General Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

The British Newspaper Archive

British Newspaper Archive

Read about historical events at the time they were happening. Perhaps you'll discover your ancestor in their local newspaper?

Start searching

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

Overseas spending...

Page 0 + 1 of 2

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. »
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

GHeather

GHeather Report 8 Feb 2014 15:43

Should part of the massive overseas spending now go to help with the flooding in many parts of this country ?

Phyll

Phyll Report 8 Feb 2014 15:59

Yes, Yes & Yes

Sylvia

Sylvia Report 8 Feb 2014 16:03

Definitely Yes

Porkie_Pie

Porkie_Pie Report 8 Feb 2014 16:06

No

Roy

ElizabethK

ElizabethK Report 8 Feb 2014 16:10

I am sure I heard,on the Radio 4 Today programme an interveiw with someone from the EU regarding help for the flood victims and she said that help was available (money) but had to be applied for within 10 weeks of the incident and no request had been received from the UK-they need to get a move on as some of this started before Christmas !

Magpie

Magpie Report 8 Feb 2014 17:44

I heard that too ElizabethK, as you say they need to get a move on although it didn't sound very hopeful that any help would be forthcoming, but perhaps the woman interviewed was keeping her answer low key to avoid disappointment!! In answer to the post YES!!! charity in my book begins at home and when home is in good shape then and only then should we be a limited purse for the rest of the world.

GHeather

GHeather Report 8 Feb 2014 20:03

Three Cheers to you Magpie!!! :-D

GHeather

GHeather Report 8 Feb 2014 20:05

It also seems Magpie, that a lot of the money for overseas spending doesn't go to the right people who really need it!

GHeather

GHeather Report 8 Feb 2014 20:37

Why 'No' Roy, got a reason ?

michael2

michael2 Report 8 Feb 2014 22:41

bet the greedy French etc got all the money they wanted but as per nothing for us.

JustJohn

JustJohn Report 8 Feb 2014 23:10

No for me too, GH. Vast majority of electorate have wanted British government to have a worthwhile foreign aid budget for years. Now all 3 major parties subscribe to it and the reasons for giving this money are well documented. It is ring fenced and none of it can go to flood defence. I doubt any party will suggest at next election that we reduce the foreign aid budget, but we shall see. I hope not.

There is a budget already within the Environment Agency for this eventuality. We need to ask how that is being spent. And money is available in local councils and in Duchy of Cornwall and Government has emergency pots all over the place that can be released when necessary. So don't think lack of money will hamper flood relief. Simply that you cannot easily repair railway tracks and sea walls when they are getting battered twice a day still. You cannot dredge rivers easily when they are 2 miles wide. All we can do is move people and animals away to higher ground to prevent casualties.

And allow the powers that be and the media to film from these places so that we can see the destruction and feel sorry that nothing is being done by anyone. Personally, I blame Ken Livingstone and Teresa May. Neither has even visited the Somerset levels, Kirkcaldy or Aberystwyth yet.

maggiewinchester

maggiewinchester Report 9 Feb 2014 01:19

Well, when Imran Khan asks us to stop sending aid to Pakistan in 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15055738
and the government ignores it, I suppose our money goes to fund this corruption, whether we like it or not.
At least the UK is to stop sending aid to India in 2015 (is a rocket more important than schools?)
China is richer than us - why do we send aid there?
We're the second highest country to send aid to other countries - above Germany that has a bigger population and a better standard of living. They spend £106 per person on aid, the UK spends £143'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9970620/Britain-second-in-world-for-aid-spending.html

Social funding has been cut dramatically in this country, forcing people to rely on food banks. The disabled are told they can work - despite there being no jobs. Those with terminal illnesses have had their benefits cut - but the government is quite happy to (indirectly) fund a rocket programme in India?
As for this government having 'budgets' available for emergencies - I bet the foreign aid budget is bigger than the one set aside for this country.
Yes, we can apply to the EU for emergency disaster funding - shame Cameron hasn't done it, No doubt he'll be looking to 'volunteers' to clean up the mess - while still blaming the (now grossly underfunded) Environment agency for his cuts and his inactivity.

By the way, you can't dredge a river when it's flooded, blame the government and RSPB for the Somerset Levels.
It's also about time some 'charities' had their powers curbed.

Guinevere

Guinevere Report 9 Feb 2014 08:49

No. There's plenty of money around but it's spent on the wrong things.

The armed forces waste huge amounts of cash - OH used to work in an industry that supplies them with sophisticated equipment and was horrified at the wastage. It's not their own money they are spending so they change specs on a whim and vast amounts of equipment is unused and covered in dust in warehouses.

Rich companies and people avoid paying taxes. Make them pay their fair share.

People forget that aid given is often conditional on it being spent on stuff manufactured in the UK, so it keeps people in employment.

The building companies who built on flood plains and the councils who allowed it need to be called to account and dip into their pockets.

On the subject of dredging the EA made over 4 million pounds available but local councils wouldn't cough up the rest necessary.

Dredging isn't the answer to a 200 year flood. Even with dredging many flooded areas would still have been flooded.

It's a horrible situation for those involved but throwing money at these areas isn't the answer. The levels are below sea level and a flood like this is inevitable, given the amount of rainfall.

AnnCardiff

AnnCardiff Report 9 Feb 2014 10:59

well watching Eric Pickles being interviewed on Sky this morning I've changed my views completely - money really was/is not the problem with the flooding in Somerset - it's the Environment Agency who failed to dredge the rivers that caused the problem in the first place

Guinevere

Guinevere Report 9 Feb 2014 11:22

They'd have flooded after this much rain even if they had been dredged, Ann, Eric said as much. That's not to say that they shouldn't have carried on with the dredging but it isn't just down to the EA, it's the local councils as well.

And sometimes politicians let the country flood to save the towns.

Nature will have her way - look at the lost homes In East Anglia in the storms on that part of the coast.

One solution, I still maintain is not to build on flood plains.

+++DetEcTive+++

+++DetEcTive+++ Report 9 Feb 2014 11:46

Seem to remember a decision NOT to repair sea defences because of cost, but to let nature take it's course? Not sure which areas were effected.

Magpie

Magpie Report 9 Feb 2014 12:23

Yes they would have flooded as much, they always have done, no one is arguing about that, but with properly maintained drains, sluice gates and pumps, the water level would have dropped significantly on the odd fine day that we are getting in between these storms, having lived on a flood plain this has been my experience, water rises quickly and drops quickly if the river/drains are running efficiently. As it is the water is 'standing' while yet more pours into the already inundated area. Silted rivers, drains and sluice gates mean one thing -permanent floods! The EA's policy in this area since it came into being was to let nature take it's course - how on earth can you expect people to farm on reclaimed land with that sort of attitude?!!! it beggars belief, clearly not a working farmer amongst all those clever clogs!! and as for the newts and the voles and so, they will, as they always have done over the centuries adapt and thrive in the habitat they find themselves in - remember the motorways and the fuss then about the destruction of wildlife? we now know that wildlife is alive and well along the M4!!!

Guinevere

Guinevere Report 9 Feb 2014 12:59

Magpie - they are letting chunks of Norfolk and Suffolk fall into the sea or get washed away. Nature is taking over. Why should Somerset be any different?

They didn't throw money into coastal defences, even though they could have saved a lot of homes. I think they will let the levels go the same way.

DIZZI

DIZZI Report 9 Feb 2014 13:46

PERHAPS WE NEED STORM DRAINS,MAY HELP TO RE DIRECT WATER
TO THE SEA,

Magpie

Magpie Report 9 Feb 2014 14:30

The levels need protecting because the land has been deliberately reclaimed for farming purposes. Farmers over the last four hundred years have been encouraged to use this land since the drains were engineered and looked after by the Dutch in the reign of Charles 1st. The land is extremely fertile and economically beneficial to our agricultural output so worth protecting. Sadly other chunks of the coast have no national economic viability which I'm afraid is what counts..