On 5 news a few minutes ago the Prime Minister has pledged 10 million pounds in compensation to people in one small village hit by floods, not a flooded village but where some of the businesses have suffered losses.
Multiply that by the vast areas who have suffered far worse devastation and the bill is going to be so high you could have probably made the whole of the UK sit behind a huge dam for less.
I note that the PM is using the word compensation, not the word aid, aid is given when someone suffers from an act of god or nature whichever you like to call it, something that could not have been prevented, compensation is paid when someone is at fault.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Is it just me
last reply
43 replies
2.5k views
0 watchers
0 likes
The bills are starting to come in now, millions of pounds being earmarked and paid in compensation to flood victims, not a penny being paid to the unseen victims of course, that is anyone who wasn't flooded, but your going to pay for it, insurance companies are facing millions of pounds in pay-outs, quite rightly after all that is why we have insurance, but they are going to claw it all back by increasing everyone's insurance premiums, they have to, otherwise they could fold.
The payments being made at the moment are just the tip of the iceberg, there will be a lot more to come.
And people are still asking where the money would have come from to prevent much (but not all) of the flooding.
The payments being made at the moment are just the tip of the iceberg, there will be a lot more to come.
And people are still asking where the money would have come from to prevent much (but not all) of the flooding.
Quote by MidsCouple24
but they are going to claw it all back by increasing everyone's insurance premiums, they have to, otherwise they could fold.
The payments being made at the moment are just the tip of the iceberg, there will be a lot more to come.
And people are still asking where the money would have come from to prevent much (but not all) of the flooding.
If I heard it correctly, the insurance industry told the PM over lunch today that premiums will not rise
Just like Clegg said, no increase in school fees eh?
Wow the air here is so clear after the rain I can see flying pigs and cows jumping over the moon, no policy increases, yea right, if that is true then they must be charging too much now, no company should be able to take the kind of hit they are going to take in the coming months (or years depending on how slow they make the payments) and there could well be more flooding to come of course and more claims.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
The bills are starting to come in now, millions of pounds being earmarked and paid in compensation to flood victims, not a penny being paid to the unseen victims of course, that is anyone who wasn't flooded, but your going to pay for it, insurance companies are facing millions of pounds in pay-outs, quite rightly after all that is why we have insurance, but they are going to claw it all back by increasing everyone's insurance premiums, they have to, otherwise they could fold.
The payments being made at the moment are just the tip of the iceberg, there will be a lot more to come.
And people are still asking where the money would have come from to prevent much (but not all) of the flooding.
So what your saying is that we should have higher water bills to pay for more water storage so that our insurance bills don't go up?
I don't believe I said that anywhere in my post, I have said that the water companies have been paying unexpectedly high dividends to shareholders, far higher than shareholders were ever promised, far higher than anyone ever forecast, to the extent that Government Ministers have complained at just how much is being paid in dividends by comparison with how much is being paid in re-investment back into the system that provides the income in the first place.
More re-investment would safeguard future dividends for shareholders, right now they are in danger of restrictions being imposed on profits and forced re-investment under the terms of the initial privatisation sales.
Sooner or later they are going to have to put the money in because the system is so close to total collapse.
A better quality company would attract more investors and make for happier customers.
More re-investment would safeguard future dividends for shareholders, right now they are in danger of restrictions being imposed on profits and forced re-investment under the terms of the initial privatisation sales.
Sooner or later they are going to have to put the money in because the system is so close to total collapse.
A better quality company would attract more investors and make for happier customers.
The one thing I saw I was disgusted at yesterday, was that some insurance companies had set up a supposedly flood help line for customers.....it was premium rate number and was costing 40p a minute to call !!! the first 2 minutes were taken up with a recorded message before you were put on hold to wait for assistance.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
I don't believe I said that anywhere in my post
You have said that water companies should spend their profits on reinvestment in reservoirs. Those profits are their for a reason, to make the company viable and attractive to investors and if those profits take a sharp downturn the company could, and most probably would, be taken over by some other conglomerate. SO to prevent that happening they will happily reinvest more money, but where do they get if from without affecting profits? That's right, they get it from the customers who face a higher bill. Of course once the reinvestment is paid for prices may shrink slightly but are far more likely to remain the same, thereby creating even bigger profits and dividends and so the cycle continues. By your logic investing money now will cost customers more in the future, but fortunately the insurance companies cant charge us increased premiums to cater for the flooding that has been averted thanks to the water company.
Quote by MidsCouple24
I have said that the water companies have been paying unexpectedly high dividends to shareholders, far higher than shareholders were ever promised, far higher than anyone ever forecast, to the extent that Government Ministers have complained at just how much is being paid in dividends by comparison with how much is being paid in re-investment back into the system that provides the income in the first place.
What about the companies that have had to pay far more towards reinvestment since privatisation than was envisaged at the time. Are they not entitled to profit from that?
Quote by MidsCouple24
More re-investment would safeguard future dividends for shareholders, right now they are in danger of restrictions being imposed on profits and forced re-investment under the terms of the initial privatisation sales.
Future dividends would be somewhat in doubt as the price of the current shares would no doubt fall, valuing the company at a lower price and therefore dividends would have to be less wouldn't they?
Quote by MidsCouple24I'm sorry but can you substantiate your claim that provision of water in this country is about to collapse?
Sooner or later they are going to have to put the money in because the system is so close to total collapse.
Quote by MidsCouple24
A better quality company would attract more investors and make for happier customers
Value for money is one thing, but it doesn't make a customer happy. over half of people where you live prefer tap water to bottled water, so the quality and taste must be good. Not to mention that in your area you have the lowest bills in the country, but your still moaning about profits being too high.
No I cannot substantiate that the sewage system is going to collapse, I am just going by thousands of years of history and know that even the Pyramids will not last for ever, much of the sewage system we rely on were built in the late 19th Century. The water works in Martin, Cumbria has not been replaced or updated in 70 years though it does perform perfectly at the moment I do not believe the machinery will last forever.
Our water in the UK is magnificent, it is as safe to drink tap water as it is to drink bottled water, the quality of both is equal though some bottled waters can contain extra natural minerals such as the Evian brand.
Most of the problems with our sewage systems are a direct result of abuse because some people think that a toilet is a waste disposal, throw anything down it, tampons, nappies rubber condoms being the most common blockage causing abuse. The same applies to our rivers and land, it is not just the job of the Government and the Water Utility companies but also the responsibility of the individuals to safeguard our facilities and resources.
Frequently we have hose pipe bans yet very few of us bother to gather the water that falls in our gardens all too often, rainwater is good for many things, my fish thrive upon it and it is better for them than shop bought fish water or tap water that has to be made safe for them by the use of chemical additives, rainwater can clean my car just as well as tap water, my garden thrives on the rainwater I use to fill my watering can.
I would like to see the Government do more in order to save money, I would like the water utility companies do more in order to save money and I would like to see the end users, do more to save money. That could mean that the government have to financially assist the water companies, but surely that is better than paying the same or more in compensation and repair bills after the event, money does not compensate for hardship and trauma.
Our water in the UK is magnificent, it is as safe to drink tap water as it is to drink bottled water, the quality of both is equal though some bottled waters can contain extra natural minerals such as the Evian brand.
Most of the problems with our sewage systems are a direct result of abuse because some people think that a toilet is a waste disposal, throw anything down it, tampons, nappies rubber condoms being the most common blockage causing abuse. The same applies to our rivers and land, it is not just the job of the Government and the Water Utility companies but also the responsibility of the individuals to safeguard our facilities and resources.
Frequently we have hose pipe bans yet very few of us bother to gather the water that falls in our gardens all too often, rainwater is good for many things, my fish thrive upon it and it is better for them than shop bought fish water or tap water that has to be made safe for them by the use of chemical additives, rainwater can clean my car just as well as tap water, my garden thrives on the rainwater I use to fill my watering can.
I would like to see the Government do more in order to save money, I would like the water utility companies do more in order to save money and I would like to see the end users, do more to save money. That could mean that the government have to financially assist the water companies, but surely that is better than paying the same or more in compensation and repair bills after the event, money does not compensate for hardship and trauma.
Who’s to blame ? Everyone and no one would my response.
We think we can tame nature, we can some of the time but every now and then nature throws something at us we can’t handle ie storm after storm since November.
The Somerset levels are reclaimed land, this was originally marsh that we have drained and have been managing ever since. Everyone has been knocking the EA for this failure of the pumping systems to drain water out of the area, no one is looking to congratulate them for all the years where the systems have worked. The systems have been overwhelmed by the sheer amount of rainfall over the last few months. Nature wants its marsh back.
The BBC had an article on the 1928 London floods a few days ago. ( One of the observations that was made in the article was that one of the areas that flooded was previously uninhabited marshland. Historically locals knew that from time to time that the area flooded but over time people forgot . . . . . and then once in a blue moon nature wins.
Dredging rivers. Why do we think that dredging rivers is the answer, this is more of man thinking we can manage nature. Perhaps the rivers are silting up because of the amount of deposits being flushed off the deforested upper sections of the river, changes to the land use elsewhere on the river system. Do we dredge the whole water course or just the areas where we have current flooding, and if we do all we are doing is shifting the problems further downstream.
We straighten rivers, we place obstacles across them (bridges and weirs), we build on flood plains and then complain when things go wrong. There is no way we will ever be able to manage our river systems to contain all the water within the river to discharge.
Dredging the rivers isn’t the answer. A fully considered management plan that considers the river from source to discharge is required. We need forests back on the upper stretches to absorb excess rainfall and to bind the soil to prevent silt being washed down. We need to have areas that are allowed to flood when the rivers can’t cope, it’s what rivers do. We need to stop thinking that we can tame nature 100% of the time and plan for the occasions when it wins.
We think we can tame nature, we can some of the time but every now and then nature throws something at us we can’t handle ie storm after storm since November.
The Somerset levels are reclaimed land, this was originally marsh that we have drained and have been managing ever since. Everyone has been knocking the EA for this failure of the pumping systems to drain water out of the area, no one is looking to congratulate them for all the years where the systems have worked. The systems have been overwhelmed by the sheer amount of rainfall over the last few months. Nature wants its marsh back.
The BBC had an article on the 1928 London floods a few days ago. ( One of the observations that was made in the article was that one of the areas that flooded was previously uninhabited marshland. Historically locals knew that from time to time that the area flooded but over time people forgot . . . . . and then once in a blue moon nature wins.
Dredging rivers. Why do we think that dredging rivers is the answer, this is more of man thinking we can manage nature. Perhaps the rivers are silting up because of the amount of deposits being flushed off the deforested upper sections of the river, changes to the land use elsewhere on the river system. Do we dredge the whole water course or just the areas where we have current flooding, and if we do all we are doing is shifting the problems further downstream.
We straighten rivers, we place obstacles across them (bridges and weirs), we build on flood plains and then complain when things go wrong. There is no way we will ever be able to manage our river systems to contain all the water within the river to discharge.
Dredging the rivers isn’t the answer. A fully considered management plan that considers the river from source to discharge is required. We need forests back on the upper stretches to absorb excess rainfall and to bind the soil to prevent silt being washed down. We need to have areas that are allowed to flood when the rivers can’t cope, it’s what rivers do. We need to stop thinking that we can tame nature 100% of the time and plan for the occasions when it wins.
How can you say it is not their fault and say we should congratulate them at the same time as saying they have failed to manage them by not controlling the area from start to source and for not planting trees or continuing to invest in the work that has been going on for all those years they did not flood ?
Yes rainfall has been exceptional of late but once drained and managed responsibly as you have stated they did, have they not failed to continue to improve their defensive abilities like Holland has ?
Yes rainfall has been exceptional of late but once drained and managed responsibly as you have stated they did, have they not failed to continue to improve their defensive abilities like Holland has ?
Sexpert
Quote by Gerty35
Who’s to blame ? Everyone and no one would my response.
We think we can tame nature, we can some of the time but every now and then nature throws something at us we can’t handle ie storm after storm since November.
The Somerset levels are reclaimed land, this was originally marsh that we have drained and have been managing ever since. Everyone has been knocking the EA for this failure of the pumping systems to drain water out of the area, no one is looking to congratulate them for all the years where the systems have worked. The systems have been overwhelmed by the sheer amount of rainfall over the last few months. Nature wants its marsh back.
The BBC had an article on the 1928 London floods a few days ago. ( One of the observations that was made in the article was that one of the areas that flooded was previously uninhabited marshland. Historically locals knew that from time to time that the area flooded but over time people forgot . . . . . and then once in a blue moon nature wins.
Dredging rivers. Why do we think that dredging rivers is the answer, this is more of man thinking we can manage nature. Perhaps the rivers are silting up because of the amount of deposits being flushed off the deforested upper sections of the river, changes to the land use elsewhere on the river system. Do we dredge the whole water course or just the areas where we have current flooding, and if we do all we are doing is shifting the problems further downstream.
We straighten rivers, we place obstacles across them (bridges and weirs), we build on flood plains and then complain when things go wrong. There is no way we will ever be able to manage our river systems to contain all the water within the river to discharge.
Dredging the rivers isn’t the answer. A fully considered management plan that considers the river from source to discharge is required. We need forests back on the upper stretches to absorb excess rainfall and to bind the soil to prevent silt being washed down. We need to have areas that are allowed to flood when the rivers can’t cope, it’s what rivers do. We need to stop thinking that we can tame nature 100% of the time and plan for the occasions when it wins.
Apart from the applause bit, think you are about spot on. I was listening to a programme on radio 4 last night comparing the floods in this country this year with that happens in the Netherlands. Far from stopping low lands flood, since 1995 when 10’s of thousands had to be evacuated from their homes due to flooding, they have set up areas along the sides of water courses they call “compromised land” This can be as far away as 100m from the normal course of the water. They have lowered the height of dikes so the water can flow into these areas in times of heavy rainfall. A tree planting programme has been undertaken in the higher areas as the tree roots act as a temporary dam and allow the rivers to fill more slowly. This has meant that large areas of land can no longer be used for farming and people have been moved from their homes, but no mention of dredging.
So the Dutch have realised after 250 years of trying you can’t beat Mother Nature every time.
