to think that overseas aid should be diverted to those affected by the flooding

[Ohbehave1]

What the title says really. Especially from places like india who can afford a space program and nuclear power

"Shame that didn't happen in the aftermath of the 2000 floods, when public spending was nowhere near as tight. Hindsight is a great thing, isn't it?"

Farahilda, I don't really understand your point. I'm at a genuine loss as to why, after previous severe floods and alarming predictions that flooding will get worse in future, this isn't given greater priority. By both politicians and voters. It's not like we don't know the damage it can do, as hidden home as sadly experienced first hand.

When I read threads like this, I feel like we are living in a world where we see what someone else has ("our" money in the form of aid, for example), decide that they have it better than us ("I didn't get any assistance") and demand that they also have as little as we do ("if I can't have state aid, neither can you"). Tory spin has a lot to answer for. Its a race to the bottom.

There is nothing wrong with wanting or even expecting the state to assist when faced with devasting floods. Especially when poor government planning has exacerbated it. I just don't agree that assistance has to be at the expense of any other group. EVERY HUMAN BEING deserves support in the event of a natural disaster, wherever in the world they may be (including northern England).

And yy to previous posters re tax avoidance of big corporations. There's plenty of money to go round - most people just don't see any of it.

YANBU. We should cut the foreign aid budget to its bare bones; just disaster recovery and emergency aid.

Agreed Red! I've tried to ignore the goady comments about people choosing to live on riverbanks (because flooding isn't at all caused by groundwater)

I fear I'm over invested and getting ranty now so will step out. It's been interesting to read everyone's POV.

Yeah... NOPE.

I agree foreign aid should be cut v completely, in return Britain and other Western cc countries should cancel all the deb f2f of third e world countries and poo aye those countries the correct amount f2f or their natural resources. However that won't happen as that would mean the financial collapse of several European countries including Britain,Spain and in particular France who still expect countries such as Sierra Leonne to pay them to this day for the loss of the slave trade

Longtime. I actually believe in a deterrent such as Trident so I think the money is worth it.

I was NEVER talking about taking away from the needy - just not paying aid to countries that don't put it towards those that need it. If I wasn't sat at Watford Gap I would spend time digging out the info on countries where the aid we give them goes straight to their leaders and to non humanitarian projects.

Correction: pay all those countries the right amount for their resources 😊

The point is that, even when there was a lot more money available for flood defences (and all other contingency plan) it wasn't a spending priority for that government (who did not have a ring fence round foreign aid).

I used the 2000 floods as the benchmark because it looks as if these floods are going to be as bad. And they needn't have been, if spending priorities had been different.

These environmental issues have a much longer lead time than a single British governmental term. And I suppose I'm rather fed up of 'blame the Tories' posts on what are considerably longer term multi-factorial issues.

"How about we stop Western countries from taking resources from abroad, far more than is 'given' to them and see how you can afford those flood defences"

"Correction: pay all those countries the right amount for their resources"

Agree!

Because reducing global inequality is an important aim in itself. But also important in terms of dealing with environmental fairness and climate issues.

Ah but your perception of needy is very interesting. I would actually prefer that money not to be given at all. My point is the money donated by normal people here, regular people like me and you is given with good intent. However the people collecting the money have other agendas. The majority of aid money does not leave this country. The money that does leave does not reach the people who need it. This is not by accident but by design. My point is those so called third world countries have something we don't RESOURCES'. The value of the resources we benefit from are far more than what we give. Therefore giving the false impression that Africa for example needs you. The majority of people who give to these charities have never been and will never go to Africa so do not have a real sense of what life is like there.

I agree with the OP to a certain extent.

To the people of York, my 21 yo soldier son was just off out for a run this afternoon, around 5pm,when his phone pinged. His regiment were asking for volunteers to help out in York through tonight and for as long as it takes. He was in his car by 5.15, to pick his best mate up, and drive the 3 hours back to camp and get cracking on with the job. They've both already done one duty over this Christmas. The Govt might not care, but other people do.

I think it's a scandal that we keep having to call meetings to deal with this. It's happening time and time again. I feel so, so sorry for the people affected, and £5k is a drop in the fucking ocean when you've got a £10k excess.

Meditrina you understand

Oh and I am not trying to take away from the people here experiencing distress because of the floods. I just reject the idea that overseas aid is the problem.

So, we are "One of the richest countries in the world", but tax payers are being denied urgent medical treatment, or medical treatment full stop. Words fail me.

We are the fifth richest nation in the world, I believe, Alice. Hard to believe sometimes, isn't it?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34346908
You wouldn't think the UK was so wealthy...

Actually we are the 9th richest country, China being the first and India being the 3rd

"We are the richest nation in the world"

Fifth richest is in terms of individual wealth: www.cityam.com/227917/world-wealth-britain-crowned-fifth-richest-country-in-the-world-behind-us-china-japan-and-germany

But there are other measures, of course. And we voted, as a nation, to drastically cut public spending so that the wealth hoarders and tax avoiders could hold on to their publicly funded benefits.

It's not just this govt who are greedy and withholding.

We lived in a Labour controlled area when we flooded and the council didn't even send anybody out to check on the householders. The fire brigade just sat in their vehicle watching it all happening, the council came round a week later and cleaned some mud up from the road. They told the Red Cross to go away - they came around a week later and got people to fill in questionnaires why?

The area flooded due to lack of maintenance - we discovered this about a year later when it was all looked into. They've done some remedial work now after consulting the environment agency.

The council did however have lots of money to spend on a crappy 'sculpture' (over £300,000) that fell to bits six years later and cost around £48,000 to demolish.

Yes but overall we are th err 9th richest country in the world,I was quite clear. Why would we be discussing individual wealth? However I can see why the reality of being lower than other countries may be difficult for some.

I know I said I was stepping out...

"I used the 2000 floods as the benchmark because it looks as if these floods are going to be as bad. And they needn't have been, if spending priorities had been different."

Farahilda, I mis-read your first post. I completely agree with your above statement. Interestingly, the U.K. a spent less on aid as a percentage of national income in 2000 (when there was no cap as far as I know) than we do today, according to an IFS paper I just found after a quick google search www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2012/12chap7.pdf

There was a poster up thread who works for the EA and made an interesting point about the long term nature of their work being undermined by the short term (ie until the next election) focus of most politicians. And to be fair to the Tories, I don't think flood fences were a labour party priority either.

However, the Tories are the party of austerity, and in my view their unnecessary budget cuts are inflicting misery on countless people, including the victims of flooding. Directly, via lack of flood defence spending, and indirectly through planning policy, cuts to the EA, social services, etc. That is my view but I know I'm in the minority - the Tories won the election! Btw, I'm not blaming the Tories, I'm holding the government of the day to account for their decisions. As I'd expect the conservatives to do if Labour was in power (I didn't vote for either as it happens).

I agree much better to look at the waste the government and local councils have and where they spend the money. There have been floods over the years why have the local council not focussed on prevention and damage control when it comes floods.

Local councils have had massive, unprecedented budget cuts. Another government policy. Doing more with less, and all that.