Work to start on 93 new flood schemes

Graham_Devon

Just wanted to readdress the balance really, considering the vitirol this government receives for the smallest of things.

The government has given the go ahead for work to start on 93 new flood schemes across the UK.

The scheme will not only protect homeowners, but will enable them to get insurance. It will also create thousands of jobs in the construction industry.

This is something that's been going on since labour were in government, so labour have again, lambasted the scheme, describing it as a cut in spending on flood defences. (and being quite disingenuous at the same time)

Everyone else, from homeowners, business's and the insurance sector see it as a good thing.

So yer, well done the coalition. This is much needed and will bring jobs and assurances to those affected.

chewmylegoff

the government's plan is to create 93 floods? bet they don't manage it.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just wanted to readdress the balance really, considering the vitirol this government receives for the smallest of things.

The government has given the go ahead for work to start on 93 new flood schemes across the UK.

The scheme will not only protect homeowners, but will enable them to get insurance. It will also create thousands of jobs in the construction industry.

This is something that's been going on since labour were in government, so labour have again, lambasted the scheme, describing it as a cut in spending on flood defences. (and being quite disingenuous at the same time)

Everyone else, from homeowners, business's and the insurance sector see it as a good thing.

So yer, well done the coalition. This is much needed and will bring jobs and assurances to those affected.

is the money being spent more than previously or less than previously?

given there seems to be more floods than previously is the money sufficent in proportion to the threats/costs of these floods?

coastline

CLAPTON wrote: »

is the money being spent more than previously or less than previously?

given there seems to be more floods than previously is the money sufficent in proportion to the threats/costs of these floods?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20560710

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/145653.aspx

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

is the money being spent more than previously or less than previously?

given there seems to be more floods than previously is the money sufficent in proportion to the threats/costs of these floods?

I believe it to be additional funding. Though labour are trying to state this is untrue. I heard on 5live it is additional, though labour have looked at previous years spending against one year under their reign where they have included emergency cash to deal with flooding under "flood defence spending" and therefore the coalition have cut the cash.

Dunno, it's all getting a bit smoke and mirrors, but everyone seems to be saying additional funding apart from labour.

CLAPTON

coastline wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20560710

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/145653.aspx

So is that 12% less than previously?
....slightly confused....

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I believe it to be additional funding. Though labour are trying to state this is untrue. I heard on 5live it is additional, though labour have looked at previous years spending against one year under their reign where they have included emergency cash to deal with flooding under "flood defence spending" and therefore the coalition have cut the cash.

Dunno, it's all getting a bit smoke and mirrors, but everyone seems to be saying additional funding apart from labour.

why depends upon 'everyone'? ;
facts are better

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

is the money being spent more than previously or less than previously?

Why is the amount of importance?

Any expenditure needs to show value for money.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why is the amount of importance?

Any expenditure needs to show value for money.

bizarre.........

BobQ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just wanted to readdress the balance really, considering the vitirol this government receives for the smallest of things.

The government has given the go ahead for work to start on 93 new flood schemes across the UK.

The scheme will not only protect homeowners, but will enable them to get insurance. It will also create thousands of jobs in the construction industry.

This is something that's been going on since labour were in government, so labour have again, lambasted the scheme, describing it as a cut in spending on flood defences. (and being quite disingenuous at the same time)

Everyone else, from homeowners, business's and the insurance sector see it as a good thing.

So yer, well done the coalition. This is much needed and will bring jobs and assurances to those affected.

So the Government defers spending on scheduled flood defence schemes at a time of necessary spending restraint, realising that there is little chance of these wasteful schemes being required.

Then there are floods and they make a grand announcement of new flood prevention measures to show their commitment to the flooded Tory constituencies in the run up to an election.

Do you rermember those days of yore when Cameron castigated Brown for making meaningless announcements about spending plans when there was no new money.

Hypocrisy and Politics are such compatible bedfellows.

BobQ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I believe it to be additional funding. Though labour are trying to state this is untrue. I heard on 5live it is additional, though labour have looked at previous years spending against one year under their reign where they have included emergency cash to deal with flooding under "flood defence spending" and therefore the coalition have cut the cash.

Dunno, it's all getting a bit smoke and mirrors, but everyone seems to be saying additional funding apart from labour.

Well here is a piece of left wing propaganda that explains things.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9854974/New-flood-defences-announced-but-is-it-enough.html