Does It?

February 7, 2014 Longrider General News, General Rants, misanthropy, Political 6

Cameron can chair all the Cobra meetings he likes, but crisis prevention requires a well-funded, paternalistic state

Okay, I appreciate that article writers at CiF don’t necessarily write the headlines or sub-headings to their pieces, however, this is the thrust of the argument being made.

An emergency on this scale requires them to behave, quite simply, like socialists. It requires a well co-ordinated, firm, top-down response, and the spending of tax revenue to alleviate misery, on the strict basis of need rather than worthiness.

Does it? Does it really? That’s the problem with socialists – they can only think in terms that are strictly limited. No lateral thinking for them, and certainly no possibility of people doing things for themselves on the ground. No, the courageous state must always step in and sort things out like some sort of caped crusader. Such is the paucity of their imagination and thinking.

I watched a news item last night where farmers were helping each other get their livestock to safety. No top down paternalistic state in sight. Which, frankly, was probably just as well. These guys got on and did it. If the bureaucrats were involved, they’d still be filling out the risk assessment forms. And lord knows how they would have reacted when a digger driver used the arm of his machine to stop a trailer load of cattle from toppling over. I expect he will be receiving  a visit from the health and safety inspectors at some point. It was certainly quick thinking and imaginative.

Shit happens. Floods in Somerset and forest fires in Australia. The Earth has a pretty vicious climate at times and we have to deal with it. I would agree with Nigel Farage that money being pissed away on foreign aid would be better spent here, in our own country, helping people who have had it taken from them in the first place, to rebuild following the flood damage. And, certainly, in the long-term there’s a case to be made for letting them have even more of it back to build more robust defences. That doesn’t mean that you need big state to sort things out. What they are likely to get if it does will be over-priced and ineffective always assuming that it is built in time for the next round of floods.

There’s also an argument to be made about not building on flood plains – just as there is an argument to be made about not trying to eke a living in near desert conditions and expecting the West to pour money into the resultant famine…

But if I said that I’d be accused of being cynical and I’m not that at all…

6 Comments

  2. @Twisted Root – criminal shits is our favoured interpretation with considerable evidence to support the assertion. The Environment Agency is feral semi-detached gubmint. The EA make up stuff to suit themselves or grab near random bits of EU directive and gold plate them beyond any reason but self promotion and the use shedloads of public money on the cover-up. It happens across the “Agency” subculture – Highways Agency, VOSA, DVLA, Natural England – they’re bloated and out of control

    Bit of a plug -quite understand if LR decides to

  3. Floods in UK, fires in Australia have been made worse and prolonged by ‘environmental’ policies.

    Incorrect land management preventing adequate drainage to favour wildlife in the case of the UK, incorrect land management to prevent clearance of copious and highly combustable, resinous plant material close to habitation and roads, in order to protect the natural ecology.

    Floods and fires are a fact of life in places, but experience over many years meant local populations put in place measures to minimise effect.

    Centralising policy for ‘the environment’ means land management policy is decided to meet ideological aims of people who worry about Mother Earth and will not suffer the consequences of their cockeyed outlook on life.

    Meanwhile: building on land at risk of flooding. That would include Central London. If that rule is to be applied to other areas upon which people have been living for centuries, it should be applied to London.

    Of course should ‘environmental impact on wildlife’ affect proper flood protection for London, I am sure the Chianti and Ciabata for lunch bunch standing knee deep in sewage running through their Islington and Fulham digs, and MPs, the terrace of the HoP awash, would have something to say on the matter.

    • I was going to say something very much the same. Socialist/centralist policies often prevent land owners (or concerned locals) from doing things to avert problems, such as you pointed out in the Australian case where policy has prevented the creation of firebreaks.

      It’s disgusting that the Environment Agency has been milking funds from council tax paid by the residents of flood-prone areas but has done precious little in the way of flood prevention in return.

  4. I’ve been wondering how places like the Somerset Levels have managed to exist quite comfortably for a number of centuries without any form of Government interference, but once the Government or one of its lesser bodies takes an interest, everything turns to worms?
    Any thoughts? I know what I think.

  5. How about spending the money being squandered on Trident on the British people, rather than on some pathetic ego boost for our feral political elite?

Comments are closed.