As the Guardian notes this morning flood defences in places like the Somerset levels and Dawlish were abandoned because of the cuts.
The cost to society will now be considerably more than the supposed savings made.
Cuts cost money.
That is especially true when borrowing was available at an effective 0% interest rate at the time these 'savings' were made, and people who could have undertaken the work were being made redundant.
Surely the false logic of austerity is now becoming apparent and the idea that we exist solely to service debt is becoming an obvious falsehood?
Or will the right still persist in their argument that we cannot afford things that generations have enjoyed and which we could still have if only we got our priorities right?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26155472
Also the article I read over the weekend, it wasn’t the cuts, however the cost the EU put on the silt and disposal of it!
Sorry – but that has nothing to do with Dawlish
And dredging is not the answer anyway
Has Dawlish just appeared on the sea coast, or have many governments let down the users of the train line.
As the Guardian note, there was a failure to act on perceived need post 2010
The sea defences at Dawlish have been regularly damaged, Brunel had many problems with the line being washed away. That would be pre-austerity.
The Somerset levels have flooded not because of the sea coming in, but the flood being unable to get out fast enough. Now, if you want real floods you can look at 1928_29. Or in my town you can look at the flood levels of 1872, seven feet higher than “the highest floods in 50 years” (local press). Which floods this year is lower than the flooding in the late 90’s.