- if london flooded, would they declare it a national emergency?
But in answer to your question, as long as you get a skinny, decaffe, organic, free-trade Frappawhappachino that costs the same as the GDP of Portugal,served to you by a man with full-sleeve tattoos and a waxed beard then all’s well.
Awww, bless the middle aged northerners trying to recall what London was like 10 years ago.
It’s all about the roadmen a
yes and he forgot the cold brew, bubble-tea and nitro that have been and gone since the heady days of 2010.
I think it probably is. If you live in Liverpool and think that Kensington and Chelsea is a suburb of London a bit like Toxteth or Everton. Then you’d be forgiven for wondering why London Boroughs get more news time than entire cities, it’s because they are individually bigger than entire cities (or at least very large towns).
indeed, the central part of Manchester (bordered by Ancoats/the station and train lines) basically fits inside the boundaries of Hyde parkPosted 2 months agogwaelodMember
What does declaring a national emergency actually mean? – this sounds like just a plaintive cry to “do something” when there is in reality very little that can be done.
The Military can already be deployed to help with a civil emergency anyway under the MACA procedures (Military Aid to the Civil Community) – No “National Emergency” declaration necessary.
Reality is that as a society we have chosen to have more of these flooding events by burning carbon to heat the atmosphere hence running the water cycle faster. Dredging rivers and shouting at the EA will make sweet FA of a difference.
The people who live in flood prone areas had better get used to this sort of thing – it isn’t an emergency .. its the new normal.Posted 2 months agocsbSubscriber
Well yes neal, but they’re dispersed across hundreds of smaller conurbations, 4 nations and an area hundreds (guessing here) of times the size of London. With the odd iconic building that is recognised outside of their own place (hence why the Glasgow fire was on national news).Posted 2 months agofunkmasterpSubscriber
That’s one of the good things about living in Macclesfield. When locals mention flooding I can enter Yorkshire man mode. “Call this flooding” etc.
Surely there are some bits of London that flood already that we don’t hear about up north?
With the odd iconic building that is recognised outside of their own place
You can keep your buildings and I’ll stick with my rolling hills and beautiful scenery 😉Posted 2 months agoTiRedMember
urely there are some bits of London that flood already that we don’t hear about up north?
Loads, on a weekly basis, normally due to a water leak taking out some elecricity supply and causing an explosion. They are pretty local, but it’s quite a thing at the moment.Posted 2 months ago
The news becomes London centric when it is mostly based there. Economic, political stories are focused their obviously but I do find that other items especially on slow news days can focus on London issues.Human nature will make people see the world from their own perspective and close to home. I think since the bbc moved parts to Manchester there is a slight lean to the north for some issues. If you are in the north your perspective may vary.Posted 2 months agowiganerMember
I’ve argued for some time that central government should move out of London. Perhaps rotate around the country to a different region every 4 years. It would certainly give our esteemed elected a different perspective. And perhaps reduce the costs associated with doing business in one of the worlds most expensive cities, free up more than 600 properties/second homes, and allow the Palace of Westminster to become a paying tourist attraction. Priorities may change when BoJo can’t get across Lincolnshire to take his seat in Boston’s House of Commons.Posted 2 months ago
“the SIZE.” is a crap metric. Northumberland is bigger than any city in the UK. It’s meaningless
Try harder, then come back and do try to articulate your thoughts so that others can understand your message“the SIZE.” is a crap metric. Northumberland is bigger than any city in the UK. It’s meaningless
Try harder, then come back and do try to articulate your thoughts so that others can understand your message
Population then, London and Nortuberland are about the same size. But London has 28x the population. Is it any real surprise that it gets 28x more news coverage?Posted 2 months agogauss1777Member
I’m lost, why does the UK media cover London more? Is it because most of its employees live there?
Surely in the most part, it is due to approximately the same number of people living in London as Scotland and Wales combined. Similar to Scottish news media covering the central belt and Welsh news media focusing on the SE iirc.Posted 2 months ago
Really? How would it affect the rest of the UK?
Depends which bit of London was flooded.
Westminster – parliment, Whitehall.
The city – collapse of the banking system
Museums – loss of antiquities
Or just the hit on GDP. If somehow the M25 became a big bund wall.
Scotland gdp for 2018 $218 billionPosted 2 months ago
London metropolitain area $1trillion. Losing four and a half Scotlands would be a bit of a national emergency dont you agree?gauss1777Member
Yes, because it would be a national emergency – i.e. whole country impacted by the downstream effects.
Really? How would it affect the rest of the UK?
I’m sure you have a bit of an inkling and others know more but… should the Thames Barrier break and the hundreds of buildings of National and International significance, along with 350 000 homes, etc etc be flooded then we would all end up paying one way or another. Insurance payments would surely skyrocket…
I shouldn’t have attempted to answer the question, hopefully someone will come along and provide a more thorough answer. The idea that someone living in Edinburgh, working for the NHS would be immune (I’m in much the same situation by the way) from its effects seems naive. I’m not sure the NHS will see anywhere near the funds it needs in the near future, but you could kiss goodbye to getting anything if London flooded. (I presume we mean a huge area of London here).
I have absolutely no idea the answer to this question, but what was the National effect of London being blitzed?Posted 2 months ago
Those things either have zero impact upon me or are the same as the doncaster area flooding
Just as a starter for ten, someone* in the hypothetically flooded department of health isnt going to be able to pay nurses wages if its underwater are they.
*or pay the trust, which pays the hospital, that pays the department, that runs your payroll. But the net effect would be the same.Posted 2 months ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.