All because a project could cost £22 million does not mean the EA pays the whole bill quite often some of the funding comes from elsewhere.

Yes, the bridge hole does wan’t dredging but look at the b&w pic and then the colour pic and see how theirs more houses in that small shot never mind the whole village. The bridge was probably fine when it was built but the best thing you could do is knock the bridge down and build a new one to allow more water to flow through it.

Been to a few villages that have flood and the problem they flood is that they’re lovely picturesque bridge is no longer adequate to allow the water to flow through and mention the best thing would be would to replace the bridge but they go mad at the thought of it but then still blame the EA for the flooding.

In one area to get over the problem it was possible for the EA build a high flow channel just down stream of the bridge that sits dry most of the year but in a flood it fills and when it does it actually pulls more water through the bridge. When it was being built the EA got slagged off for building it, resident saying it would never work and moaned about wrecking the area because some trees had to come down. But since it has been built the village has never flooded. And the kids play in the channel when its dry as it looks just like the rest of the park its next to.

Kuco – red carded for talking sense on a political thread.

Personally I’m more inclined to believe the the EA, even it’s chief who is busy defending his staff to the media et al and is likely to be getting some internal support and decent briefing as a result, rather than a vote chasing MP who’ll say anything to play to the masses and get headlines.

I’m annoyed by their political response rather than practical. They seem to be blaming the EA and promising to bring back dredging despite the experts saying in this case the volume of water was so colossal it wouldn’t have made any difference. They only seem to be doing this to appease the media and voters that seem to want heads to roll for a disaster that hasn’t been seen for many generations.

Neither will they talk about changes to the uplands, as that is too politically sensitive with the farming vote. So the whole response seems to be how to make them look the best and everyone else bad, rather than being honest and about the situation and the problems causing – too much deforestation, too much building on flood plains i.e. we are to blame.

Doesn’t mean I’d vote labour though who couldn’t be trusted with pocket money, just saddened all political parties (and media) seem unable to discuss anything with maturity.

Would you vote conservative next month if your house had just been flooded?

No, but then again I have not; will not ever vote conservative, party of the selfish, rich and privileged with a dogma for small state large tax burden for those who can’t afford a tax avoidance shark accountant.

“Vote”?

I still struggle to see how any political party can make it stop raining.

The other observation is the papers/news/people in the street all slag off the government about how badly they have handled the floods, defecit, scotland vote etc. If so many people are unhappy with them, how did they get in to power?

hooli – Member

If so many people are unhappy with them, how did they get in to power?

You do know they got into power with a minority, by convincing another party to sell their souls and betray all their voters? Voter dissatisfaction WAS shown in the election, you just can’t tell because they act like they got a mugabe majority rather than being the best placed losers

I still struggle to see how any political party can make it stop raining.

Apparently they have something called Cobra meetings which makes it all better.

I love it when they have a Cobra meeting. Who wears the Destro mask?

just what I was thinking northwind!

I think there is a wider discussion to be had about political culpability in this – although Monbiot is a bit of a dick a lot of the time (and I speak as a political fellow traveller) he has some interesting stuff to say on the matter here: http://www.monbiot.com/2014/02/17/muddying-the-waters/

Which is worth looking at – deregulation of soil control measures on a crop/growing regime which is known to cause flooding? Surely not this government.

I would, but i’d vote for anyone, me. In fact it’s a shame you can only vote for one, it’d be nicer if you could share it a bit

I’m happy to criticise the current government…but I honestly don’t think they’ve done a huge amount wrong, not in the lead up to the floods anyway.

The rivers hadn’t been dredged for decades. The EA and a host of other experts (CIWEM and others) said dredging wasn’t the answer. But Eric Pickles said it was, so it became the only answer.

We’ve had an almost unprecendented amount of rain for month after month. That’s what’s caused the problem. If we were on the verge of a drought and somewhere was still flooded then yeah, start complaining. But when we’ve had a spell of freak weather we have to accept that it’ll cause some problems. The only way to stop it would be a Dutch style decade-after-decade protection plan, not just dredging a river once in a while.

While the impact could likely have been lessened isn’t it about time to admit that things aren’t always going to stay the same as they were in the baby boomer golden age and that we’re simply going to have to adapt to changing conditions? Nature doesn’t have a status quo for long and we’re in a time of change. The fact that we as humans may have accelerated that is incidental.*

I do wish one of the politicians would try and give a bit of perspective rather than constantly try to keep everyone sweet while actually doing nothing. As someone mentioned before, we’d surely be much better off with a visionary dictator than the current bunch of professional wind socks.

*I’ll admit that I now, and will always try to, live on a hill and this probably makes me smug and self righteous but being born in Upton-in-Severn will tend to make you wise to this being a good idea.

Sure, I’ll vote conservative. Over my cold, dead body!

Northwind – Member
hooli – Member
If so many people are unhappy with them, how did they get in to power?

You do know they got into power with a minority, by convincing another party to sell their souls and betray all their voters? Voter dissatisfaction WAS shown in the election, you just can’t tell because they act like they got a mugabe majority rather than being the best placed losers

Meh, they were voted in because the general public didn’t like how labour were leading the country and were looking for somebody “not as bad”. It boils down to the same thing, they are in power because people voted

Yeah, you can prove anything with facts.

How do those in Northumberland vote now?

hooli – Member

It boils down to the same thing, they are in power because people voted

Eh, they’re in power only because they were able to form a coalition with the lib dems, and you can’t tell me that lib dem voters expected their votes to lead here? They didn’t vote for this.

They didn’t vote for this.

Damn right we didn’t. Nick Clegg said nothing about being ‘more Tory than Tory’ once he got in!

Eh, they’re in power only because they were able to form a coalition with the lib dems, and you can’t tell me that lib dem voters expected their votes to lead here? They didn’t vote for this.

True. I voted LD because in that constituency (now moved) the only alternative was Tory. Labour probably wonder if they’ll even get their deposit back when they run there! I voted to keep the Tories out. And it worked, by something like 75 votes. And then they jumped into bed with them.

read this and have a reality check before you go believing everything in the media, you’d be amazed by how much of it is completely untrue when you have first hand experience. See the link below.

http://www.ciwem.org/media/1035043/floods_and_dredging_-_a_reality_check.pdf

Cuts have happened over the last 20 years, to put it down to one party would be naive.