|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The last thing you need in a crisis is a right wing government
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I sort of agree with the point you're making, but, on a point of order:
Even as I was typing it, I was thinking "hang on..."
I was originally thinking of the Wash, but knew that was true blue. It turns out there aren't many low-lying agricultural constituencies that return non-Conservative MPs. Mea culpa.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
betjemaniac: quote:
I think we can be pretty sure COBRA would be meeting as frequently for the Solway Firth as for southern England - regardless of derogation to the Scottish Executive on one side of the firth.
Yes, OK. You are probably right - the government certainly worked hard after the floods in 2009.
Actually most of that was under the previous government, now I come to think of it. But if you compare what happened after the Cumbrian floods in 2009 and what's happening now, the political response is very similar - up to and including Prince Charles providing tea and sympathy...
Most agricultural communities vote Tory, having bought the line that they are the only party that really cares about rural England.
[ 10. February 2014, 08:34: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The present UK government has shrunk the Environment Agency and cut its staff year on year.
The Guido Fawkes Blog has some interesting information about the Environment Agency:
- 10% of the Agency's staff have been cut, leaving 11,200 personnel;
- the Environment Agency for England has more staff than the equivalent bodies in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden and Austria combined;
- the United States' Environmental Protection Agency has only slightly more staff (15,913); and
- the Environment Agency spends more on PR than it does on dredging rivers.
The comments by the whistle blower in the article suggests that under-manning isn't the problem, but staff management.
quote:
Do you think more staff/resources/money should be put into bodies like the Environment Agency...?
Based on the above, it appears that resources aren't necessarily the problem.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The present UK government has shrunk the Environment Agency and cut its staff year on year.
The Guido Fawkes Blog has some interesting information about the Environment Agency:
- 10% of the Agency's staff have been cut, leaving 11,200 personnel;
- the Environment Agency for England has more staff than the equivalent bodies in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden and Austria combined;
- the United States' Environmental Protection Agency has only slightly more staff (15,913); and
- the Environment Agency spends more on PR than it does on dredging rivers.
The comments by the whistle blower in the article suggests that under-manning isn't the problem, but staff management.
quote:
Do you think more staff/resources/money should be put into bodies like the Environment Agency...?
Based on the above, it appears that resources aren't necessarily the problem.
But what are these other agencies meant to do?
The EA is responsible for pollution control, protection of wildlife, invasive weeds, pest and diseases (like the ash dieback crisis), administration of conservation grants, waste management, control and regulation of pesticides, planning, climate change and other environmental policies. Oh, we have rather a lot of waterways and coastline to look after compared with most countries.
How much of the problem is with the system and policies that the agency is supposed to implement?
As far as flood prevention and drainage management is concerned there is no one agency responsible for it. Local government (County, districts, Parish and Unitary authorities) are responsible for local water courses and drains, the water companies for sewers, land owners for certain riparian duties, the highways agency and various for all that hard tarmac that is the trunk road system. The EA is only responsible for main rivers and designated water ways. None of them are particularly good at ditch cleaning and maintenance of dew ponds. This sort of maintenance has been reduced and reduced since the advent of compulsory competitive tendering and the cuts of the 1980's. Administrations of all colours have contributed to the situation. There is a distinct lack of a joined up approach. Central government should be responsible for that surely?
Above all else, there has been a hell of a lot of rain recently. Maybe the government should show the piety and wisdom of King Canute and admit that there is a limit to what can be done.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
How much of the problem is with the system and policies that the agency is supposed to implement?
Surely the whole point of setting up the Environment Agency was to make that a question for the Environment Agency and mean the government doesn't get to dictate the systems and policies that the agency is supposed to implement?
The only thing the government gets to do is set the budgets, not the priorities or processes within that.
A more pertinant question might be the terms of reference of the EA, and the bodies, responsibilities, and budgets which were subsumed into it at foundation. Certainly the loss of autonomy of local drainage boards was a huge error - and I say that as a rural type that has had an opinion on this for a lot longer than the past weeks it's been in the news! (Suddenly, and this isn't aimed at the good people of this board, everyone's an expert on dredging - I love it!)
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Oh do stop confusing the issue with facts, you've ruined a perfectly good piece of scaremongering.
The problem here isn't that it's a right wing government but that it's a British coalition government and the partners have had enough. The country is caught up in this acrimonious breakdown of what was, at best a marriage of convenience.
Both parties are now trying to distance themselves from one another while maintaining something akin to a government.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Oh, we have rather a lot of waterways and coastline to look after compared with most countries.
Indeed, although if the waterway is navigable then that's the Canal and River Trust (the agency formerly known as British Waterways)'s problem not the EA's.
The coastline can be an even more unholy trinity of those two agencies, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, if you get the location right!
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
How much of the problem is with the system and policies that the agency is supposed to implement?
Surely the whole point of setting up the Environment Agency was to make that a question for the Environment Agency and mean the government doesn't get to dictate the systems and policies that the agency is supposed to implement?
The only thing the government gets to do is set the budgets, not the priorities or processes within that.
A more pertinant question might be the terms of reference of the EA, and the bodies, responsibilities, and budgets which were subsumed into it at foundation. Certainly the loss of autonomy of local drainage boards was a huge error - and I say that as a rural type that has had an opinion on this for a lot longer than the past weeks it's been in the news! (Suddenly, and this isn't aimed at the good people of this board, everyone's an expert on dredging - I love it!)
Well yes and no.
There is a whole gamut of government interference and priority setting as everyone who has worked in the public sector will know. This is every thing from procurement and financial policies and procedure to the local MP, councillor, or other elected person writing to ask why have/ haven't you done x (sometimes they argue both ways over the same issue depending what the latest complaint is in their inbox ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) They tend to have a short memory IME) and demanding that their request be met. In the end the QUANGOS, civil service and local authorities implement government policies and their objectives.
Then we get the undignified spectacle of the government minister standing up and slating the agency for not doing work for which it isn't funded.
In Britain we set a budget and work to that rather than ask ourselves what we are/ are not going to do and work out how much it costs to do the job properly; or alternatively manage expectations of the public and admit that when something extreme happens then the infrastructure and agencies that manage them won't be able to cope. Capital projects tend to be funded but revenue for maintenance of those assets is squeezed. Therefore the life of those assets is reduced.
My expertise happens to be in the management of the environment. However there seems to a similar funding crisis in social care (Radio 4 had a program about how care agencies are paid at rates below NME + basic overheads for care workers), health care, road maintenance and the armed forces. Not to mention a shortfall in the funding of pension provision.
I fear it is the nature of politicians to manage by crisis and if it isn't flood it will be drought, disease, riot, another child murdered by their carers and so on. Such is the human condition.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
My expertise happens to be in the management of the environment. However there seems to a similar funding crisis in social care (Radio 4 had a program about how care agencies are paid at rates below NME + basic overheads for care workers), health care, road maintenance and the armed forces. Not to mention a shortfall in the funding of pension provision.
I fear it is the nature of politicians to manage by crisis and if it isn't flood it will be drought, disease, riot, another child murdered by their carers and so on. Such is the human condition.
As a former service person, agricultural type, and child of state sector teachers, I completely agree with all of that.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
- the United States' Environmental Protection Agency has only slightly more staff (15,913); and
This is very misleading.
There are many other agencies outside of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that are responsible for responding to national disasters and to dredging. They include:
- Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
- Army Corps of Engineers
- US Coast Guard
- state police
FEMA alone has 7,500 employees. The Army Corps of Engineers has more than 36,000 military and civilian staff and most of their work is around flood control, waterways, and environmental management.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
- the United States' Environmental Protection Agency has only slightly more staff (15,913); and
This is very misleading.
There are many other agencies outside of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that are responsible for responding to national disasters and to dredging. They include:
- Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
- Army Corps of Engineers
- US Coast Guard
- state police
FEMA alone has 7,500 employees. The Army Corps of Engineers has more than 36,000 military and civilian staff and most of their work is around flood control, waterways, and environmental management.
I imagine you could also add National Parks employees to that, too.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
If you want to go into detail as to why the flooding of the Levels is so much worse you need to look way beyond the land currently underwater.
Part of the problem is that much of the agricultural land that feeds the rivers that go through the levels is now of the 'prairie' type of field: it is not the small patchwork of meadow but, in the main, vast tracts of bare earth.
The later harvesting of crops used for animal feed has a lot to do with this: the autumn rains arrive before they have a carpet of green to hold the soil and so the rain just runs off - and takes a load of soil with it.
If you think this is far-fetched you only need to look at the reddish colour of so much of the flood water - that is soil in there.
The size of the fields also doesn't help - hedgerows (with their often-accompanying ditches) played a vital part in slowing down erosion, achoring soil and dealing with run-off. And the smaller field sizes meant there were far more miles of drainage ditches than you get with 'prairie fields'.
If you want to know where to push some blame look at the Min of Ag in the late 1990s-early 2000s: they took the decision that the subsidies to be paid (out of EU money, not from UK source directly) was to be at a lower rate: the higher rate would have ensured that conditions could have been imposed to insist on keeping things like the traditional hedge-and-ditch systems in place - but it was decided to go for the lower rate which meant conditions couldn't be imposed.
The blame for much of the agricultural run-off has to be apportioned to changed field patterns and cultivation choices. Yes, farmers want their land to be dry - or at least not underwater - but they have come to expect to be paid for looking after the long-term interests of the environment they farm in, as opposed to short-term profit. The extreme pressure put on farms by effective cartels (supermarkets) leave very little margin and expecting farmers to make their own financial position even more precarious by making their goods less attractive to the buyers from the large chains is naive in the extreme.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Could we not grow something that *likes* being underwater - rice, water buffalo ...
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
We could work out what the maximum sea level is likely to be over the next three hundred years, and start gradually moving things out of the way, inland and higher up.
Uhm no! There are huge problems with estimating maxima. Outlying values depend hugely on the underlying distribution. Maxima are outliers by definition i.e. rare events. This is very different from when we talk of median or average, the underlying distribution can almost be ignored. When I came into my present job twenty years ago this was a research project within the Probability and Statistics department.
An interactive Graph that basically puts under water those areas lower than the level that you specify. However, this does not work for flooding. While two of the areas shown as flooded are in the news this is not completely accurate. Yorkshire seems to have got off with very little while Wales has been hit hard. This is because of the form the weather is taking. Also there almost certainly will be erosion and sediment going on so the map will be different.
So firstly the models are highly dependent on initial assumptions, secondly it looks as if there are a complex set of factors that go to create the situation.
Basically any 300 year maxima has a confidence level around it that is so huge as to make it meaningless.
Jengie
I expressed myself badly, I was meaning something like
this .
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The climate in the UK (at the moment, at least) is not suitable for rice.
There are water-buffalo in Wales: originally imported from Asia for the Teifi marshes there are now quite a few farms with both Asian and Mediterranean buffalo. The buffalo have been such a success that Wales is now a major producer of pukka mozzarella di bufala. There are also a few herds in England.
Yes, there may be mileage in looking at water buffalo but they need some vegetation above water level.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
The private sector will bail us out using the laws of the free market economy.
I think this is at the heart of a lot of problems with government these days (and frankly it doesn't always matter what 'wing' the government is), because it assumes that a free market economy will get everything done.
It won't, because there isn't necessarily money to be made from everything. A public sector can subsidise a useful service that isn't profitable by providing other services that are profitable. A private sector will just cut the service that isn't profitable, because that way they'll make more money overall.
Some years ago I saw a very interesting article discussing how decisions about privatising services were almost always based on ideology, not on solid observations about what would work better. Governments of all stripes should be in the business of working out whether there'll be a better result, in terms of value for money and delivery of service, from a private sector with competition between providers or from a public sector with different kinds of strengths and clout.
I think one of the biggest mistakes that so many governments make nowadays is to try and run government like a business, using business principles. It's NOT a business. That's the whole ruddy point. The motivations and drivers should be totally different.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Point of Order:
The Environment Agency's equivalent in Canada, like the US, spans many different Departments and indeed levels of government. Much of its work is done by Provincial Ministries of Natural Resources. Flood Protection is done by MNR's, mainly in Manitoba and New Brunswick, the two seriously floodprone areas in this country.
Pesticides are regulated by Health Canada and rivers and canals are handled by Transport Canada if they are commercially navigable, Parks Canada for the recreational canals and provincial MNR's for the rest.
I call bullshit on Anglican't.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
He was using Guido as a a source - it's hardly surprising it's bullshit. Might as well rely on Pravda for tractor production figures.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
The private sector will bail us out using the laws of the free market economy.
I think this is at the heart of a lot of problems with government these days (and frankly it doesn't always matter what 'wing' the government is), because it assumes that a free market economy will get everything done.
Exactly.
Essentials like water provision etc should not be subject to market forces (fear and greed).
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It seems to lead to an ambivalence about the state amongst some people, who want a small one, that doesn't interfere in people's lives, (nanny state), until the water is bubbling up through their floor, when suddenly there is a great need for some kind of state help. I suppose deregulation is all very well, as long as things are going well, but when they go pear-shaped, you can feel awfully alone.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems to lead to an ambivalence about the state amongst some people, who want a small one, that doesn't interfere in people's lives, (nanny state), until the water is bubbling up through their floor, when suddenly there is a great need for some kind of state help. I suppose deregulation is all very well, as long as things are going well, but when they go pear-shaped, you can feel awfully alone.
Are those two thoughts necessarily contradictory? Libertarians sometimes speak of a 'nightwatchman state'. A nightwatchman's job, presumably, is to keep a look out for trouble and, if there is some, to do something about it.
This libertarian position is probably an extreme one, but I don't think a moderate position necessarily makes these two thoughts irreconcilable, does it?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Essentials like water provision etc should not be subject to market forces (fear and greed).
Would you regard lavatory paper as an 'essential'?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems to lead to an ambivalence about the state amongst some people, who want a small one, that doesn't interfere in people's lives, (nanny state), until the water is bubbling up through their floor, when suddenly there is a great need for some kind of state help. I suppose deregulation is all very well, as long as things are going well, but when they go pear-shaped, you can feel awfully alone.
Are those two thoughts necessarily contradictory? Libertarians sometimes speak of a 'nightwatchman state'. A nightwatchman's job, presumably, is to keep a look out for trouble and, if there is some, to do something about it.
This libertarian position is probably an extreme one, but I don't think a moderate position necessarily makes these two thoughts irreconcilable, does it?
No, I agree. I just see the right-wing as bouncing between the two positions, as deregulation sometimes brings havoc in its wake, and then deregulation is abandoned, for a while, and then picked up again, when things have calmed down. It's rather like government by crisis, which I suppose is rather exciting! But TINA, of course.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Essentials like water provision etc should not be subject to market forces (fear and greed).
Would you regard lavatory paper as an 'essential'?
Some would ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But you can't cut public service personnel and at the same time expect them to be in every flooded part of the country - something has to give. This government needs to make up its mind - as quetzalcoatl says.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's also about joined-up thinking, isn't it? The more I read about floods, the cause of, the more confusing it seems.
I read that the EU has been paying upland farmers to strip the hills of trees and vegetation, for some reason, which I haven't yet fathomed; on the other hand, hydrologists seem to be saying that that stops the uplands from holding water, rather like a sponge, thus increasing floods lower down.
But government in the UK tends to be for the short term - i.e. what can we do to win the next election?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Essentials like water provision etc should not be subject to market forces (fear and greed).
Would you regard lavatory paper as an 'essential'?
Not if you have an adequate supply of Daily Mails...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
No, no, the Daily Mail should be buried in the garden as fertilizer. It brings the rhubarb up a treat; no other newspaper is as good (rhubarb likes acid soil).
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Also good mixed with manure. There is some kind of reciprocal action, or mutual recognition going on.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's well known that when there's some kind of disaster or tragedy, people suddenly think it's the government's job to do so something about it, and politicians are terribly keen to be seen to 'do something'.
This is still my favourite piece from the Onion News Network
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Interesting that when wealthy homes in middle England are flooded, money’s suddenly no object after years of "difficult decisions have to be made and extra bedrooms must be taxed".
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, the TV news has taken on a whole different appearance, now they start dramatically with a famous news reader standing in water in an affluent area.
Did they do this in Somerset? Maybe they did, but my impression is that there is a sort of gasp, horror, at the idea that water is lapping at the doors of London suburbs.
But I suppose there is some sense in this also, there is a danger of a political snowball gathering, whereby people get angry, blame the government, and it could get out of control. Pickles is the man for the job! (*Sarcasm alert*).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Boogie
You said ...wealthy homes in middle England...: do you think the floods are only affecting owner-occupiers who've paid off their mortgage? Or perhaps think there is no social housing along the Thames Valley?
The floods are affecting everyone: the reason why its more newsworthy when it hits the Thames Valley is the sheer numbers of people involved and the knock-on effect on infrastructure for people elsewhere in the country when rail services are crippled.
[fixed code]
[ 13. February 2014, 09:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The floods are affecting everyone: the reason why its more newsworthy when it hits the Thames Valley is the sheer numbers of people involved and the knock-on effect on infrastructure for people elsewhere in the country when rail services are crippled.
And the reason why money is suddenly no object is?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The floods are affecting everyone: the reason why its more newsworthy when it hits the Thames Valley is the sheer numbers of people involved and the knock-on effect on infrastructure for people elsewhere in the country when rail services are crippled.
And the reason why money is suddenly no object is?
Because Cameron is shitting himself, that people might get very angry, and then they might vote UKIP, or even, quelle horreur, Labour. So send for the mighty Pickles to fill the dykes! Not lesbians, I hasten to add.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Oh please!
Mr Cameron has announced that money will be found because it is patently obvious that the damage to be repaired will be huge.
Government making available emergency funds to homeowners forced out of their houses means that people either without insurance, or experiencing delays, can relax about paying for the (emergency) roof over their head.
The cost of Government probably paying for repairs to property where the homeowner is not insured is, in the greater scheme of things, peanuts.
As for the "where did they suddenly find the money" chorus: UK governments have always kept a reserve fund to cope with emergencies.
All those of you sniping at the PM: are you seriously suggesting things would be any different if someone else headed up the government? Ed Miliband could stop the rain, magically prevent floods, still the gales, etc, etc, etc.
Grow up. The country is experiencing unprecedented wind and rain - if you want to blame someone, try God.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Interesting that when wealthy homes in middle England are flooded, money’s suddenly no object after years of "difficult decisions have to be made and extra bedrooms must be taxed".
This did strike me as a skightly odd thing for the Prime Minister to say, particularly given the general themes of this government (even if no bedrooms have been taxed...)
There was an interesting piece by Dan Hodges in the Telegraph recently saying how at some unspecified point last weekend the floods went from being a common or garden incident (albeit a serious one) to a political crisis. Once that happened, the politicians had to spring into action.
[ 13. February 2014, 09:27: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh please!
Mr Cameron has announced that money will be found because it is patently obvious that the damage to be repaired will be huge.
Government making available emergency funds to homeowners forced out of their houses means that people either without insurance, or experiencing delays, can relax about paying for the (emergency) roof over their head.
Like other 'emergency' announcements Cameron has made, we should not expect this to amount to a plate of beans. Why should the state pay for people who have no insurance? Of course it won't.
quote:
The cost of Government probably paying for repairs to property where the homeowner is not insured is, in the greater scheme of things, peanuts.
And, of course, will not actually happen. Householders will have to apply to a fund of money set up with great fanfare, and it will turn out down the line that about 2 have actually received any money.
quote:
As for the "where did they suddenly find the money" chorus: UK governments have always kept a reserve fund to cope with emergencies.
I'm pretty sure they haven't got reserves to do more than clean up the mess. Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to cut the costs of running flood protection services, would they?
quote:
All those of you sniping at the PM: are you seriously suggesting things would be any different if someone else headed up the government? Ed Miliband could stop the rain, magically prevent floods, still the gales, etc, etc, etc.
Nope. But at the very least, I do not believe that Labour would have cut budgets as hard as the Tories have - because economic theories of Shock therapy are ingrained into the DNA of many Tories.
quote:
Grow up. The country is experiencing unprecedented wind and rain - if you want to blame someone, try God.
Or perhaps blame those who ignored the warnings about climate change, reduced budgets which would have reduced the effects of this storm and so on.
[ 13. February 2014, 09:33: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Is it shock therapy? It's to do with deregulation, isn't it? This tends to produce government by crisis, since when you deregulate, you sometimes get crises arising, and then you have to leap in and put your finger in the dyke (!). Thus the small state suddenly has to become nanny state.
I certainly would not expect Mr Miliband to do any better - they are all deregulators now. I suppose we get the politicians that we deserve.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
pydseybare
NO ONE reduced the amount available for flood defences.
The Environment Agency was set up under a Labour administration as an umbrella organisation, taking in the old Ministry of Agriculture, National Rivers Authority, etc.
The EA is given a budget and it is the EA which decides how and where to spend the money.
No government minister, of whatever political hue, has demanded that spending on dredging, flood walls, etc, be cut. The people who run the EA have decided where to spend their money.
They have decided in some instances to spend it on removing sea walls, allowing the sea to flood inland, providing a 'soft' defence. An example of this is at Selsey in West Sussex which, with the removal of a large section of shingle bank and sea wall, is now once again really an island.
Friends down there note that the single road over the causeway needs renewing and a second route provided but the EA - wearing its conservation hat - won't give permission... so local residents expect the old Seal Island to become a reality fairly soon.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
Sorry, I thought others would get the reference. Shock therapy is largely associated with Milton Freedman and the Chicago School of economics. Basically they believe in unfetted private markets and work towards absolutely minimal regulation.
In particular, it refers to the idea that a crisis is a good time to break down regulation and cut out red-tape.
In the view of many, the theory has never been shown to work out, but the ideas hang around for a long time because it fits in so well with Conservative/Tory dogmas.
(sorry, I can never remember which is left and which is right wing. Can't even remember which hand is which. Sue me) Shock therapy
[ 13. February 2014, 09:53: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
pydseybare
NO ONE reduced the amount available for flood defences.
I'm sorry, they absolute have. Staff have been cut and the overall budget for flood defence has been cut. The overall budget for the EA, which has a number of important regulatory functions, has been cut.
quote:
The Environment Agency was set up under a Labour administration as an umbrella organisation, taking in the old Ministry of Agriculture, National Rivers Authority, etc.
The EA is given a budget and it is the EA which decides how and where to spend the money.
Rubbish.
quote:
No government minister, of whatever political hue, has demanded that spending on dredging, flood walls, etc, be cut. The people who run the EA have decided where to spend their money.
Well that might be true, but in cutting the budgets available for infrastructure, the effect is to cut the costs of flood defences, which are a major part of the EA capital budget.
quote:
They have decided in some instances to spend it on removing sea walls, allowing the sea to flood inland, providing a 'soft' defence. An example of this is at Selsey in West Sussex which, with the removal of a large section of shingle bank and sea wall, is now once again really an island.
True but irrelevant.
quote:
Friends down there note that the single road over the causeway needs renewing and a second route provided but the EA - wearing its conservation hat - won't give permission... so local residents expect the old Seal Island to become a reality fairly soon.
The thing that is widely ignored in this debate is that the Environment Agency almost single-handedly has the flood protection expertise in England. There are no other experts - even the few academics left in universities are largely funded by the EA to do fundamental research.
If the EA cannot protect low-lying areas with the budget that they have, it is reasonable to assume that it cannot be done by anyone. If they can't do it with an increased budget, it is for sure that they can't do it with less people and less money.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
pydseybare
Thanks for that. I should have remembered that, small state, mucho privatization, deregulation, chaos.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I saw Lord Smith say that they were constrained in terms of what they could spend by government decree - the EA, I mean. For example, they could spend £400, 000 on the Levels, and no more. Of course, I have no idea if this is true.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I saw Lord Smith say that they were constrained in terms of what they could spend by government decree - the EA, I mean. For example, they could spend £400, 000 on the Levels, and no more. Of course, I have no idea if this is true.
There is a rule that says that every £1 spent on flood defence must produce £8 of economic benefit. This supposedly penalises small rural communities, relative to (for example) central London. Perhaps there wasn't taken to be enough economic justification for doing anything else on the Somerset Levels.
It seems to me that such benefits would be quite hard to quantify, but I really couldn't say.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I was just replying to the idea that the EA sets its own budget, when Smith appears to contradict this, and actually said that spending on the Levels was constrained by government. Or as he put it, £400, 000 was the 'maximum amount the Treasury rules allowed us to do'. I suppose he must be right.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also good mixed with manure. There is some kind of reciprocal action, or mutual recognition going on.
Other newspapers need to be mixed with manure. The Daily Mail comes complete with shit in the pages
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Its rather hard to imagine the Treasury allowing any government agency to set its own budget.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I saw Lord Smith say that they were constrained in terms of what they could spend by government decree - the EA, I mean. For example, they could spend £400, 000 on the Levels, and no more. Of course, I have no idea if this is true.
There is a rule that says that every £1 spent on flood defence must produce £8 of economic benefit. This supposedly penalises small rural communities, relative to (for example) central London. Perhaps there wasn't taken to be enough economic justification for doing anything else on the Somerset Levels.
It seems to me that such benefits would be quite hard to quantify, but I really couldn't say.
The regulation about £8 benefit per £1 spent has been quoted in the media sufficiently for me to believe it to be true. Also, that the figure of £8 was increased from £5 some while ago, and as a result a large number of proposed flood defence schemes had to be shelved because they did not meet the cost benefit requirement imposed by central government.
So whether or not the overall budget for the EA has been maintained, what they are allowed to spend it on has definitely diminished, contrary to what L'organist posted:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
NO ONE reduced the amount available for flood defences.
...
The EA is given a budget and it is the EA which decides how and where to spend the money.
No government minister, of whatever political hue, has demanded that spending on dredging, flood walls, etc, be cut. The people who run the EA have decided where to spend their money.
...
So we have the typical political disingenous deceit: 'We haven't cut the budget for the EA' [but we've changed the rules so they can't spend the money the way they want to].
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Here is a good article. It is a national embarrassment that the only decent pumps in use are borrowed from Holland. We need to pour real money into upgrading all our infrastructure. With the added bonus of lots of jobs created. The money can come from projects which are pure waste - trident, banker's bonuses, huge unnecessary profits for utilities etc etc. the list is endless.
From the article - "On Newsnight the other evening, confronted by an audience of flood victims, Philip Hammond, the cabinet's God of Defence, reiterated what many in his party have suddenly started to say. Individuals have some responsibility for protecting themselves against floods. Local councils have some responsibility for protecting their boroughs against floods. But infrastructural protection against floods is a huge job, a national job, a job that the state has to oversee. There is no private-sector solution here, not even in the spacious realm of neoliberal fantasy."
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
