UK flooding again

[El Cid]

David Cameron pledges £40m to bolster flood defences. I dont think that this is enough, it was raised by Cameron a few years ago and then cut by Osborne and now its been put up to the same level by Cameron.

We have spent round about £600/650m each year for over ten years, adding £40m with our recent extreme rainfall is not enough.

 

UK flooding: How a town in Yorkshire, Pickering, worked with nature to stay dry

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-flooding-how-a-yorkshire-flood-blackspot-worked-with-nature-to-stay-dry-a6794286.html

Edited January 3, 2016 by El Cid

[unbeliever]

David Cameron pledges £40m to bolster flood defences. I dont think that this is enough, it was raised by Cameron a few years ago and then cut by Osborne and now its been put up to the same level by Cameron.

We have spent round about £600/650m each year for over ten years, adding £40m with our recent extreme rainfall is not enough.

 

Last year, out of a total budget of £1.2 bullion, the EA spent £412 million on staff (over 11 thousand of them), £41 million on maps and risk strategies and £240 million on actual flood prevention measures such as ditches, embankments and river bed work. If they spend the extra £40 million on actual flood prevention measures, that's an increase of 17%.

 

The EA is an expensive, dysfunctional, bureaucratic and officious QUANGO. It should be dismantled and the responsibilities returned to the state where they belong. I know that any organisation needs staff, but when your staff budget baloons so much that it far exceeds you actual activity budget, and to then you whinge about not having enough money, something has gone badly wrong.

 

They're far too busy feathering their own nests and obsessing about hypothetical green concerns to do what's needed practically.

 

It might be something to do with the fact that their official priorities are as follows:

• Act to reduce climate change and its consequences

• Protect and improve water, land and air

• Work with people and communities to create better places

• Work with businesses and other organisations to use resources wisely

• Be the best we can

 

I suppose keeping our homes above water might fall into the second item. Somewhere. The 5th made me throw up my mouth a little bit.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/246527/0497.pdf

[Eric Arthur]

The EA staff do a bit more than asking contractors to build concrete flood walls.

[unbeliever]

The EA staff do a bit more than asking contractors to build concrete flood walls.

 

I'm sure they do.

But £412 million out of a budget of £1200 million on staff?

And £240 million out of a budget of £1200 million on keeping our homes dry?

 

The other point I was making is that if you take £40 million from the total budget it doesn't all come from anti-flooding measures. If you then give them £40 million specifically for anti-flooding measures, it should all go to anti-flooding measures. Therefore the anti-flooding budget should have gone up substantially.

[El Cid]

But £412 million out of a budget of £1200 million on staff?

 

Some might put this down to class, you look at the money spent on staff and I look at the list of previous Lords and Sirs that have been the heads of the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency does more than tackle floods.

[Eric Arthur]

I'm sure they do.

But £412 million out of a budget of £1200 million on staff?

And £240 million out of a budget of £1200 million on keeping our homes dry?

 

The other point I was making is that if you take £40 million from the total budget it doesn't all come from anti-flooding measures. If you then give them £40 million specifically for anti-flooding measures, it should all go to anti-flooding measures. Therefore the anti-flooding budget should have gone up substantially.

 

Have you never run a business? What do you think most money is spent on?

[unbeliever]

Have you never run a business? What do you think most money is spent on?

 

I'm quite aware that staffing dominates costs in most businesses.

 

There are a lot of labour costs in the £240 million anti-flooding spending, but they're not counted within the staff spending of the EA as they're not employed directly by the EA.

My central point was that the EA spends far more on existing than it does on preventing floods.

[Eric Arthur]

Those staff ARE preventing flooding and doing all the other things that the EA is responsible for.

 

This discussion is going nowhere if you keep following your line from a position of complete ignorance.

[unbeliever]

Those staff ARE preventing flooding and doing all the other things that the EA is responsible for.

 

This discussion is going nowhere if you keep following your line from a position of complete ignorance.

 

As I'm the only one to have posted facts, figures and references on this thread; I'm going to assume that was some kind of joke.

[ez8004]

As I'm the only one to have posted facts, figures and references on this thread; I'm going to assume that was some kind of joke.

 

You do know that preventing floods is not the EA's sole purpose right? Also, for such a large organisation, the largest cost will always be the salaries of the people it employs. As a rough approximation, 40% of your spend on people is not unreasonable. Decent chartered civil engineers are expensive with salaries of £50k+ not being uncommon. These engineers are the ones that keep your homes safe.

 

I don't think you really know how companies or such large organisations are run.

Edited January 3, 2016 by ez8004