Looks like a Sea around the Mump

To be honest, its a very small part of the farmland of Britain, and it it aint 1939, we import most stuff these days, not saying its right.
Just how it is.
So no, a "thames barrier" to protect the Somerset levels would be ridiculously expensive in regards to the advantages gained.

 

I've run out of wood at the moment so I'm hoping the real big flood can be put off till next year.
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just looking at it from the other side, and as I say, its very small area when looking at the country as a whole.
My real thoughts are that flood defenses, and more so, coastal defenses are a waste of money, in the end they will be overcome at some point in the future.
Anyone buying a property within a couple of miles of a known crumbling cliff is asking for trouble.
Likewise, if you live on a flood plain, you know what to expect, its called a FLOOD plain for a reason, it errr floods often, but perhaps not every year.

 

I have a few thoughts on this point.

Years ago, while I was a learner driver, we had a spell of (then) unusually heavy rainfall with localised flash flooding. Way before the government changed the planning rules for driveways after realising that concrete is impervious water, my instructor said "its because they keep building on everything, the water has to go somewhere, it isn't going to soak through concrete and tarmac". He was of course right. Yet its funny how the government seems to still think its ok to turn the whole landscape grey with tarmac and concrete.

And why do we need to build so many new houses? A while ago a FOI request revealed that 800,000 residential properties that are owned by the government, either as the government or as individuals that make up the government were standing empty. Then there's all the former commercial properties and other 'brown field' sites that get ignored.

Then while I was out on a morning stroll the other day, I walked past the fisherman's huts. Little sheds really, maybe 10'x8'. The owners of those huts don't seem to use them for storing their gear these days. They are mostly mini homes, dens, all done out with carpets and curtains and furniture. You see them all in the summer having a barbecue outside and chilling out. It got me to thinking, when I was a single, unattached lad, I'd have been perfectly content to live in a property like that. There's room for a bed and chair and small table, and outside your door is some of the most scenic land in the area. There's a car park for the owners, and a half decent road connecting the 'village' to the rest of the world. Cheap, easy to look after, very low impact.

We seem to have it in our collective heads that the minimum standard now is a 2 up 2 down with private parking and a garden. But why? Maybe when you get to the point where you want to settle down yes, but if you're young and just starting out solo on the great adventure of life, why not a little eco hut or static caravan? I personally know quite a few people who'd love such an opportunity, and if I didn't have a wife and 2 kids I'd still be one of them. Such properties can be erected in less than a day with little or no foundations and minimal infrastructure at a cost of maybe a couple of grand, including the long term lease of the land they stand on. You could also just shove them more or less anywhere. And if you take a leaf out of the book of some Scandinavian countries, giving them underfloor heating and living green roofs, maybe a compost bog, they'd have next to no environmental impact while at the same time just blending in visually into the landscape.

Its not going to happen though. For some reason the government insists that we should all be living in bricks and mortar in a town or city, consuming huge amounts of resources and placing a massive burden on infrastructure. Possibly something to do with keeping track of where everyone is, or maybe something to do with tax revenues or backhanders from construction firms, I don't know.

 

I've read this morning that the EA Director of Operations has said that the handling of the situation in the south west has been "a success"!!! Has he been to the area? I can't believe he's said it. How stupid can you get?

 

I've just seen it too Fern...well that's set me off for the day

 

There's a huge new build estate on the former flood plain of the river Isle in Ilminster which they engineered so it wouldn't flood again, and, as far as I know it hasn't.

But the river Isle is a tributary of the river Parrett so all the water that would have been sitting there is now adding to the problem down river.

 

There's lies, damn lies, statistics and Government graphs using logarithmic vertical scales (to make flood defence spending look like it's not far behind other spending)

 

Here's an interesting piece of news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26106290

So the Communities secretary has basically said the Environment Agency was and is wrong, and that they relied to heavily on the Environment agency's advice.

So apart from the obvious positive of the U-turn on their stance about the flooding, it has interesting political implications.

It suggests to me that:
* Everyone, both inside and outside of government, is losing faith in the environment agency. No surprise there but its interesting that a government minister has said it.
* There are great divides forming in government.

At this point, a PM with any integrity at all would bring forward the general election. People have lost faith in the current government, and now even the government has lost faith in the government. It wont happen though. Will just have to wait til next year to elect our new coalition, probably comprising three parties, of Lib Dem, Labour and one of the lesser parties, because I doubt any of the major parties will score enough for two of them alone to win 51% of the seats.

So I say lets form the GC party. There's enough of us and I reckon we could do a better job. I vote that we elect Mr @Zigs to be our party leader.

 

I think we have a situation here where the government is cutting adrift the Enviroment Agency, in order to distance themselves from the problem.
Who actually funds the E.A?

I'm thinking its a similar situation to the state of the roads, they are decaying because the government, (who we pay our road tax to), dont pass the money on to the local authorities.
Then they can always say the roads are crumbling because the Councils are not doing their. job.
In reality the government is not funding the organisations concerned.

 

This was the EA's advice;

But The Government, in addition to publishing "misleading" graphs, has also been providing false information about how much is in budgets for flood prevention works:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/17/government-admits-flood-spending-drop

Plus The Government are also including expenditure by Local Authorities and external bodies in the figures for 'their' expenditure, plus unsecured contributions from others that are currently conjecture.

And then there's the 'additional £130 million' (upped from £100m) that's just been promised for flood prevention works, but only £30m is for this year, the remaining £100m for 2015, so another jam tomorrow (after the General Election) promise.

Then they blame the EA for not spending money they haven't got (they said more was required and got less) despite warnings that flooding will get worse and worse unless a lot more is done.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...ers/SN05755/flood-defence-spending-in-England

I only wish that Chris Smith had the guts to denounce The Government and risk getting sacked. He is obviously acting on the recommendations of his technical staff, so Ministers should assume the same level of accountability for acting upon the recommendations of their departments. If they don't understand the issues involved, they should never have been appointed. That includes Owen Paterson, Chris Smith and EA staff (and perhaps the MP for Bridgwater if he knows so much about the issues but lacks the ability to get anything done when it's his own party in power)

 

I saw that report a while ago @Scrungee where the government had been publicly outed as blatant liars about their spending on flood defences. It only serves to further highlight my point, that the current government is in total disarray, with the unusual stance (as far as I'm aware) of each department publicly 'having a go'.