Flooding in Somerset(26 Posts)
"Then in 2002 the situation went from bad to worse when Baroness Young of Old Scone, a Labour Peeress took to the helm of the EA. Baroness Young is an avid environmentalist. Prior to her appointment at the EA she ran the RSPB and Natural England; she stayed on as a Vice President of the RSPB even after her appointment to the EA. It was immediately clear that birds and wildlife, not humans and environmental management, were her priority.
Dredging virtually stopped and the rivers began to silt up. Young was heard to say that she wanted to place “a limpet mine on every pumping station”. And EU policies on habitats and birds, coupled with the 2007 Directive on flooding, gave her the perfect excuse to impose her anti-human agenda."
"Too many people in this country still list the economy and unemployment at the top of their list of concerns, while placing ‘Europe’ somewhere near the bottom. And when it comes to these floods, too many will blame our current Government without understanding the long road through the halls of Brussels we have taken to get to this point."
If you compare this image lifted from the Parrett report...
With the before and after satellite photos of Somerset's floods it is clear that the policy followed by all three of the old, failed, parties has been successful.
The dark red shaded area where the EA decided to..
"Take action strategically in INCREASE flood risks strategically.."
..Has indeed flooded.
No wonder they are keen to blame global warming....
Re “the three failed parties”, that might be true if Ukip over the many years of it’s existence, has a policy on dredging that challenges the Environment Agencies view.
You will of course now provide that Ukip policy, or AGAIN be seen a no policy opportunist set of twats,with as much use to UK mainstream politics, as the Monster Raving Looney Party - who had a 17% increase in their vote at Wythenshawe.
Quangos such as the environment agency would be abolished under UKIP's agenda. No tinpot green lunatics who ignore history and local objections to push their agenda. No EU directives to be followed slavishly. No money on foreign aid ( trade not aid, manpower not money) hence that would have been spent in the UK.
Hence with regard to dredging that would have been up to the local boards, who no doubt with years of experience would have continued the policies enacted prior to the old, failed, parties becoming all green and huggy in the mid 90's.
This mainly happened on new labour's watch, though notably Hug a Husky Cameron and his EU pensioned Clegg didn't change anything for the better.
A few quangos are essential though we view the £60 or £70 billion that they cost per year with great suspicion. We view their political appointee's with even greater suspicion.
I'd certainly lump the Environment Agency in with the British Potato Council ( which employs 49 full time staff!) as somewhat unnecessary...
Just as an aside whilst I was in the TA the civil emergency role ( and the funding for it ) had recently been removed as part of defence cuts.
Other than re-organising the stores and getting rid of dozens of spades, picks and canteens it didn't make much difference to TA life on a day by day basis. How useful would a company or two of TA lads been during the flooding though?
Again not something the tories or libdems have reversed....
Re defence, the coalition inherited around a £36 billion overspend, equal to the whole annual defence budget (unchanged for a decade, despite being constantly at war, if memory serves), and troops in Afghanistan without enough helicopters, anti mines armoured cars/jeeps and other equipment, years after being in a war zone and soon put right that equipment shortages.
Much of the unfunded defence overspend was due to Brown’s aircraft carriers we could not afford (or the planes to put on them) to be built near his constituency, but after years of delay costs and potential cancellation costs, could not be cancelled.
So Hammond, like every coalition minister, has had to make tough decisions that ensures what we do, has the best equipment for our forces. Stick to the budget now, increase in when they can, is responsible government – under equipping troops at war, spending of grandiose projects for electoral purposes and hoping money turns up during a great recession, not so much.
Spinflight…Re floods, again with the sweeping and simplistic statements from Ukip world, not the real world the coalition and we ‘the people’ had to adapt to in 2010.
You do not have to lecture any ‘state (spending) as big as it needs to be’ Conservative about Quangos, I have been crisicising them for more years than you have, guaranteed.
The problem has been that over 13-years the majority of them have been interwoven into every day government e.g. NHS Trusts, others signed long premises leases and gave big contracts to senior people, so may be kept open for now as cancelling and firing would incur penalties and pay off costs. If I thought you were a ‘detail’ or facts person I’d look up how many have been closed since, but from experience here with Ukip posters, it won’t be worth my time – but both coalition members pre 2010 were anti wasteful Quangos.
As to the Environment Agencies views, due to the financial constraints and glaring problems in every government department, the coalition had to hit the ground running in 2010, making huge policy decisions and implementing them; excuse the pun but in national emergencies you don’t go ‘dredging’ for stuff to fix and spend money on, if you inherit a big government, you have to assume they are doing their job and will advise you when issues need the governments attention.
I reiterate, they have hardly been idle since 2010, here's a clue on some what they have been doing, and what needed to be done.
You do realise that Camoron lied about just this? Promised a bonfire of the quangos, once he was in power just appointed some tory scumbags to well paid positions.
As for defence the tories have cut more than labour over the last 20 years.
Both clueless and subreptile...
It was Blair in 1997 that first mentioned ’the bonfire of the Quangos’, but when he won a 170 seat majority, saw Quangos as a way to extend Labour patronage, so they increased 41% to 2,500 and cost £123 billion to run.
When the coalition hit the ground in 2010 they announced their early hit list, but as I mentioned before, many are heavily interwoven into government so can not just be cut, especially as there will be long leases and other contracts, including employment, to consider before wielding the axe – as it can cost you MORE to dump them, than keep them open a few more years.
But as the Conservatives have a history of cutting the cost of government down, don’t worry yourself, unless of course a Ukip vote brings in Labour with a healthy majority in 2015. Why not show us Ukip’s list of quangos they’d have cut and we’ll see if they’ve gone, or is this more Ukip bluster over substance?
Re coalition Defence Spending going down, after fixing Labour's £30 odd billion black hole, well for a start we were perpetually at war under Labour i.e. Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, we aren’t any longer – and the whole Cold War need for a large standing army, whether this country had an annual deficit of over £150 billion or not, has gone.
As a military person haven’t you worked that out yet? Trident, Labour forgot to pay for in the good times, will also be an expensive defence issue after 2015.
'But as the Conservatives have a history of cutting the cost of government down, don’t worry yourself'
Your link to the Express article is what Cameron promised to do to cut quangos, but this is an article from the Mail later on saying what happened
"Thousands more bureaucrats have been recruited by the Coalition in spite of David Cameron's pledge to hold a 'bonfire of the quangos'.
At least 4,500 civil servants have been taken on since the election in May last year by Government departments and quangos – three times the number that have been handed compulsory redundancy notices.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission , the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and the Committee on Climate Change are among the quangos which have been busy recruiting."
The 'modernisers' were probably happy, but the Daily Mail and the Tory Party members who tore their membership cards up probably weren't.
Claig …. Back in 2012 around 114 had gone or merged, and we are on track to save about £2.5 billion by 2015, clearly more to do, but unlike Ukip World, who in 2010 said they would take Public Sector employees down a million or more to 1997 levels and put them to work (via 3 promised new train lines) in factories, in the real world, you have to look at real practical reasons not to make wholesale cuts to State employment.
“At a glance – Ukips 2010 general election manifesto”.
“Reduce public sector to 1997 size, diverting two million jobs to manufacturing and industry”
Around 30 health Quangos were in the firing line, as it should be no surprise if when the likes of Hospital Trusts (which are quangos) are making staff cut savings, the Managers themselves are not usually the first to go, ‘front line’ workers are.
And there possibly highlights the inherent problems of Quangos, that they have their budgets and it is impossible for government ministers to micro manage daily staff hiring and firing, especially if new staff is needed, but they will be held accountable and still have to justify their existence.
And re Somerset Flooding
I see Ukip’s flood policy was in that 2010 general election manifesto above; denial that the problems of Climate Change exists, so you were hardly likely to do anything proactive to combat it.
“Repeal Climate Change Act and allow wind farms to be constructed only off-shore, abolishing EU carbon cap schemes, emissions trading, landfill taxes and renewable subsidies”
How many Environment Staff within that few million of public sector staff cuts - that have been working across the country on flood defences since 2010 - would Climate Change denial Ukip have got rid of?
'denial that the problems of Climate Change exists'
No they are talking about man-made climate change, which of course does not exist, and that means that they would save billions on windmills, windfarms, solar farms, and there would be no more eco taxes that stifle business and they would have saved more than enough money to spend £4m dredging the Somerset Levels after they had scrapped the £31m 'bird sanctuary'.
Common sense policies. Straight talking. No spin. Heads must roll. A bit of courage and backbone. Election victory.
I haven't seen nor heard from him for a while.
'How many Environment Staff within that few million of public sector staff cuts'
I have no doubt that some of the top echelon would have faced dismissal.
If I was in charge of UKIP environmental policy, the first thing I would do is relocate the top echelon of the Environment Agency to the Somerset Levels.
Then if by any chance it happened to flood in the future, they would be on hand to help.
Yeah, and don't forget foreigners, immigrants, gays and lesbians, minorities... etc.
I'm not sure UKIP's prominent LGB section would be too keen on sharing duties with the top brass of a politicized Quango.
As for minorities who on earth do you think makes up UKIP other than those who don't feel represented by our elected scumbags? Pretty much the definition of a minority.
As for climate change, the word climate encompasses changes in the weather. Hence "climate change" is an illiterate term. Climate change denier is merely an illiterate insult which says more about the accuser than it does the target.
I'm sure during the Dark Ages when crops failed, diseases were rife and witches blamed for everything due to the weather gradually worsening the accusers were at least grammatically and linguistically correct in their namecalling.
I blame the lack of Grammar Schools.
Saying that none of this is relevant to the way in which all the old, failed, parties allowed Somerset to flood deliberately in order to promote the rights of Newts.
They only stepped in when the Thames started to look a bit on the full side.
One day, when Ukip has any policies that they stand by, never mind for, you might have the right to say that Ukip would have done something different in tackling the Environment Agencies advice.
Until then, your bluster on ANY subject other than the EU (you are powerless to do anything about), remains as influential to the likes of the Uk’s waterways capacity, as Farage, having had several pints down the pub.
Ukip opportunist windbags, all.
Opportunistic windbags eh?
I guess those that lie for a living probably think telling the truth is opportunistic windbaggery...
They probably think that lying is merely effective governance, and that they were born to lead and inspire the nation.
Easy to see why they've had their day.
Fair play to Cleggie though, at least he has the guts to face Nigel in a debate. Miliband and Cameron are running scared.
The coalition came in during a national emergency, THEIR policies are out there for all to see and judge them by 2015 – THAT IS effective governance for others to compare THEIRS to.
The liars and pretenders are those that have the national front to PROMISE the less intelligent in society that THEY are an alternative to ‘failed political parties and their policies’, yet they neither have the breadth of competence within or a policy older than 24-hours, between them.
How can Cameron and Clegg ‘debate’ any policies with Ukip when they haven’t got any, never mind a seat in parliament? The Greens have a better claim to appear in any national policy debate than Ukip, and they are nicer too, so behave.
Currently due to the fixed boundaries, with the Conservatives needing to be several points IN FRONT of Labour to get a small majority in parliament in 2015, any ‘Leadership Debates’ should be focused on the two who are guaranteed to lead the next administration and make very important decisions; not include a political sideshow, as they can debate amongst themselves, as they are.
Third para correction'
"How can Cameron and Miliband repeat Miliband....
There are a great many nasty people on the internet, however it is notable that they all appear to hate UKIP.
There are a great many paid bloggers and forum trolls on the internet, just about every large internet community has at least one. Nobody pays us.
So you agree that lying, snout in trough graft, weasel words and generally scumbaggery are merely effective governance eh? How unusual for a tory!
Sorry old chap but the days of tugging our forelocks and leaving the important stuff to our betters never existed in the first place. The old, failed, parties can lie, u-turn, squirm and malign us but we'll keep on coming.
The tories and labour do not decide who will be prime minister. We do. It's our vote and the arrogance that drips from your keyboard when you infer that 2015 is already a cozy stitch up between the liblabcon men shows how puerile and deceitful your thought processes are.
The tide has turned and you know it.
Spin….People “hate” the arrogance of pretender political parties, as they would religious cults that actually have nothing new to offer, but whatever new ‘god’ (read ‘pup’) they are being sold, eventually is exposed as a bit of a scam.
Have a think back how many ‘new political forces’ we have had in politics over the past 30-odd years, and how many of them lasted?
Major economic recessions will always bring out a new one, but in my opinion the longevity of Ukip is down to one factor, the internet, as brown shirted views no longer have to use thugs to batter down doors and use intimidation to get their ‘views’ across – they can brainwash them using the internet.
How else would you explain a no-policy Ukip, saying that they ARE different but clearly have nothing, doing so well OTHER than their nationalist stance they NOW look to soften via the Red Ukip we are now being shown?
"One day, when Ukip has any policies that they stand by, never mind for, you might have the right to say that Ukip would have done something different in tackling the Environment Agencies advice."
Join the discussion
Please login first.