In terms of damage this is probably the worst disaster to have hit this country since the last war and yet as far as I know the government's only financial committment has been to promise to spend £14m on disaster relief which, no pun intended, is a drop in the ocean.
This disaster is going to take billions of pounds in order to restore some normality to the lives, property and businesses of those affected.
Come on Mr Brown, get your finger out!
2007-07-22 22:04:35 · 5 answers · asked by Barrie G 3 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
Pat:
I guess you, like me, pay to insure your home/business/ and or property but consider this.
If the cost of every ounce of damage and reparation comes out of insurance funds what is going to happen to your premiums? And that is providing insurers will continue to offer protection in the event of flooding in future.
If we are to minimise the personal costs to the likes of yourself I'm afraid that the government does need to step in and provide some assistance and plenty of it too!
I do see your point though and that people like ourselves must not be disadvantaged because we took insurance out and others didn't.
2007-07-22 22:19:36 · update #1
Naturally these areas need 'extra funding' though as Pat pointed out, insurance will/should satisfy personal and business needs, that is the whole point of the racket. What really needs to happen with the money is that we need to start maintaining the drainage system a lot better, when the rain first started and the water began to pile up the streets the ground was covered in ‘clean water’ now that is straight from the sky and the drainage system hasn’t been able to cope, that is completely avoidable.
A complete restructuring is needed, most drainage systems are a joke, they channel the water off the river at one point, and shove it right back a few yards further up. That isn’t controlling excessive water, it is just making it ‘someone else’s problem’ further down the line.
Sorting out defence systems is a must, and keeping those flood barriers in the same town would be helpful for a start!
2007-07-22 22:20:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i really don't see what the government has to do with the rain, did they hire an Indian to dance about and chant to bring on the rain ? no , they didn't , the only thing the government is responsible for is flood defence on vulnerable stretches of rivers, as for damage to property and business if you don't have insurance then tough. I pay £44 a month for unlimited cover and it has gone up again this year despite not making a claim i bet those who have no insurance still have plasma tv's, go to the pub and smoke 20 a day but can't afford to insure their property.
2007-07-23 04:40:06 · answer #2 · answered by Dolly 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If this was somewhere else in the world, this country would be giving vastly more money. After all it is partly the governments fault that the flood defences are so poor.
2007-07-22 22:17:33 · answer #3 · answered by Jim 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the government response is just the same as any other.as far as i know Mr Brown doesn't have a direct line to the man upstairs this £14m drop in the ocean is not from his expense account every body who pays tax is footing it.There were worse floods in the fifties all they got were arm bands in 1976 it was over 80f for about 3 months no rain at all then 3foot snow drifts in the winter people think "it weren't this bad last year"and that's it they should be gratefull of any help!!!!
2007-07-22 22:23:46 · answer #4 · answered by golden 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I agree that safety issues and flood protection should be more important, but personal loss- isn't that what we pay insurance for?
2007-07-22 22:09:08 · answer #5 · answered by Pat 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋