Cumbria flooding

thebennyboy · 27 Dec 2015 at 22:44

dowie said:
oh no it rained a lot.... blame the Tories

They were responsible for slashing the DEFRA's budget, so yes i will blame the tories. But hey, you carry on spouting BS without any proof.

The Treasury and the departments for the environment, transport and local government and communities have agreed to average annual cuts of 8% in their operating costs, a total of 30% over the next four years, the chancellor, George Osborne, announced on Monday.

But economists at the RSPB say that this will translate into a cut of 57% in real terms since the Conservatives came into power, once inflation has been taken into account.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...f-any-uk-government-department-analysis-shows

dowie · 27 Dec 2015 at 22:46

as if DEFRA having a bit of a larger budget in the recent past would have done much to prevent the massive flooding we've just had

Nutella33 · 27 Dec 2015 at 22:48

dowie said:
oh no it rained a lot.... blame the Tories

No ones blaming the Tories for the rain. Just decisions they have made previously. Taken from the link above...

But projects in Leeds, York, Thirsk and Morpeth have been put on hold.

That'll be the areas currently hit then and large metropolitan areas as well.

It's not a partisan issue, the same arguments were made during the large floods under labour in 2001, 2007 who had also cancelled or cut flood defence budgets.

Nutella33 · 27 Dec 2015 at 22:51

dowie said:
as if DEFRA having a bit of a larger budget in the recent past would have done much to prevent the massive flooding we've just had

They might have had continued with flood defences in the region that were halted due to underfunding. Yes. It's not hard to understand.

Before your inevitable reply, this isn't an argument saying everything would have been fine, just that certain cities may not have been effected as much. For example York floods to some degree every year, its not a large issue, however this year has hit different areas and hit much harder "normal" regions.

This isn't 1000 homes getting hit in a town in Sussex, its a metro area of millions of people being effected

dowie · 27 Dec 2015 at 22:53

They might have had some extra defences that would have still proved to be relatively futile overall...

thebennyboy · 27 Dec 2015 at 22:57

dowie said:
They might have had some extra defences that would have still proved to be relatively futile overall...

I can actually say from experience that you couldn't be more wrong.

The Environment Agency funded all the flood defenses here and they have worked very well, uses to get flooded 2 - 3 times a year but ever since the village has never flooded.

So, futile? No, not if they have a budget which allows them to do more than just issue warnings. Or this government could stop building houses in areas with a high risk of flooding.

Nutella33 · 27 Dec 2015 at 23:01

dowie said:
They might have had some extra defences that would have still proved to be relatively futile overall...

EA's estimates of the flood defences installed between the 2007 and 2014 floods across the UK suggest otherwise, with 1.3 million homes saved.

So, as bennyboy and my previous post have suggested, No, this isn't the case. Although as I said, I'm not saying everything would have gone "swimmingly". Just could government have done more? The answer appears to be " Yes".

dowie · 27 Dec 2015 at 23:01

Well York had flood defences... then they had to open them

given the scale of this flood then yes a bit of an increase in the budget would have made relatively little difference overall

Deleted member 66701 · 27 Dec 2015 at 23:02

dowie said:
They might have had some extra defences that would have still proved to be relatively futile overall...

Is the Thames barrier futile?

dowie · 27 Dec 2015 at 23:05

amigafan2003 said:
Is the Thames barrier futile?

of course not, London is important

thebennyboy · 27 Dec 2015 at 23:06

dowie said:
of course not, London is important

Clearly just trolling now.

ajf · 27 Dec 2015 at 23:07

dowie said:
Well York had flood defences... then they had to open them

I've read this a couple of times, but no reason given for this? Was it to reduce impact further down river?

Nutella33 · 27 Dec 2015 at 23:11

dowie said:
Well York had flood defences... then they had to open them

given the scale of this flood then yes a bit of an increase in the budget would have made relatively little difference overall

York's flood defences were unfinished and required more money to be completed as well as additional projects. If you don't think this is a factor in the current situation (never mind the ones in Leeds which were never started and Manchester) im not sure you are entirely safe in your proclamation there.

of course not, London is important

So really you've just come into the thread to take the Mick and complain about people being unreasonable whilst been utterly partisan and unreasonable yourself? Got you.

hellarda · 27 Dec 2015 at 23:13

ajf said:
I've read this a couple of times, but no reason given for this? Was it to reduce impact further down river?

No it was because they were worried about electrical failure due to the flooding and they didn't want it to break in the 'Closed' position, so they opened the barrier...

dowie · 27 Dec 2015 at 23:15

actually looking at this it seems the idea that flood defence budgets have been slashed is complete ******** anyway...

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...d_and_Coastal_Erosion_in_England_Dec_2015.pdf

Figure 5 shows that Central Government invested more than £3.2 billion in FCERM over the five years from April 2010 to March 2015. This includes additional funding announced on 6 February 2014 (£130m, split £30m 13/14, £100m 14/15) and in the Budget on 19 March 2014 (£140m, split £80m 14/15, £60m 15/16), in response to the flooding in winter 2013/14. Real terms figures are shown in 15/16 prices, using HM Treasury’s GDP Deflator.

So carry on getting the pitch forks out for the Tories but flood defence spending was actually slightly higher over the last 5 years... and despite that increase in spending... well look what happened.

Nutella33 · 27 Dec 2015 at 23:17

ajf said:
I've read this a couple of times, but no reason given for this? Was it to reduce impact further down river?

The EA is saying it was to protect some of the pumps in the city. However the effect of it means 3.5k homes in another area of the city has been hit by the other river (Foss), whilst the main river (Ouse) has continued to cause the main damage.

dowie · 27 Dec 2015 at 23:17

Nutella33 said:
So really you've just come into the thread to take the Mick and complain about people being unreasonable whilst been utterly partisan and unreasonable yourself? Got you.

no just pointing out that blaming the Tories is stupid and misplaced

you got confused between cuts to department budgets and cuts to the actual spending on flood defences (which have increased)

you've also seen that despite this increase in spending lots of people have been negatively affected by flooding

but still carry on blaming the Tories because it rained a lot

Uther · 27 Dec 2015 at 23:19

Nutella33 said:
The EA is saying it was to protect some of the pumps in the city. However the effect of it means 3.5k homes in another area of the city has been hit by the other river (Foss), whilst the main river (Ouse) has continued to cause the main damage.

Maybe they can pick up the bill then...

Nutella33 · 27 Dec 2015 at 23:22

dowie said:
actually looking at this it seems the idea that flood defence budgets have been slashed is complete

So carry on getting the pitch forks out for the Tories but flood defence spending was actually slightly higher over the last 5 years... and despite that increase in spending... well look what happened.

That figure you are quoting is not the flood defence budget.

Here's the national statistics office publicly saying the government figures are misleading and that it has actually dropped - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...fence-cash-cut-by-250m-despite-PMs-claim.html

And again, this isn't a partisan issue. The same thing happened in labours previous terms. Why all the fake defensive outrage?

dowie · 27 Dec 2015 at 23:28

Nutella33 said:
That figure you are quoting is not the flood defence budget.

Here's the national statistics office publicly saying the government figures are misleading and that it has actually dropped - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...fence-cash-cut-by-250m-despite-PMs-claim.html

And again, this isn't a partisan issue. The same thing happened in labours previous terms. Why all the fake defensive outrage?

I've quoted you figures directly from DEFRA, you're linking to an article from nearly two years ago disputing the source of some funds related to some statement made by the PM

fact is from DEFRA's own figures central government funding for flood and coastal erosion was higher in the past 5 years than it was in the 5 years prior to that

Cumbria flooding

Deleted member 66701

Deleted member 66701