MPs are criticising the government this morning for cutting back spending on flood defence spending at a time when the need for them is very obviously rising, but I am not sure why they are surprised. This is an issue at the very heart of the ideology that drives this government.
All of politics is about ideology; I accept that. I am, unambiguously ideological and in a non-party political sense that makes me political. There's nothing surprising about that; anyone with an opinion is political by this definition.
By the same definition objectivity does not exist. To analyse ideologically is, therefore, wholly appropriate. What is surprising is how rarely this is done. Flood defences just happen to provide the perfect example of an issue where ideology matters.
That is because flood defences - bar the odd sand bag - are almost invariably communal. No one can build a sea wall of any meaning for one house. Flood plains work communally, or not at all. And things like the Thames Barrier are beyond the capacity of the private sector because they have no mechanism available to fund them without the problem of free-riding coming into play. The rate of return on them is high, but only if you can find a method to capture it. That method is called tax.
So flood defences are an ideological issue. The individual is not capable of defending themselves against flood water in most cases. Communities can and states are well placed to reallocate resources to ensure the vulnerable are protected. This is, therefore, a role for the state, like it or not.
That is exactly why this government has been and is cutting spending in real terms, and plans to continue doing so. What it does not appear to appreciate is that this cut is at cost to us all. And that is the fault line in its ideological thinking: they cannot see that there is a power within communities that is more than the sum of its parts. Because they cannot they are destroying that community of interest, and this is why their cuts can never deliver the outcome of growth that they expect.
And so flooding should remain high on the political agenda, reminding people just what the difference in ideological choice they have available to them is.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Couldn’t agree more – Labour should use it as an example of the positive benefits of tax. Furious that TODAY had government spokesperson doing propaganda spiel about how they are increasing spend (failing to mention or be challenged about original huge reduction, or reduction in staff and hence maintenance of existing flood defences.
Yes! Where are the popular political voices raised in support of taxation? Who is championing taxation as a necessary investment for a prosperous society?
MORE tax please!
It’s absurd, isn’t it?
The Green Party is unambiguous about taxation. Greens argue for a return to a properly progressive income tax. This would achieve two very desirable things:
1. It would help to pay for the services we all need – health, education, flood defence etc.
2. It would make the UK a more egalitarian country. This brings so many benefits they are too many to itemise. See Wilkinson & Pickett.
People at every level seem incapable of joining up the dots these days… Where were the commentators on Sunday when Cameron made his cynical statement about the pension triple lock who should have pointed out that the state pension increases will be small comfort to elderly people who cannot access local hospital services or get home help or care from their bankrupt local authority, or even protect their home from flooding. Why should a 24 year old who worked hard at school, got a job, started a family but will not receive benefits in the event of redundancy cheerfully pay their taxes.
We unfortunately live in times when too many people have given up thinking for a pre-digested diet of neo-liberal propaganda (witness c4 ‘Benefit Street’) and, judging from reactions to criticism I made on Facebook yesterday, the right are clearly streets ahead in the battle for hearts and minds. The Labour Party cannot win an election on the Cpnservative’s terms. If they do not begin challenging the myths they (and the rest of us) are sunk.
And yet the BBC are still trying to give the impression flood defence spending has been protected or indeed increased. listening to some of the poor souls who have been victims of the flooding it seems even river dredging and maintenance has been cut along with spending on flood defences.
Owen Paterson described criticism of flood defence budget cuts as “chuntering” and “blather”…. I should imagine that speaks volumes to those who are wading about in a couple of feet of water, fishing for their possessions.
Richard, thanks for this – a useful litmus test. On which, two brief points;
1) Your splendid defence of the (unavoidable) role of ideology highlights ever more clearly the idiocy/dishonesty of Blair’s “anti-ideology” appraoch, which was only a cloak for Tory-lite instincts and practices.
2) Contemplating Gideon’s preposterous “cuts and austerity for ever” strategy, one cannot help feeling that this is just like the primitive pre-Enlightenment practice of bleeding/blood letting, by which supposedly “pressure” was relieved for the patient, and when they didn’t improve, they were bled again, until death supervened and problem solved! Neo-liberal economics is quite as pre-Enlightenment and non-evidential as blood-letting – alas, however, it is OUR blood!
I think its fairly obvious to all that the flood defences at present have failed. We need a new strategy not the same old attempts.
Maybe we need a strategy like the green taxes on our electricity. In the UK solar panels system with people who invest being subsided by all. Maybe home flood improvement for all along the same idea.
Yet another gross failure by Labour to say what should be obvious -but they won’t speak out until polls prove that it is ‘safe’ for them to do so! Words like ‘craven’ and ‘cowardly’ don’t get anywhere near it!
Some more data on Flood Defence spending (in real terms) from 2004 to 2016 from the impeccable fullfact.org.
It shows real term cuts from the peak in 2010/11, but no lower than 2007/08. It’s also budgeted to rise until 2016. It seems the numbers are more nuanced tham ‘cuts’
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/flood_defence_spending-29313
As austerity lockdown continues to benefit no one but the ‘elite’ (what’s elite about them I don’t know) and now looks as if it might actually be causing deaths and massive physical damage, as witnessed by the inability to cope with storm surges and massive cuts to flood defences, fire and rescue, NHS emergency, A&E, along with the huge success of the anti-tax avoidance push, someone, somewhere is putting some sort of irresistible pressure on all publicly funded media to distract from that and correspond with the state’s message. See Channel 4 and ‘Benefits Street’.
I think you’ll find the pressure comes from within. The BBC, C4 and all the rest is now populated by the school chums of those who rule us. For many of them it has become a sort of finishing school between Oxbridge and the benches of Parliament.
Most of the inland flooding is as a result of building on floodplains….around here the flood control system on the Ouse is at maximum flow, which leads to raised river levels upstream..if the flooding downstream gets worse then more flooding will be allowed upstream..it’s all a matter of prioritising risk. At present the river level is lower than it was in the “worst weather for 100 years” a few years ago. The present weather, in spite of the bbc, is not that extreme. As for coastal defences, dream-on. Raising a wall around the country is not a possibility. RSPB?
Is that serious?
I removed myself from them when they decided to erect a wind turbine at their HQ…obviously protecting birds has its limitations compared to subsidy extraction.
Todays expert is tomorrows idiot.
The tories may have it right. The problem may well be not too much weather but too many people.
The greens may be correct, 13 million may well be the optimum sustainable population of the UK. How to get down to it is the solution I’m waiting for them to produce.
Yes funding may be too low for flood defences. But how much is enough?
Would increased spending reduce spending elsewhere and so would not be cost effective? According to experts in this field, there is only so much one can do realisticly anyway.
Yes of course there are communal spends,and Government should pay,but it does not mean that Government should deliver the services. Government is only expert in governing (well, is meant to be) they don’t have the expertise to do anything else.
And it’s getting value for money too- Big Government is notorious for waste.
Pending has to be strategic, I agree
I hate to disagree on project delivery : I have a strong suspicion problems arise when contracting out
It is absurd to say government cannot hire expertise
As for waste – open your eyes to what the private sector manages!
I hear that the Environment Agency has 150 lawyers on its staff. Now some are reasonable – it is a regulatory body after all and sues polluters etc. – but 150 seems extreme. My own experience in a large and bureaucratic organisation suggests that the tendency is for corporate and head office functions to grow like a cancer while front line services are starved of resources and even more starved of leadership.