Army help out in emergencies ? They are being paid to do what in peacetime ? And why are paying the TAs / Again, they could help out in emergencies.

    In the US, they call out the National Guard.

    Prepare to fight and defend English Laws and Liberties. Just so asshats like you can sit and squeem about politics....

    :muppet-watch:
  • Options
    surbiton said:

    Any fule who believes it is the Army that has to respond to national incidents must have missed the explosion of public-sector parasites (such as the Environment Agency) that have been specifically allocated such roles. Fighting floods is not a Defence requirement.

    The fact that the public-sector is not fit-for-purpose should cause concerns to the tax-payer. Unfortunately there are so many "happy-clappy" wannabe Tromso trolls being funded by England's wealth-creators that sanity is no longer a political requirement....

    That's bang on. There really is no need for the Armed Forces to get involve too much, unless there's a bridge needs building, sharpish, or something needs blowing up (although I'm trained to be able to build a stable, safe bridge suitable to take light vehicles, and I'm a dab hand with a stone cutting chainsaw!). Maybe a bit of boating to keep the Commandos happy.

    There has been a lot of inter county cooperation on this, brigades from all over the country have been sending crews and equipment to bolster the areas involved, but there could have been much more use of the Fire Service in this time of national emergency. Most of my brigade let it be known to SMT that we'd like to get involved in the relief and rescue effort. We've got the skills, got the equipment, got the motivation, and we damned sure have the time, we're under utilised. There needs to be a serious rethink on our strategies.

    Why can't the Army help out in emergencies ? They are being paid to do what in peacetime ? And why are paying the TAs / Again, they could help out in emergencies.

    In the US, they call out the National Guard.
    I'm not saying you can't (they can do the grunt work, filling sand bags, I'd much rather do the glamorous work like swift water rescue), I'm just saying that the emergency services, specifically us, should be utilised more. It's time for a national rescue service. Let us do the lot, fire, ambulance, mines, caves, diving, mountain, even life boats and Air Ambulance. Relying on charity in the 21st century for some aspects of rescue is bizarre.

  • Options

    As stated numerous times by numerous posters, the problem lies with all parties across many decades, and whoever was in power at the moment would be taking the flack. However, the fact that any real urgency and the most stupid political gaffe of "money no object" only appeared when the leafy parts of the Thames Estuary was flooded re-enforced peoples ideas about Cameron. This could be clearly seen on this weeks Questiontime when people were asking where was the rush and open checkbook a couple of months ago when other areas were flooded, and the governments defence was not helped when it's representative blamed some of it on the fact that 24 hour tv can get to the Thames Estuary quicker that it can to other parts of the country.

    I expect quite a few TV and newspaper executives live in Walton, Weybridge and on the Thames in Berkshire.

  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    I suspect Osborne's favourite line "We're fixing the roof while the sun shines" is now toast.
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,203
    The longer-term impact of the floods are that it reinforced the image of Cameron as a somewhat vacuous PR man and exposed Pickles as a thoroughly nasty piece of work, for those that didn't already know that to be the case. The one who has surprisingly emerged with a smidge of credit is Paterson. Labour have (perhaps wisely) kept a pretty low profile all told.

    The floods are a consequence of a short-term extreme weather event, compounded by a legacy of short-term policymaking over the last 60 years or so. Whether or not climate change is also a factor, people understand the basic problem is poor Government and know that all parties have their share of the blame. That's why more and more voters are looking beyond the LabCon paradigm.

  • Options
    Mr. Dave, it's a fair point about the chaps who would use guns legitimately but I suspect media/the public would worry about terrorist lunatics getting their hands on guns if they became easier to acquire.
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,010
    edited February 2014

    Any fule who believes it is the Army that has to respond to national incidents must have missed the explosion of public-sector parasites (such as the Environment Agency) that have been specifically allocated such roles. Fighting floods is not a Defence requirement.

    The fact that the public-sector is not fit-for-purpose should cause concerns to the tax-payer. Unfortunately there are so many "happy-clappy" wannabe Tromso trolls being funded by England's wealth-creators that sanity is no longer a political requirement....

    That's bang on. There really is no need for the Armed Forces to get involve too much, unless there's a bridge needs building, sharpish, or something needs blowing up (although I'm trained to be able to build a stable, safe bridge suitable to take light vehicles, and I'm a dab hand with a stone cutting chainsaw!). Maybe a bit of boating to keep the Commandos happy.

    There has been a lot of inter county cooperation on this, brigades from all over the country have been sending crews and equipment to bolster the areas involved, but there could have been much more use of the Fire Service in this time of national emergency. Most of my brigade let it be known to SMT that we'd like to get involved in the relief and rescue effort. We've got the skills, got the equipment, got the motivation, and we damned sure have the time, we're under utilised. There needs to be a serious rethink on our strategies.

    There does seem to be a lack of coordination, as I posted earlier - who exactly is in charge? It shouldn't have to be the politicians sitting in COBRA. The National Flood Relief Coordinator should go to the PM and tell him what he needs and where. The EA should have a strategy which involves knowing where national assets are (like you) and getting hold of them.

  • Options
    Mr. Monksfield, it's worth pointing out that (from what can gather from the low frequency and prominence this has in the reporting) flood defences have actually saved very many homes from being flooded. Naturally the focus is on those in distress, but when the floods recede it'd be very interesting and sueful to assess how much good (or not) has been done by the defences that were already in place.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    The sort of comments seen on here about flooding , the political reaction from the left and the subsequent consequences pretty much show why the vast majority of people are turned off politics.
    I expect there will be lots of voting against parties at the next General Election.
  • Options

    Also, the story that the EA have got hundreds of people out there mopping up who government cuts have sacked - they've been told that they'll get an extension on their redundancy period for the floods.

    What ought to be the takeaway from this is that spare capacity is necessary for dealing with emergencies, so it is dangerous to cut the Environment Agency, London Fire Brigade, Army or any other service to a level at which it can just about tick over.

    It will be interesting to see if the cuts and redundancies are reversed. If not, then I guess Downing Street will be hoping for a dry start to 2015.
    But what level is 'enough' to cope with any potential future issue? How do you decide how many back-room and frontline staff are needed, and the split between the two? How do you keep the excess staff trained so they can be useful when a crisis strikes, and indeed not danger themselves? What do these staff do when there is not a crisis? How do you equip them? How do you pay for them?

    Cuts can certainly go too far. But keeping swollen numbers of unproductive staff 'just in case' is crazy. Governments need to define a service level, and provide people and equipment to provide that service..
    You could train other Government staff to help in emergencies. For example, you could extract staff from Jobcentres fairly easily - they could run a skeleton service for a week or two as they do over Christmas - and those staff are distributed all over the country. Give those people a couple of days training a year and then call them up in the event of a flood. Actually, the Government could also call out TA members for home service.

    That comes under the 'flexibility' mentioned below. Certainly it would make sense for any able-bodied EA staff member to know how to fill and deploy sandbags and other flood-protection devices, even if they usually work in offices.
    Apparently Hampshire County Council has been doing this - not so much flood relief, but they have a big problem trying to stop the Itchen flooding in Winchester. I was quite amused thinking of a friend of mine in waders laying sandbags - but apparently he got dispensation as he had a couple of funding bids to get in.

  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    " Let us do the lot, fire, ambulance, mines, caves, diving, mountain, even life boats and Air Ambulance. Relying on charity in the 21st century for some aspects of rescue is bizarre."

    Noooooo. The charity bits like the RNLI work really well. Let the government take them over costs will go through the roof and the level of service will fall.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I agree that the scrutiny of the EA is going to be uncomfortable.

    Why are they funding Gay Pride? what else is going on there?

    Why do we have to borrow Dutch equipment?

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-26167818
    taffys said:

    Are the floods really an argument for throwing more money at the environment agency??? an argument that people will support???

    The spending stories are seeping into the popular papers even as we speak.

    Many thousands on pet projects and bonuses. Gargantuan redundancy payments.

    In the coming months this institution is going to get its insides torn out. Dave's being nice now - but it won't last.

  • Options

    There has been a lot of inter county cooperation on this, brigades from all over the country have been sending crews and equipment to bolster the areas involved, but there could have been much more use of the Fire Service in this time of national emergency. Most of my brigade let it be known to SMT that we'd like to get involved in the relief and rescue effort. We've got the skills, got the equipment, got the motivation, and we damned sure have the time, we're under utilised. There needs to be a serious rethink on our strategies.

    Maybe part of the problem here is that Britain has too many of these piddling little counties. If instead of all those piddling little ones they'd had one county with immediate access to the fire brigades of the former Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucester (the latter being renowned for its stepping in a puddle right up to his middle experience) they'd have had an easier time responding.
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Mr. Dave, it's a fair point about the chaps who would use guns legitimately but I suspect media/the public would worry about terrorist lunatics getting their hands on guns if they became easier to acquire.

    Criminals ignore gun laws.
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,010
    edited February 2014

    surbiton said:

    Any fule who believes it is the Army that has to respond to national incidents must have missed the explosion of public-sector parasites (such as the Environment Agency) that have been specifically allocated such roles. Fighting floods is not a Defence requirement.

    The fact that the public-sector is not fit-for-purpose should cause concerns to the tax-payer. Unfortunately there are so many "happy-clappy" wannabe Tromso trolls being funded by England's wealth-creators that sanity is no longer a political requirement....

    That's bang on. There really is no need for the Armed Forces to get involve too much, unless there's a bridge needs building, sharpish, or something needs blowing up (although I'm trained to be able to build a stable, safe bridge suitable to take light vehicles, and I'm a dab hand with a stone cutting chainsaw!). Maybe a bit of boating to keep the Commandos happy.

    There has been a lot of inter county cooperation on this, brigades from all over the country have been sending crews and equipment to bolster the areas involved, but there could have been much more use of the Fire Service in this time of national emergency. Most of my brigade let it be known to SMT that we'd like to get involved in the relief and rescue effort. We've got the skills, got the equipment, got the motivation, and we damned sure have the time, we're under utilised. There needs to be a serious rethink on our strategies.

    Why can't the Army help out in emergencies ? They are being paid to do what in peacetime ? And why are paying the TAs / Again, they could help out in emergencies.

    In the US, they call out the National Guard.
    Relying on charity in the 21st century for some aspects of rescue is bizarre.
    I would say, if it works - don't try to fix it. To be honest I don't understand why at least some air ambulances aren't funded by the NHS - if you have to wait for an ambulance to arrive in London traffic you are toast - but the RNLI works. There seems to be an attitude that if something is paid for voluntarily, that is somehow worse than something that is paid for by forcibly extracting money from people through taxes.

  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,203

    At least 250,000 homes have been built on floodplains in the last 25 years.That's because:

    a) They're flatter and easy to build on;
    b) Many of our existing towns and settlements are based around coasts and rivers, and therefore floodplains are nearer areas of demand;
    c) Developers kid councils that they can manage excess water cheaply.

    This trend will not stop; floodplains will still be built on because they are often where there is demand. The government and local councils need to be more rigorous in accepting new developments, and developers need to make developments and houses more resilient to floods.

    But there is also another problem with localised flooding away from floodplains, and this often occurs without much media attention. And this is very often caused by poor water management in developments that could be avoided.

    Can't we change the building regs? Any house built on a floodplain should be built on stilts,or the first floor used only for garage and storage space, the lowest dwelling floor to be the first.

    Ha ha, that would be regulation, John, and would impose costs on homebuilders that would make their future slums unsaleable. In case you didn't notice, the Conservative party believes in deregulation, and promoting opportunities for the housebuilding companies that contribute to its funding to build wherever they like and can maximise their profits. It's called NPPF.
  • Options
    Mr. Dave, yes, but if you catch them breaking gun laws and acquiring firearms illegally you can arrest them prior to their use. If they acquire firearms legally and *then* start shooting people up or going for a Mumbai-style skyscraper attack then the first offence they commit is far more serious.

    Mr. Lilburne, I agree.
  • Options
    Has anyone actually suggested that the EA staff were actually surplus? Budget cuts have forced their jobs to be restructured out of existence, but I haven't seen a case saying they did nothing, just that we decided their services were more than the country could afford.

    Anyway, like the "surplus" aircraft carriers we relied on to win the Falklands War, its a good job the floods happened now and not after these wasters at the EA had been given their cards. Cameron goes to Somerset and gets accosted by angry locals who say they have no help at a
    L - " well you see we has to cut EA numbers, surplus workers needed to go which is why there is no one available for you. Had to make them redundant because we don't have any money because of the last Labour government. But don't worry, money is no object".....
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,990

    surbiton said:



    Why can't the Army help out in emergencies ? They are being paid to do what in peacetime ? And why are paying the TAs / Again, they could help out in emergencies.

    In the US, they call out the National Guard.

    I'm not saying you can't (they can do the grunt work, filling sand bags, I'd much rather do the glamorous work like swift water rescue), I'm just saying that the emergency services, specifically us, should be utilised more. It's time for a national rescue service. Let us do the lot, fire, ambulance, mines, caves, diving, mountain, even life boats and Air Ambulance. Relying on charity in the 21st century for some aspects of rescue is bizarre.

    The RNLI would never elect to join such a body, and neither would any of the few mountain rescue volunteers I know. Both are mainly volunteer organisations, and both work admirably well with other rescue services at the moment.

    They can focus on their areas of expertise, whilst a national body would just lead to these peripheries being run down. By all means let them work better together, but I really can't see just one body working. After all, what would be gained? In which ways do (say) the RNLI and coastguard fail to work together at the moment, or mountain rescue and the police / ambulance services?

    As for your main point: how many crew members could your station afford to lose for a prolonged period (say two weeks), and yet still allow the station to fulfil its service obligations without risking the public?
  • Options

    There has been a lot of inter county cooperation on this, brigades from all over the country have been sending crews and equipment to bolster the areas involved, but there could have been much more use of the Fire Service in this time of national emergency. Most of my brigade let it be known to SMT that we'd like to get involved in the relief and rescue effort. We've got the skills, got the equipment, got the motivation, and we damned sure have the time, we're under utilised. There needs to be a serious rethink on our strategies.

    Maybe part of the problem here is that Britain has too many of these piddling little counties. If instead of all those piddling little ones they'd had one county with immediate access to the fire brigades of the former Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucester (the latter being renowned for its stepping in a puddle right up to his middle experience) they'd have had an easier time responding.
    Surely fire brigades need to be managed locally, if your house catches fire in Malmesbury you don't want the fire engine to be coming from taunton. Flood relief is probably different though - flooding happens every year although (mostly) not in the same bits of the country, so it would be difficult to maintain the level of knowledge and expertise locally. Apart from Somerset. maybe. That's where you need a national organisation with the ability to command local assets.

  • Options
    TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    edited February 2014

    " Let us do the lot, fire, ambulance, mines, caves, diving, mountain, even life boats and Air Ambulance. Relying on charity in the 21st century for some aspects of rescue is bizarre."

    Noooooo. The charity bits like the RNLI work really well. Let the government take them over costs will go through the roof and the level of service will fall.

    I understand your point, but I think we'd make a go of it. We run UKISAR very, very well, and I think domestic rescue would dovetail easily into that model.

    There has been a lot of inter county cooperation on this, brigades from all over the country have been sending crews and equipment to bolster the areas involved, but there could have been much more use of the Fire Service in this time of national emergency. Most of my brigade let it be known to SMT that we'd like to get involved in the relief and rescue effort. We've got the skills, got the equipment, got the motivation, and we damned sure have the time, we're under utilised. There needs to be a serious rethink on our strategies.

    Maybe part of the problem here is that Britain has too many of these piddling little counties. If instead of all those piddling little ones they'd had one county with immediate access to the fire brigades of the former Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucester (the latter being renowned for its stepping in a puddle right up to his middle experience) they'd have had an easier time responding.
    I have no objection, in principal to a National Fire and Rescue Service, just that we only have the nightmare that was Prescott's Regional Control centre farce as a benchmark.

  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,203

    Any fule who believes it is the Army that has to respond to national incidents must have missed the explosion of public-sector parasites (such as the Environment Agency) that have been specifically allocated such roles. Fighting floods is not a Defence requirement.

    The fact that the public-sector is not fit-for-purpose should cause concerns to the tax-payer. Unfortunately there are so many "happy-clappy" wannabe Tromso trolls being funded by England's wealth-creators that sanity is no longer a political requirement....

    That's bang on. There really is no need for the Armed Forces to get involve too much, unless there's a bridge needs building, sharpish, or something needs blowing up (although I'm trained to be able to build a stable, safe bridge suitable to take light vehicles, and I'm a dab hand with a stone cutting chainsaw!). Maybe a bit of boating to keep the Commandos happy.

    There has been a lot of inter county cooperation on this, brigades from all over the country have been sending crews and equipment to bolster the areas involved, but there could have been much more use of the Fire Service in this time of national emergency. Most of my brigade let it be known to SMT that we'd like to get involved in the relief and rescue effort. We've got the skills, got the equipment, got the motivation, and we damned sure have the time, we're under utilised. There needs to be a serious rethink on our strategies.

    There does seem to be a lack of coordination, as I posted earlier - who exactly is in charge? It shouldn't have to be the politicians sitting in COBRA. The National Flood Relief Coordinator should go to the PM and tell him what he needs and where. The EA should have a strategy which involves knowing where national assets are (like you) and getting hold of them.

    You miss the point. The nature of modern communication, rolling news, twitter etc., is that politicians feel they HAVE to be seen to be directly in charge. Hence COBRA, which was once some obscure mechanism aimed at genuine defence of the realm stuff, is now a vehicle for the Government being seen to do something in the event of any newsworthy event.

    I suspect the EA has been doing the best it can with the resources available to it.

  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    I was appalled at the way that the words, Climate Change, were being bandied about on BBC1 this morning whilst giving the PC impression that it is man-made.

    The extraordinary pattern of the jet stream, as well as the ice-storms in N America, are as yet unexplained but could be caused by changing ocean currents or the very quiet time the Sun is exhibiting, but none of this was mentioned by the "experts".

    Money is really no object as the EA wastes vast amounts of money on wholly un-necessary projects and has a record of totally ignoring the experience of the local population who have experience of managing successfully changing water levels.

    Local councils have proved to be ignoramuses regarding building on flood plains and have been shown to be very susceptible to bribery by developers in the form of new public buildings.

    As has been stated before, the Dutch have enough proven experience in managing flood protection, but the EA has preferred to do its own thing and shown itself to be dysfunctional and too political and managed by people who do not know what they are doing.
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Mr. Dave, yes, but if you catch them breaking gun laws and acquiring firearms illegally you can arrest them prior to their use. If they acquire firearms legally and *then* start shooting people up or going for a Mumbai-style skyscraper attack then the first offence they commit is far more serious.

    I don't think it matters. With law and order UKIP's policy of being willing/eager to leave the EU/Council of Europe means they are willing to change the law so that the foreign criminals will be deported. That's a much more immediate voter issue than edge cases associated with legal handgun ownership.
  • Options

    Mr. Dave, it's a fair point about the chaps who would use guns legitimately but I suspect media/the public would worry about terrorist lunatics getting their hands on guns if they became easier to acquire.

    We need to throw the book at them. IMO we are at war with salafist terrorism and so are our allies. Anyone who fights for al Qaeda or its affiliates, at home or abroad, should be prosecuted for treason.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    I agree that the scrutiny of the EA is going to be uncomfortable.

    The left seem to think that the flooding has magically turned people back to supporting lavishing untold billions on quangos like the EA.

    I think the opposite. Ask the people of somerset what they think about the EA.
  • Options

    Has anyone actually suggested that the EA staff were actually surplus? Budget cuts have forced their jobs to be restructured out of existence, but I haven't seen a case saying they did nothing, just that we decided their services were more than the country could afford.

    Anyway, like the "surplus" aircraft carriers we relied on to win the Falklands War, its a good job the floods happened now and not after these wasters at the EA had been given their cards. Cameron goes to Somerset and gets accosted by angry locals who say they have no help at a
    L - " well you see we has to cut EA numbers, surplus workers needed to go which is why there is no one available for you. Had to make them redundant because we don't have any money because of the last Labour government. But don't worry, money is no object".....

    There were no "surplus" aircraft-carriers: Hermes and Bulwark were "Commando-Carriers"; Invincible was 'first-of-class'; Illustrious was not commissioned; and Indomitable was not even re-christened. As for Ark, Eagle,Victorious, Tiger, Lion, Blake....
  • Options
    Mr. Dave, I concur that deporting foreign criminals (and denying them the right to 'a family life') is immensely popular, but with recent Irish-related issues and hundreds of fighters from Syria returning I don't think softening handgun laws will go down well (nor does it seem to be something anyone's really calling for).
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:

    Why can't the Army help out in emergencies ? They are being paid to do what in peacetime ? And why are paying the TAs / Again, they could help out in emergencies.

    In the US, they call out the National Guard.

    Prepare to fight and defend English Laws and Liberties. Just so asshats like you can sit and squeem about politics....

    :muppet-watch:
    "Prepare to fight and defend English Laws and Liberties..........."

    You missed out on...prepare their chests to take on a few extra medals for doing.....nothing !


  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,010
    edited February 2014



    There does seem to be a lack of coordination, as I posted earlier - who exactly is in charge? It shouldn't have to be the politicians sitting in COBRA. The National Flood Relief Coordinator should go to the PM and tell him what he needs and where. The EA should have a strategy which involves knowing where national assets are (like you) and getting hold of them.

    You miss the point. The nature of modern communication, rolling news, twitter etc., is that politicians feel they HAVE to be seen to be directly in charge. Hence COBRA, which was once some obscure mechanism aimed at genuine defence of the realm stuff, is now a vehicle for the Government being seen to do something in the event of any newsworthy event.

    I suspect the EA has been doing the best it can with the resources available to it.

    If it has, as I said it has been invisible. The net result is to give the impression it has been doing SFA, and having to be poked by the Government to do anything. You would have thought that any organisation that has been criticised for - effectively - contributing to a disaster, would want to show it is in charge and delivering the relief operation effectively. My assumption is that it is not, and having to be poked by Government, or perhaps superseded by other individuals from the fire brigade or Army.

  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Mr. Pioneers, that's only partly right (also, the north isn't 'full' of Labour supporters). In 2007 Yorkshire got lots of media coverage (including a piece introduced by grinning cretin George Alagiah[sp]). However, when Gloucestershire and Worcestershire were hit, Yorkshire's flood were barely mentioned for weeks.

    Media laziness is a fair comment about how things often work.

    Nah, this isn't laziness. It's just that the media personally know people living in Wiltshire and Somerset, so it seems much more immediate to them.

    And, by the way, Somerset and (arguably) Wiltshire are most definitely not "the South". They are the West Country.
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited February 2014

    nor does it seem to be something anyone's really calling for).

    No, most people don't/won't notice it. Those that do will be the ones who like it. The law and order voters will focus on the bigger issue of deporting foreign criminals.

  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,990
    edited February 2014

    Has anyone actually suggested that the EA staff were actually surplus? Budget cuts have forced their jobs to be restructured out of existence, but I haven't seen a case saying they did nothing, just that we decided their services were more than the country could afford.

    Anyway, like the "surplus" aircraft carriers we relied on to win the Falklands War, its a good job the floods happened now and not after these wasters at the EA had been given their cards. Cameron goes to Somerset and gets accosted by angry locals who say they have no help at a
    L - " well you see we has to cut EA numbers, surplus workers needed to go which is why there is no one available for you. Had to make them redundant because we don't have any money because of the last Labour government. But don't worry, money is no object".....

    Not the 'aircraft carriers' argument again. The Invincible Class were surplus as 'aircraft' carriers from 2010 because Hoon scrapped the Sea Harriers and gave the RAF the GR7/9's via the hilariously-named Joint Force Harrier.

    Harriers were a scarce commodity on board Illustrious and Ark Royal after 2006, and when they were some on, they were often USMC or Spanish planes borrowed to keep the crews current.

    Only someone as hideously brain-dead as Hoon could think that three aircraft carriers (Invincible did not even have engines) carrying aircraft without radar (when the RAF deigned to give the FAA the aircraft) were in any way capable of fighting a war at sea.

    As for the carriers in the Falklands: Fluffy's answered that below.
  • Options
    CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Roads/rail on stilts may be a tougher nut to crack.
  • Options
    Mr. Charles, I suspect the West Country/South distinction (being different as opposed to the West Country being a distinct area within the South) is not one that is generally held further north.
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Carola said:

    Roads/rail on stilts may be a tougher nut to crack.

    Hovercars!

  • Options
    FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited February 2014

    We need to throw the book at them. IMO we are at war with salafist terrorism and so are our allies. Anyone who fights for al Qaeda or its affiliates, at home or abroad, should be prosecuted for treason.

    Sorry, no.

    I know "friends-of-friends" who have fought in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Would they fall foul of your treason paradigm? I have to say that, whilst I think Islam is not my cup-of-tea, that the "suicide-bomber (asshat)" who blew up the Syrian prison proved:
    • Jihad is weird; He was English and did not want feck-all-to-do-with Arabism, and
    • Just because "Our gubbermint" does not agree with it does not exclude 'our' right to participate (c.f. George Orwell/"Homage to Catalonia").
    Of-course we will face a tax-bill as a result....
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Also, the story that the EA have got hundreds of people out there mopping up who government cuts have sacked - they've been told that they'll get an extension on their redundancy period for the floods.

    What ought to be the takeaway from this is that spare capacity is necessary for dealing with emergencies, so it is dangerous to cut the Environment Agency, London Fire Brigade, Army or any other service to a level at which it can just about tick over.

    It will be interesting to see if the cuts and redundancies are reversed. If not, then I guess Downing Street will be hoping for a dry start to 2015.
    I suspect the real issue is that these agencies are simply too large, in the sense that their responsibilities are too broad and often conflicting.

    Previous governments (of all colours) have pursued mergers in the name of "cost savings" (often illusionary), but you end up with something like the EA, which is trying to balance responsibilities for nature with responsibilities for flood defence and has to make a selection. Surely better to devolve power either to specialised agencies or to the regions for something like this (I could see the benefit of some kind of coordinating body so that, for instance, the Somerset Levels can learn best practice from the Norfolk Broads and vice versa).

    It might - although I doubt - lead to higher admin costs, but if it gets the job done properly then that has to be worthwhile
  • Options

    I agree that the scrutiny of the EA is going to be uncomfortable.

    Why are they funding Gay Pride? what else is going on there?

    To be honest I don't understand why gay pride - or gay anything - has to be "funded" by anything other than gay people themselves. This is not a homophobic rant - it's just that I know of no evidence that gay people have lower incomes than straight ones, and as they are presumably less likely to have children, they probably have higher disposable incomes. Why have we come to this state where everything has to be "funded" by the taxpayer rather than the individuals who take part?

  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    " Let us do the lot, fire, ambulance, mines, caves, diving, mountain, even life boats and Air Ambulance. Relying on charity in the 21st century for some aspects of rescue is bizarre."

    Noooooo. The charity bits like the RNLI work really well. Let the government take them over costs will go through the roof and the level of service will fall.

    I understand your point, but I think we'd make a go of it. We run UKISAR very, very well, and I think domestic rescue would dovetail easily into that model.

    There has been a lot of inter county cooperation on this, brigades from all over the country have been sending crews and equipment to bolster the areas involved, but there could have been much more use of the Fire Service in this time of national emergency. Most of my brigade let it be known to SMT that we'd like to get involved in the relief and rescue effort. We've got the skills, got the equipment, got the motivation, and we damned sure have the time, we're under utilised. There needs to be a serious rethink on our strategies.

    Maybe part of the problem here is that Britain has too many of these piddling little counties. If instead of all those piddling little ones they'd had one county with immediate access to the fire brigades of the former Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucester (the latter being renowned for its stepping in a puddle right up to his middle experience) they'd have had an easier time responding.
    I have no objection, in principal to a National Fire and Rescue Service, just that we only have the nightmare that was Prescott's Regional Control centre farce as a benchmark.

    Mr. Stopper I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for the junior members of the fire and rescue service, their professionalism, training, motivation and bravery is unrivalled outside the armed services. The quality of the senior management as managers and away from an operational role is, in my experience, appalling. They are great at running a big fire ground, organising a rescue and suchlike but as strategic managers and leaders clueless to the point of incompetence and so parochial they make the police look good. Putting them in charge of organising a national rescue service would be a disaster of epic proportions and cost billions.
  • Options
    Mr. Dave, where we're going, we don't need roads.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,334

    Mr. Monksfield, it's worth pointing out that (from what can gather from the low frequency and prominence this has in the reporting) flood defences have actually saved very many homes from being flooded. Naturally the focus is on those in distress, but when the floods recede it'd be very interesting and sueful to assess how much good (or not) has been done by the defences that were already in place.

    Mr Dancer makes a good point here. Certainly in the South Notts area we're as dry as a bone and we had flood defences finished a couple of years ago.There is probably a causative link.

    Downthread someone asks critically why we have to borrow gear from the Dutch. Why not? They're acknowledged experts on the issue, they've been tackling it systematically for decades, and if we've got a crisis and they haven't, it makes absolute sense to bring in not just the gear but the experts too. That, surely, is the kind of cooperation with neighbours that even the most zealous Better Off Out supporter would feel made sense? (Should the Netherlands have a crisis shortage of crappy reality TV shows, we could rush to the rescue in the same way.)
  • Options
    Mr. Charles, that's a sound point. A man can't ride two horses at once.
  • Options
    Mr. Palmer, your Dutch remark reminds me of a comparable situation from when Katrina struck New Orleans. Some Dutch chaps offered to help with the effort to get the city back on its feet again, but for reasons I think were mired in bureaucracy and unions defending 'their turf' they were declined. If the Dutch can help us get the afflicted areas back up and running then declining their help is bloody stupid.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @benedictbrogan: Killer from Barroso: chance of an independent Scotland joining EU? 'Extremely difficult if not impossible' #IndyRef #Marr Big intervention
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Ed lurching to the loony left green tax stance should help sharpen minds elsewhere.
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,010
    edited February 2014

    We need to throw the book at them. IMO we are at war with salafist terrorism and so are our allies. Anyone who fights for al Qaeda or its affiliates, at home or abroad, should be prosecuted for treason.

    Sorry, no.

    I know "friends-of-friends" who have fought in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Would they fall foul of your treason paradigm? I have to say that, whilst I think Islam is not my cup-of-tea, that the "suicide-bomber (asshat)" who blew up the Syrian prison proved:
    That was a different time, and I am fairly sure we didn't see al-Qaeda as the existential threat it is today. If, indeed, we knew what it was. Yes, it is legitimate to fight wars in some instances, and I have always believed that it is legitimate to fight to overthrow a dictator. What the British suicide bomber did is not really terrorism either - a prison holding regime prisoners is IMO a legitimate target in a civil war.

    However we have to stand up for ourselves. At the moment, I believe that fighting for al Qaeda and its associates in whatever field of conflict is treason, because we are engaged in a global conflict with them. From now on, prosecutions should be brought (or a specific law introduced if the Treason Act 1351 doesn't deliver the right results "adheres to the Queen's enemies in her Realm, giving them aid and comfort in her Realm or elsewhere")
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Mr. Charles, I suspect the West Country/South distinction (being different as opposed to the West Country being a distinct area within the South) is not one that is generally held further north.

    One is Saxon, one is Briton! You are Danes...
  • Options
    Charles said:

    Mr. Charles, I suspect the West Country/South distinction (being different as opposed to the West Country being a distinct area within the South) is not one that is generally held further north.

    One is Saxon, one is Briton! You are Danes...
    Living in Hampshire (and quite close to Surrey I have to add) I get annoyed when it appears in the South East rather than South. After all, Dorset is the next county.

  • Options

    ...Downthread someone asks critically why we have to borrow gear from the Dutch. Why not?

    Sven, Sven, Sven: You really are tedious....

    Did Indonesia need to be an EU member before the Boxing-Day Tsunami?
    Did Haiti have to be a US state to get the carrier-support following her tragic earthquake?
    Did the Philippines have to be a Commonwealth-member before a Type-45 as sent to the aid-relief?

    :troll-orf-posh-boy:

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I have no problem with it being funded by the department of culture, whose remit includes party planning!

    I agree that the scrutiny of the EA is going to be uncomfortable.

    Why are they funding Gay Pride? what else is going on there?

    To be honest I don't understand why gay pride - or gay anything - has to be "funded" by anything other than gay people themselves. This is not a homophobic rant - it's just that I know of no evidence that gay people have lower incomes than straight ones, and as they are presumably less likely to have children, they probably have higher disposable incomes. Why have we come to this state where everything has to be "funded" by the taxpayer rather than the individuals who take part?

  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,334
    edited February 2014
    Detailed ComRes data is out:
    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/02/15/blow-to-ukip-in-comres-poll/
    with a classic example of how responses depend on how you put the question:

    Politicians should stop trying to reform schools and the NHS
    Agree 41% Disagree 39%

    Schools and hospitals need to be reformed if high standards are to be achieved or maintained
    Agree 62% Disagree 19%

    These views can only be reconciled if people believe that high standards are for some reason a bad thing. I suspect the difference is attributable to the word "politicians" (boo hiss) in the first question and the words "high standards" (hooray!) in the second.

    The sample was taken on Wed/Thur, so not affected by any impact of the by-election (which I don't think there will be, but anyway...). The Opinium poll showing a 9-point Labour lead was taking Mon-Thur. Thus only YouGov is post-by-election (and shows no significant movement at all).

    Finally, there's some punditry on the small sample of recent elections - apparently nobody has ever won since 1970 after being behind in the polls for two years (is that right?):
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-milibands-labour-party-track-3150615
  • Options
    Mr. Charles, you Saxons and Celts all look the same to us Vikings ;)
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I have no problem with accepting Dutch help, and am pro EU. All I am suggesting is that we should have at least some similar assets. The fens and levels are a lot like the Netherlands.

    Mr. Monksfield, it's worth pointing out that (from what can gather from the low frequency and prominence this has in the reporting) flood defences have actually saved very many homes from being flooded. Naturally the focus is on those in distress, but when the floods recede it'd be very interesting and sueful to assess how much good (or not) has been done by the defences that were already in place.

    Mr Dancer makes a good point here. Certainly in the South Notts area we're as dry as a bone and we had flood defences finished a couple of years ago.There is probably a causative link.

    Downthread someone asks critically why we have to borrow gear from the Dutch. Why not? They're acknowledged experts on the issue, they've been tackling it systematically for decades, and if we've got a crisis and they haven't, it makes absolute sense to bring in not just the gear but the experts too. That, surely, is the kind of cooperation with neighbours that even the most zealous Better Off Out supporter would feel made sense? (Should the Netherlands have a crisis shortage of crappy reality TV shows, we could rush to the rescue in the same way.)
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,700
    edited February 2014

    Has anyone actually suggested that the EA staff were actually surplus? Budget cuts have forced their jobs to be restructured out of existence, but I haven't seen a case saying they did nothing, just that we decided their services were more than the country could afford.

    Anyway, like the "surplus" aircraft carriers we relied on to win the Falklands War, its a good job the floods happened now and not after these wasters at the EA had been given their cards. Cameron goes to Somerset and gets accosted by angry locals who say they have no help at a
    L - " well you see we has to cut EA numbers, surplus workers needed to go which is why there is no one available for you. Had to make them redundant because we don't have any money because of the last Labour government. But don't worry, money is no object".....

    There were no "surplus" aircraft-carriers: Hermes and Bulwark were "Commando-Carriers"; Invincible was 'first-of-class'; Illustrious was not commissioned; and Indomitable was not even re-christened. As for Ark, Eagle,Victorious, Tiger, Lion, Blake....
    Er, Tiger, Lion and Blake were six-inch gun cruisers; Tiger and Blake (but not, I think, Lion) were indeed converted to carry a very few helicopters, but they were not aircraft carriers in the usual sense of being able to deploy fixed-wing aircraft. But as you say there were plenty other true carriers not to affect your arsgument ...
This discussion has been closed.