Cry Havoc, too often, in the wrong way, and...

Storm winds batter Britain

No looking good, to be sure.

Then this arrived:


A Flood Warning has been issued for the River Wye from Hereford To Ross On Wye area. Flooding of homes and businesses is expected. Act now!

The Environment Agency advises you to act now:

- Ring Floodline on 0845 988 1188 for up to date flooding information
- Stay tuned to radio and television weather, news and travel bulletins
- Keep a watch on water levels
- Move family, pets and valuables to safety
- Help neighbours
- Use sandbags or flood boards to block doors and airbricks
- Don't drive through flood water
- Be prepared to turn off gas and electricity supplies
- Find more information at www.environment-agency.gov.uk/floodline

Above all - be careful. The Environment Agency cannot be held responsible for any accidents, injuries, or losses, financial or otherwise, which occur as a result of this email. Forecasts cannot be guaranteed.

I don't know the best answer, but this cannot be it. Yet again, the footy field next to the river ended up waterlogged.

First time I move the family. Second time we glanced out the window. Fool me once...

Now we feel they are more making sure they can say they tried to avoid criticism rather than being sensible about helping folk make decisions. Box ticking. Target meeting. I called to suggest that this was losing value rapidly by being such a blanket alert and why not be more honest on the limits of the system and parameters. I was advised to unsubscribe.

Is there a metaphor here?

CATEGORY - Flood

I think this deserves its own gig

ARTICLES

Guardian - Chaotic flood defences leave large areas at risk, say MPs - Surprise, surprise. But next time what's the betting we hear 'It's AGW... no one expected this level of...'

BBC - Benn denies flood plan 'chaos' - 'Did too'...'Do not, so muhr...'. Edifying

Indy - Is flooding really as big a risk to Britain now as terrorism?

Times - Thousands more face floods - break out the wellies!

BBC - Insurers agree flood cover deal - Helps a bit

Telegraph - NEW - Flood game shows UK cities under water - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi, though given his reasons I am not so sure I'm that thrilled: 'Given your proximity to a river prone to flooding, I think I should leave this one to you.'

INFORMATION

Environment Agency Floodline - actually quite useful, with email and text warnings
Flood Maps
Flood forum
Floodsim - NEW - a game, though maybe not too much fun for some
Homecheck -
Association of British Insurers -

I'll need to add more when they come in, or collate later. For now, check out the labels below

At least you'll know in advance that your screwed

Two pieces on flood issues just in.

One is a full quote from an LGA PR; the other a BBC story.

LGA response to flooding report - press release - 11 June 2008

In response to the Environment Commission report into last year's flooding, the Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.

The LGA is calling for a change in the law and a new statutory framework which would compel water companies and others to co-operate with councils, share information and prepare flood prevention plans. Any organisation that failed to co-operate would be penalised.

Cllr Paul Bettison, Chairman of the LGA Environment Board, said:

“The current system is fundamentally flawed. We simply cannot continue to have a situation where it is not clear who is responsible for dealing with vitally important functions such as drainage.

“There are glaring gaps in this country’s readiness to cope with widespread and prolonged flooding. Last summer’s floods were no fluke, and we run the real risk of witnessing a repeat – or worse – unless urgent action is taken now.

“We need to get back to basics. There should be no opt-out, no excuses and clear penalties for anybody who refuses to co-operate with managing our water systems. Councils should be allowed to start banging heads together so we can be better prepared to protect people and property.”

“More extreme weather is an unavoidable consequence of climate change. Last summer’s floods exposed flaws in how prepared the country was and the effect of years of under-funding. Greater investment now will save much bigger costs in the future.”

Under the current system, it is often unclear who has responsibility for managing flood risk and maintaining drainage systems. In some parts of the country a myriad of different bodies – including the Environment Agency, councils, private landowners and water companies – have these powers but often do not share information with each other.

BBC - Laser maps flood-prone areas

Hence I am again frustrated and concerned, if not surprised to read such as this:

'The Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.'

What? You mean they are not... yet??? Such as Cllr. Bettison are bang on, and the wonder is how this is still the case, after all that has gone before and will transpire again.

And while whizz bang techno stuff is all well and good, if those theoretically 'in charge' cannot organize themselves, getting better warnings seems to be unlikely to inspire most of the population much, especially if many of the replies in the BBC HYS section are to be taken as a measure.

I welcome better data, but it has to be provided and supported with tangible actions.

I live in a low point of a town on the River Wye. I bought the house following a survey that discovered that since it was built, in the 17th century, it has never been flooded. Those old folk knew a thing or two about building, and what was meant by... flood plains. So I pay attention in advance to such wise experience.

And I am glad to say my insurers are happy to go along with that (for now), despite the Enviro Agency's current map having got my house slap bang in one. Oddly, it also has my neighbours' three houses up in it too, despite being about 40' (80x the 6” that makes all the difference) higher up the hill.

Anyway, being a believer in prevention being better than cure, I have for the last few years tried to pursue with various bodies - council, Environment Agency, Waterways Board - how I might better protect my property should things deteriorate. I think Ican do so and weather future storms rather than wailing and claiming compo, as seems the vogue. Not big on the victim culture.

Thing is, I need some advice at least (help if its available, but being practical I'd say dream on). I have a mark on the wall showing the level AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). All I need to know is what, in the next 50-100 years, are the chances of something going above that, and to what height. Then I can prepare coffer walls and entryway/hole covers to deploy on warning (very prompt system on email and mobile, though a little lacking on much beyond screaming 'prepare for the worst!!'. Wolf and crying kicks in a tad here).

Sadly, to no avail so far. Each, as suggested here, points at the other, and/or various colourful websites that are pretty of little use.

Officers are 'busy', and have been for years. But I got the offer of 'a' sandbag once.

If this is the level of support to a householder who is prepared to DIY, and pay for it all himself, I am not too inspired as to how it's going to improve very much for those in less of a position to do so.

But I am sure many reports will get prepared, boxes ticked, and sombre spokespersons from multiple, overlapping public bodies explaining how it happened this time due to ‘unexpected circumstances’.

Throw enough mud

And you may eventually end up with a... very expensive... hut.

This from a blog:

The Environment Agency - Science Report - The economic and environmental benefits of resource efficiency in construction

Resource efficiency could save construction industry millions

Ten million tonnes of new construction products are wasted every year, at a cost of over £1.5 billion. This is the result of a study by the Environment Agency to evaluate the potential economic and environmental benefits of the UK construction sector improving resource efficiency. This is equivalent to about two per cent of the overall construction sector output. Reducing the amount of waste by one per cent would mean annual savings of £15 million and 104,000 tonnes of product.

The report estimates that 6.1 million tonnes of construction waste, mainly paints and finishes, floor coverings and light fittings, are sent to land fill every year, at a cost of £917 million. It also estimates that 3.9 million tonnes of construction waste such as ceramics, concrete and cement, worth £583 million are recycled.

The construction sector is hugely resource intensive, using an estimated 400 million tonnes of resources each year. This makes it the single biggest user in the UK economy, accounting for about nine per cent of gross domestic product. In addition, the sector also produces over 30 per cent of England's total waste along with 32 per cent of its hazardous waste.

As Site Waste Management Plans become mandatory for larger projects from April 2008, it is becoming increasingly important that the sector efficiently manages the resources and waste products from all processes during construction projects.

During this project the EA developed scorecards that can be used as a quick and easy tool for identifying opportunities and improvements for site waste management. Separate scorecards have been developed for new build, refurbishment and demolition projects. They are designed to be used by clients, contractors, waste management companies and the Environment Agency to benchmark the performance of on-site waste management.

The report recommends that the construction sector works together with a common goal of resource efficiency*. For this to happen, each part of the sector needs to understand its role in terms of the resources it buys that are subsequently wasted and apply appropriate solutions. Better data is required at a product level for this to happen effectively.

I haven't read the report, nor do I have time to, but from the summary it surprises me that we are still today seeing such as this, and the stark warnings on waste being issued, when the likes of WRAP, NISP , Knowledge Transfer Network and I am sure many other well-funded and often overlapping bodies/quangos (who must have been mentioned) have surely been on this case* for a long time now? Heck, I am on so many lists now I am sure this may be from one of them!

Is national coordination so fragmented/poor and, possibly answering my own question before, is progress really this slow?

*'The report recommends that the construction sector works together with a common goal of resource efficiency.' - So... are they saying that they currently are not then? I really am flummoxed. There is tons going on with this aim/target already!

Leaving Lovers and other lists

When in doubt, make a list: How to save the planet

Actually, to be semantically picky, quite a lot are ways to slow down the screwing up of the planet, but their hearts are in the right place.

I will await the document to arrive as I am on their mailing list and can't read PDFs onscreen easily, so it will be... interesting. First up I will be keen to see what constitutes a panel of experts .

But at least it is a 'to-do' list. That is a pretty big step in the right direction. To do. However, looking at numbers 1 & 2 I do wonder (I have highlighted in red and green what I think is a bizarro or a goodie, either in itself or its position. But a lot just mean diddly out of context or without further explanation.) how useful it is...

1 Dramatically improve the energy efficiency of electrical goods - just these?
2 Religious leaders to make the environment a priority for their followers
3 Encourage the widespread use of solar power throughout the world
4 Secure a meaningful post-Kyoto treaty on reducing the emissions that contribute to global warming
5 Encourage households to generate much more of their own power
6 Introduce tax incentives to "buy green"
7 Tackle the rapid growth in aviation emissions
8 Wean ourselves off dependency on petroleum
9 Encourage individuals to buy less non-essential "stuff "
10 Dramatically improve public transport
11 Aim for a "zero waste" culture
12 Install "smart energy" meters in all homes
13 Introduce a measure of economic success that includes the environment
14 Fully harness Britain's huge potential for generating renewable energy
15 Seek alternative, less damaging sources for biofuels
16 Bury carbon dioxide from power stations underground
17 Encourage hydrogen fuel cell technology in cars- drive less!
18 Implement government policies to control global population growth - top 5!
19 Reach international agreement on preserving rainforests - top 5!
20 Create better incentives to improve energy efficiency in the home -top 5!

And then one gets to have a say:

50 ways to save the planet

Though I'd be hard-pressed to agree with this: The Environment Agency's '50 things that will save the planet' list showcases some truly inspirational ideas... ranked as a list of actions in order of importance.

I loved that the idea of a global price for carbon ranked so low, but that's me just cherry-picking to suit my beliefs, as I think the top set are pants. But at least the notion of handing this all to be-suited traders is seen to be as dire as I find it when it comes to actually making a real difference to the planet and not just a minority's profits.

Here's wot i rote:

Very worthwhile, thought-provoking piece(s - both of them).

But there is a lot of tip-toeing still, no? And I'm sorry to disagree with Leo... I've about had it with awareness if it means more of the talkfests we have been subjected to so far, from headlines to vastly-funded campaigns. They don't seem to have worked too well to now. Put the money and energy in more actual DOING.

Here are some areas I'd vote for (rush draft without the concern of worrying to much how socially, financially, politically, etc they happen. Conveniently for me):

1. Reduce... population increase to break even (as this is a 'to do' list that carries scary connotations, so using PeeCee-speek analogies from the job market I'd say it's more 'voluntary redundancies' over time than 'firing', though often you hear the phrase 'natural wastage'. I guess nature may yet play a part, then:)

2. Stop using/wanting to use so much (we don't really need). And I write that with a straight face looking at the car and travel ads all around.

3. Reuse and/or repair at every opportunity until these options are no longer viable, and then recycle the leftovers wherever and whenever practically possible with an enviROI+ (so carting a 2litre bottle of fresh air to a recycling station 100 miles away doesn't count, even if it ticks a box).

4a. Deal with the biggies and quit sweating the small fry. So chill, sensibly.

4b. Encourage any and every actual way/initiative/idea that has DO at its core, especially those that offer clear rewards, and stop fussing over all the trivial nonsense that has 'don't' as its sole raison' d'etre. And all the bozos who make a lot out of dealing in that word.

4c. Leave anything that has guilt, fine, fear, loathing, ratings (and a bunch of other really negative vibes) at the door.

5. Take it all deadly seriously. But in debate realise there will be different views. So be civilised, pragmatic, understanding and keep a sense of humour. You'll win converts quicker that way.

Just as you guys have questioned some significant high ranks and absences, it all really highlights how diverse 'we' are. Perhaps what 'we' need is something that makes the human race pull together as one. Where's there an alien invasion when you need one?

Whatever... we may yet make it. It's what keeps me going at least.

Doing what I do.

ADDENDUM - A reply prompted a follow-up from me (whilst noting this topic - in the Guardian - has elicited 7 replies to date) :

'I am truly sorry to offend, but these questions are really silly. Stick a tax on carbon forthwith and see what happens. Hey presto! It works.'

'I am truly sorry to offend, but these questions are really silly. Stick a tax on carbon forthwith and see what happens. Hey presto! It works.'

I'm sorry too. I don't quite understand what you mean by 'questions'.

As to sticking a tax on carbon as you indicate I'm unsure how you know it works if you have yet to find out what happens when you do.

Actually I suspect you are right, at least in cutting carbon emissions. But I would also hazard it is not as simple as that. Take air travel, which really needs addressing. Tax its carbon to a point where it becomes meaningful as a deterrent and you are in the realms of political suicide and social division when it comes to creating something only the rich can 'enjoy'. And there's also the small (well..) matter of economics and employment.

Tax it to the point it stops, and the global tourism industry pretty much ceases. Which means you have roughly 10% of the global working population out of, and looking for a job. Along, one suspects, with the guys in power seen to have put them out there.

So it's really waaaaay more complex than guys like us can really do justice to, with either suggestion pro or con, in a few paragraphs. Which is why I don't envy the politicians. Allowances, the only way I can see that such as personal travel can be addressed, only work if it is fair and all comply. Sadly I am not seeing much statespersonship anywhere to have much faith it can be done effectively any time soon.

Human nature, its variation and numbers is a fact that will need to be lived with... and negotiated around.

I personally believe that, while there are many 'dont's' that could well have immediate and effective results, they have to be viewed in terms of those they are to be imposed upon. Look how well and how long anti-smoking efforts have 'persuaded' just the UK population. One problem is the lack of any perceived real compensatory benefits, though how improved health and bank balance doesn't sink in is telling.

So I think it must be baby steps, but as the topic of priorities has been raised, they have to be dirty great big ones, and where they can count. And if they are in 'unsexy' areas so be it.

How much waste is there in electrical distribution, for example? I've been told as high as 40%. Why? Can it be reduced? If not, why not? Money? Greed? Political Will? Lack of interest (making a grey box in a field a lot better at what it does certainly won't hit the national news as much as a town banning plastic bags)... Or simple engineering reality?

Or pumps. I have also been told that these all-pervasive tools of industry are immensely inefficient and hence gobble vast, unnecessary power. Can they be improved? And globally? Do we force a change? Or do we find ways to ease them in? Interest-free loans to companies backed by mandatory conversion orders . I don't know. But for my kids' sake I want big wins.

And if they are not sexy so be it. We can try and find stuff to keep the media and our pleasure centres happy once we have in place some things that really are doing their best to make a difference.

And then talk about the twiddly bits to our hearts' content.

Meanwhile, back at the 'fine first' end...

'Ignorance is no excuse' they say, but it's hard not to sympathise with those who may well soon cop it from this: Firms ‘unprepared’ for waste regulation

Regs is regs, I know, but why do I get the feeling a lot more effort has gone into the policing of all this, as opposed to easing it in effectively.

I love this quote:

"It feels like over the past 12 months every man and his dog has been making noises about becoming greener, but here we have a major piece of legislation coming into force that supports this, and it is virtually ignored...."

Read one sentence more to get a hint why:

"Crucially, it isn't just manufacturers that will now have to treat their own non-hazardous waste before it is collected; every business in the country, including high street retailers, City offices and country pubs must now produce their own reports on how they have treated their waste, in accordance with the EA's guidelines.”

Or the key bit that tops it all off: 'It is still vague how heavily the rules will be enforced'

I'll be they figure the enforcement bit out pretty quick, but probably a tad before sorting out the vague aspects.

3 into 2 will go

I guess I do have what it takes when it comes to (vast) sums: WRAP Board Extends Its Strategic Skills Base With Appointment Of Three New Non Executive Directors

We look forward to their contribution.

Established as a not-for-profit company in 2000, WRAP is backed by Government funding from Defra and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I wonder if they have a bonus structure like the Environment 'but we promised them huge amounts before it all went pear-shaped on their watch' Agency?

I'm still trying to get to grips with the lack of conflict in interest to using public money to spend on comms budgets, to drive up rates that their measures of success are based on, and then subsequently richly rewarded on a personal basis for meeting such 'targets'.

Since when did not-for profit public service end up with such money-dripping schemes beyond a decent salary for a good job?

I predict a riot

Oh, dear. This if this is the best we can do I'd advise buying bigger wellies - Newsnight Floods

Unpredicted power cuts. Something without precedent I am sure at the BBC. It must be climate change. Lessons must be learned. Debates will be had. But, for now, let's move on.

First up, let me just say how bang on - 'watching TV without electricity. LOL' - almost all the comments have been so far, and forgive me for rehashing any, but there is much to rake over.

'Without precedent'. So says Dear Leader and his gang. Well, is/was it, or not? Especially if, as advised, 1903 was the wettest on record and 1947 & 1956 were a tad damp, too. And what has happened 'was no different' to 1968 in the West Midlands or 1912 in East Anglia.

Which rather makes a mockery of 'Acts of God' along with 'No one could have predicted'.

Surely to [that same invoked entity] this was entirely predictable, and should have been anticipated. And as we are getting hit with climate change awareness communications (via PR and massively-funded ad campaigns of questionable value) daily, might we not suppose that in a joined up government a projection may have been made from such historical data, a few factors such as increased population, consequent building, drainage and run off bolted on, to arrive at the notion that, at some stage, it was going to happen again, and maybe even a bit worse?

I have never heard such woeful backsliding, and backside covering so far (with a prediction of more totally precedented examples to come).

If Mr. Brown's solution so far is to swim in and promise a bit more money to make up for what he was part of removing in the past, I'd say the only bounce from any location near water he'd see if he called an election was out! How long are we going to be treated to an erasing of any complicity in the last decade, when all those responsible for what is happening now were part of the obvious failures in policy and action (with all due, obligatory, praise to those at the sharp... er, wet... end of the public service delivery systems who actually have to mop up their bosses' foul-ups) that has brought us to this point?

And if... when this money arrives, forget the Environment Agency two Labour MPs so virulently trashed various for 'rubbish systems' on this very point (this would be the same Agency a Minister of Government subsequently has very confidence in? How disjointed is that!?), how can we trust this shambolic bunch to utilise any more cash any more effectively than they have already? We have the evidence of our own pruny toes to show what they are capable of at a strategic level. The only defensive systems I see deployed so far are career-covering words. As Baroness Young said: 'there is no accounting'. Quite.

I'm not quite sure how many Ministers of Mud (Ok, the environment) we deserve, but Mr. Phil 'No Point Trying' Woolas was an inspired choice of spokesperson to help us through this. 'Not the time for lessons learned', just as all around are trying to bail themselves out by rehashing this rather tired mantra enough times in the hope it will all soon pass over. And speaking of tired mantras, there is, apparently, 'a big debate to be had'. Well we're having it now matey, and the likes of you are looking pretty poor in the showing so far.

Was he really saying that as it was going to be really bad the lack of doing anything in some places was excusable. With a system that is claimed to be totally 'fluid' (excuse the pun) from one hour to the next, you don't even try? And big up to the commenter who noted he doesn't seem to have grasped the Thames Barrier's actual function. Funny if not tragic. It sure doesn't fill me with much confidence in the competence being brought to bear so far.

And Newsnight, why, oh why do you persist with the 'twofer' bookend debate style. Actually the flood victim lady was at least quite well-informed and confident, but for an issue this massive she's all we get to go head to head with a Minister backed by a bazillion assistants and briefings (not that it did him much good)?

And as a tax, local rate and licence fee payer with the River Wye looking to do the same thing one day, and wishing to prevent a lot more than I can cure or see excluded on insurance, why did we not get an answer to the question of DEFRA's Flood Resistance Grants? I would like, no... need... no... demand to know!

Along with why we are not spending money wisely on tangible preventative measures as opposed to p*ssing it all away on more and more quangos and ad campaigns to make 'us' aware on our carbon footprints. I'm pretty sure some were quite relieved that 4x4s and bottled water (last week was it that Newsnight jumped on that trivial bandwagon?) were still available at the moment, and a bit more concerned about the much bigger carbon footprint pictures that might be responsible for such massive natural phenomena.

So let's not just look to the skies to explain what has happened on the ground here. I'm afraid what I am seeing and hearing is indeed caused by man (PC-alert: men and women), but mostly all living in one small village in Westminster.

I was more than interested in the Climate Change discussion (no so much a debate as they were really agreeing with each other) between Meteorologist of 30 years' experience Philip Eden, and environmentalist of, er, no obvious fixed qualification, George Monbiot. An interesting pairing.

I'd have loved to have seen Mr. Eden across the table from Mr. Brown or Woolas to hear them deal with the fact that there was indeed plenty of precedent, and all this could be and indeed has been predicted. Maybe even mitigated?

In fact this should be the end of the story, along with their over-spun careers. But no, one can say almost anything outright wrong and get away with it pretty easily these days.

Especially in the current media climate where there is an attention span... of oh, that's all we have time for. Meanwhile, in other news... I for one would like to return to the hundreds more concerned with Jeremy's tie. Not.

I'll leave the final words to the only qualified scientist I heard all night: 'If this is what happens within our current limits of experience, what is going to happen in the future?' I'm just not sure if he was talking about the weather, or the guys tasked to help us address its consequences.

Vague on solving problems. Vague of the causes of problems.

A committee of MPs not only thought the Iran 'M/marine' affair was mishandled, but seemed unable to locate anyone who was to blame for decisions made all the way up the chain.

This is what I switched on Breakfast TV to find out. No one is to blame any more. And it's 'wholly unsatisfactory'. That'll have all of 'em quaking.

Moving on to a more immediate, and topical issue. Flooding.

Baroness Young of the Environment Agency is wheeled on to explain why a bunch of folk are sitting on their roofs, either not protected or not assisted in good order.

What struck me first was the reasons. There have not been floods like this 'in 200 years'. And a lot of it was down to significant 'run'off'. Hmmn.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we not had a bunch of officials banging on for a wee while about climate change, with vast amounts of time and energy being 'invested' in campaigns to get us to 'think' about such huge issues as plastic bags. So they were/are aware that some stinky stuff was/is going to happen. Yet the main thing I seem to be hearing is that it is all 'unprecedented'.

Well, at least since 200 years ago, when climate change was what happened four times a year and you just made sure the crops got rotated properly to cope. As opposed to sticking a supermarket carpark on top of them. You'd think they'd have figured it was not only going to happen again, but be even more serious - As Mr. Brown has said: '[they] have to learn lessons for the future'. Like so much else, it all is such a big surprise after the last 10 years being the number 2 in cabinet, I suppose.

Today, I shall be mostly figuring out how to protect my home from the possibility that no one will be responsible/accountable for the fact that the Wye (or more likely run-off from the hills surrounding it) may do what it has done over the millenia (note to EA and my insurers: despite your warning letter, my house has never been flooded before).

You know what? Instead of flood defences, I think we need another really useful, award-winning campaign. All supported by a bloated system of over-staffed, contradictory agencies to ensure that whatever happens (or doesn't), it's no one's fault.

I just watched Peter Sissons take apart a Labour apologist on her attempt to excuse it all away as an 'Act of God'.... well, done!

As I close, our new Environment Minister is due to explain. Can't wait.

ADDENDUM -

Watching now. He doesn't accept that anything was bungled. Asked a direct question, he didn't answer as to who was in charge. A trend at play here. But we get a nonsense appeal to big up the 'moppers uppers' in the emergency services. These are guys at the sharp end. Maybe the guys at the fat end need to explain why they, and those they were deployed to aid, were put at risk in the first place. And fudges on whether the £15M cut from the budget last year was from capital or elsewhere is just a weasel. Note that amount... to cope with flooding infrastructure for the UK. And weight it against the budget for several different 'awareness ' campaigns'.

On the point of building on flood plains, it seems that now they will take it into account. Only... now?

Telegraph - Flood failures: Ministers 'mishandled crisis'
Telegraph - Prevention, not cure
BBC - One family's M5 nightmare - 4x4's.... cause or coping tool? Can a Prius float?
BBC - Benn defends response to flooding - Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has defended the government's response to the floods, although he accepted there were "lessons to be learned" - As well??? Is it a government of parrots?
Times - Families to foot bill for £2.5bn floods - Well, you wouldn't expect the clowns repsonsible to, would you?