Cameron - Money No Object Re Floods

[Zacs-Master]

I do hope he means for prevention schemes and not for Mrs Miggins to have her carpets renewed otherwise I shall be very very cross.

[Zacs-Master]

I'll leave that particular debate to you and Mikey. DC still needs to be clearer on EXACTLY what the money will be used for. If it becomes apparent that it is being used to fund refurbishment of homes and gardens which people have insurance for I, for one, will loose what little confidence I have in this fiasco of a coalition.

[naomi24]

I know what you're saying, but for me it depends. Insurance carries limits - and often high excesses.

[Zacs-Master]

You must be more 'liberal' than me then.

[naomi24]

Ha ha! :o)

[mikey4444]

naomi...at it again ?

Dear, dear....listen to what was said at today's PMQ's ::

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26150888

Its quite clear that Environment Agency staff are going to be needed, not just now, but in the future to recover from our current problems, and make the country "resilient for the future" (dave's words, not mine) Ed asked dave how the EA was going to do that with 550 staff less than they have at present. dave didn't answer the question, despite telling us all yesterday that "money was no object"

It was a simple question and a very important one to all the 1000's, if not 10,000s of people that are in dire straits at the moment. dave could have said...no, we will not now make those 550 people redundant and we will restore the cuts made to the EA budget, But, again, he dodged answering the question. That was the point of my post.

[naomi24]

Yes, at it again. I know what the point of your post was. Shame you elected to include the 'money is no object' quote in it - which was entirely irrelevant to the point you were attempting to make.

[mikey4444]

I will make my point one last time.

dave was asked today at PMQ's to comment on the plans to make 550 EA people redundant...he resolutely failed to do so. We shall have to make our own minds up therefore, if his "money is no object" quote means what it says. The EA is the front line in our battle with the floods.

This government could have made those 550 people redundant last year, or the year before. If they had, would the EA being doing the difficult job they are faced with now as well ? 550 staff would go a long way now in the Levels, or the Thames Valley.

I am not asking you the question that Ed asked today naomi...I am questioning why the PM didn't respond. Other people on here today seems to have no problem in understanding the point of my post....not sure why you are.

[naomi24]

Mikey, but the 'money is no object' referred only to immediate flood relief for the victims - not to the Environment Agency or to people being made redundant. You're reading more into it than is there. Why can't you understand that?

[gness]

Have I got it right....there is a rainy day fund in place for such an event as this?
Would it not have been more sensible to have used some of this money to prevent much of the damage we are seeing? And that includes not decimating the EA, local authority personnel and investment in flood risk management.
But then of course we have an environment minister who thinks climate change is not an issue.....so god help us.

Good choice for best answer, Zacs....x

[mikey4444]

Watch the PMQ's again. Ed challenged him on what he said the day before at the news conference naomi. Its about 57 seconds into the BBC link.

"spend whatever it takes to recover from this ...and ...to ensure we have a resilient country for the future" So, more than just dealing with the current situation. My interpretation of resilient means ensuring that, if at all possible, this situation doesn't arise again.

So Ed's question about EA job losses was highly relevant under the circumstances.

Why do YOU think that dave didn't answer Ed's question re the EA redundancies ?

[naomi24]

Since the money doesn't relate to the questions Mikey raised it's a wonky choice, but that aside according to the BBC tonight the money is to be used for flood defences to protect homes affected against future floods. Fences and barriers were mentioned so no insurance claims, Zacs.

[gness]

If I may butt in while you wait for Naomi, Mikey....he didn't answer because he knows that he and his ministers were warned by the EA and others that this was a disaster waiting to happen...and they were ignored and carried on insisting on cuts.

[mikey4444]

It relates exactly to the point I raised ! If there is going to be all this money floating about ( sorry ! ) than Ed's question was highly relevant. He is the Leader of the Opposition and the whole point of PMQ's is that it is an opportunity for him to call the current PM to account. dave failed today.

By the way, although the Government didn't get off to a flying start in these floods, they appear to firing on all guns now. Which is nothing less than we should expect of course, but very welcome nethertheless. They have my support but I just wish they would stop putting their feet in their mouths over a relatively small number of EA staff.

[mikey4444]

Oh I know the reason he didn't answer the question gness ! But he choose not to answer the question live on nationwide TV, which was a mistake on his part.

But I am a realist and I confidently expect that these redundancies will be quietly put on the back burner, for the time being at least.

[naomi24]

Sorry for the delay. I've been watching your video and you're right, he didn't answer the specific question on redundancies. He did however, say the Environment Agency's budget is to be increased, so it would appear that more will be spent on the product and less on administration which can only be a positive thing, no?

[mikey4444]

Thank you naomi, and yes, if the EA's budget is increased, it can't be anything other than helpful.

[naomi24]

Indeed.