Jump to content

£100M for south coast flood damage


is the north being disadvantaged for the south?  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. is the north being disadvantaged for the south?

    • yes, they deserve it.
    • no, they deserve it.
    • yes, purseholders are looking after their neighbours.
    • no, of course not.
    • the south should be given up to the sea.
    • cant vote now, i'm drowning!


Recommended Posts

You can throw a load of money at some Dutch engineers, get them to come over here, build us some dykes & windmills or whatever they do these days.

 

Yeah you could do that and maybe then people will have to start paying the same taxes as the Dutch as well.

 

I'm not saying that Dutch flood defences aren't good, but with that comes some of the highest taxes in the world which people in the UK just don't want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah you could do that and maybe then people will have to start paying the same taxes as the Dutch as well.

 

I'm not saying that Dutch flood defences aren't good, but with that comes some of the highest taxes in the world which people in the UK just don't want.

 

Just saying, it is a matter of not enough money being spent, there are things that could be done to prevent flooding if the will was there. The dredging that was normally done had been cancelled. Some of those flood prevention measures are fairly easy & relatively cheap compared to the cost of flood damage. It's just been neglected & left us all with a higher bill. They saved £1.5m or something pointless to cost upwards of £100m when it flooded. Disaster prevention is usually cheaper than recovery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the North/South thing is a reason to vote UKIP, but I do wonder what the impact of our ever increasing population has on these sorts of events.

 

Reduce immigration into this country and we reduce our population growth.

 

Regards

 

Doom

 

---------- Post added 11-02-2014 at 07:57 ----------

 

Catcliffe has had it's issues with flooding in recent years, yet they're building thousands of homes at Waverley which is within walking distance of Catcliffe.

 

What caused the flooding at Catcliffe and is Waverley similarly vulnerable?

 

Is all the additional hardstanding and water it's likely to generate going to compound the problems down at Catcliffe?

 

I'm not an Engineer, so I don't know the answers, but I've often wondered about the sanity of building so many houses in an area that has recently had atrocious flooding.

 

Regards

 

Doom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why cant we sort our own ppl out (England) instead of sending god knows how much to other places out of England !!

 

Because that's an idiotic argument. It isn't a straight choice between giving money to foreign aid or to flood defence. Nobody sat there in Whitehall and made that specific decision.

 

You could argue instead why don't we make corporations pay their taxes instead of them spiriting profits away?

 

---------- Post added 11-02-2014 at 08:40 ----------

 

Why cant we sort our own ppl out (England) instead of sending god knows how much to other places out of England !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saying, it is a matter of not enough money being spent, there are things that could be done to prevent flooding if the will was there.

 

Holland is a different situation though - and yes, they've spent astronomical amounts of money on flood prevention, but they've also allocated previously inhabited areas as new flood plain, and declared that other areas will not be protected in the event of flooding with people being allowed to decide whether to continue to live there.

 

All the Dutch authorities have done really is protect those areas which lie below sea level. That and annoy their neighbouring countries - by restricting the flow of water out to the sea, they've caused numerous floods inland further up the rivers - pretty much like the Somerset levels.

 

And even then, they admit there's nothing they can do to stop certain areas being eventually reclaimed by the sea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some good pictures here of previous storm damage to the rail line at Dawlish:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26125244

 

I used to go up and down that line when I was going to and from University. Coming home, there wasn't a greater sight as I usually went through there in the evening, it really made you feel like you were home. Going away it caused a heavy heart as you had to say goodbye to the sea for a good while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because that's an idiotic argument. It isn't a straight choice between giving money to foreign aid or to flood defence. Nobody sat there in Whitehall and made that specific decision.
Of course it isn't idiotic.

 

Make overseas aid voluntary and see how little they'd collect, go tell the flood victims that overseas aid is more important than their welfare, even worse tell them that is quite acceptable for money from their taxes to e sent to despot/space age/nuclear powers.

 

I'd like to see you tell them that to their faces.

 

---------- Post added 11-02-2014 at 17:21 ----------

 

Yeah you could do that and maybe then people will have to start paying the same taxes as the Dutch as well.

 

I'm not saying that Dutch flood defences aren't good, but with that comes some of the highest taxes in the world which people in the UK just don't want.

 

And have you asked British tax payers like the UKIP have if they're happy with overseas aid coming before UK needs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.