'Central Watford needs a long-term flood plan', says councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst

Watford Observer: 'Central Watford needs a long-term flood plan', says councillor 'Central Watford needs a long-term flood plan', says councillor

New flood measures should be looked at to prevent central Watford becoming deluged again, according to a politician for the area.

Stephen Giles-Medhurst, a representative for Central Watford and Oxhey, said if flooding was to become more frequent action must be taken to protect homes.

Houses on Lower High Street were put at risk from rising water after the River Colne burst its banks on Friday. Water Lane and Bushey Hall Road, in Bushey, were also inundated by the river.

The area has traditionally been a flood risk due to its low-lying nature and suffered particularly bad flooding in 1903 and 1946. However, in previous years there has been decades between incidents of the Colne bursting is banks in central Watford.

Last week’s flood, which came after record rainfall in January, was the second time in five years the area has become overwhelmed.

Councillor Giles Medhurst, said flooding in the town had previously been talked of as a "once in a 100-years" event.

But having had two deluges so close together, he said plans should be looked at to ensure the River Colne burst its banks away from densely populated areas.

He said: "I will be talking with the council and meeting with the Environment Agency to see if additional measures need to be in place as a long term solution.

"I think it is fair to say given the excessive rain we have had we should look at whether it is better that the river burst its banks where there are flood plains, i.e. fields rather than properties.

"It is important that people’s homes and households are protected."

In 2009 two pumps were built into the drainage system under Lower High Street to protect homes in the case of flooding.

On Friday a third pump had to be brought in from Kings Langley to cope with the rising flood water.

A fourth has since been brought in from Surrey ahead of more heavy rain forecast for later this week.

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:23pm Tue 11 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

yep I reckon the council should have been working on this for ohh the last fifteen years or so, now who have we had?
yep I reckon the council should have been working on this for ohh the last fifteen years or so, now who have we had? dontknowynot

1:32pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Leavesdenlad says...

Not building on every inch of green space whether parks, playing fields or gardens would have been a good start. Just where is all the water supposed to go?
Not building on every inch of green space whether parks, playing fields or gardens would have been a good start. Just where is all the water supposed to go? Leavesdenlad

1:43pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

2 pumps in 2009 was a step in the right direction, maybe it should have been four but it is notoriously difficult to get politicians to spend on freak weather events that may not happen in their time in office.

As these two pumps did not resolve the problem this year it is worth re-evaluating the situation and deciding whether more pumps are needed permanently or whether two pumps and two on standby is adequate.

The canoeist who was going the wrong way down the high street last week and local residents might agree that flood prevention was not good enough this time.

I agree with Giles Medhurst that if the flooding could have been made to happen on flood plain fields then this could also be a cheaper and more natural solution to the town flooding we have seen.

All parties and independents should work together to bring about the best solution for Watford. Opportunist comments from Watford Labour party are not helpful, in particular neglecting to mention who was in power before the LibDems and why they didn't do anything during their time in power.
2 pumps in 2009 was a step in the right direction, maybe it should have been four but it is notoriously difficult to get politicians to spend on freak weather events that may not happen in their time in office. As these two pumps did not resolve the problem this year it is worth re-evaluating the situation and deciding whether more pumps are needed permanently or whether two pumps and two on standby is adequate. The canoeist who was going the wrong way down the high street last week and local residents might agree that flood prevention was not good enough this time. I agree with Giles Medhurst that if the flooding could have been made to happen on flood plain fields then this could also be a cheaper and more natural solution to the town flooding we have seen. All parties and independents should work together to bring about the best solution for Watford. Opportunist comments from Watford Labour party are not helpful, in particular neglecting to mention who was in power before the LibDems and why they didn't do anything during their time in power. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford

1:49pm Tue 11 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Ideally there should be a scheme whereby the potential flood water from the rivers colne and Gade are removed otherwise you are just going to shift the problem along the line a bit, given that this flooding is likely due to climate change and the rise in Sea and Ocean temperatures over the last three decades, the wise thing to do is accept that we will have wet winters like this one to deal with.
The question then becomes how, I notice that they have been pumping the water, the Q is where it ends up? Did pumping at Kings Langley contribute to flooding in Ricky and Watford and did the pumping of the high street area contribute to flooding by the Irish club and further downstream.
Now would I pump the area if my home was threatened, yes yes yes, but is it the right thing to do if it just means two other peoples homes will flood, I am not so certain. This is exactly the dilemma we face two days after it floods here it floods at Wraysbery, so if we “solve “ the problem here we don’t really we just pass it down the line.
The answer that seems most logical is to solve the problem upstream of the town and pump the water, or use gravity to take it elsewhere, the expense however would likely be very high but I am convinced that comprehensive scheme to protect all of Watford and other areas is needed, if not this something else worked out with a comprehensive brief
Ideally there should be a scheme whereby the potential flood water from the rivers colne and Gade are removed otherwise you are just going to shift the problem along the line a bit, given that this flooding is likely due to climate change and the rise in Sea and Ocean temperatures over the last three decades, the wise thing to do is accept that we will have wet winters like this one to deal with. The question then becomes how, I notice that they have been pumping the water, the Q is where it ends up? Did pumping at Kings Langley contribute to flooding in Ricky and Watford and did the pumping of the high street area contribute to flooding by the Irish club and further downstream. Now would I pump the area if my home was threatened, yes yes yes, but is it the right thing to do if it just means two other peoples homes will flood, I am not so certain. This is exactly the dilemma we face two days after it floods here it floods at Wraysbery, so if we “solve “ the problem here we don’t really we just pass it down the line. The answer that seems most logical is to solve the problem upstream of the town and pump the water, or use gravity to take it elsewhere, the expense however would likely be very high but I am convinced that comprehensive scheme to protect all of Watford and other areas is needed, if not this something else worked out with a comprehensive brief dontknowynot

1:49pm Tue 11 Feb 14

garston tony says...

Bit harsh blaming the council, three bad floods (not including this one) in over 100 years isnt exactly going to make this a priority for anyone is it. Two in five and yes this maybe needs some further investigation but judge them from now and not what hasnt really been an issue since long before any of us where born.

I do agree the issue of where building is allowed to happen needs to be looked at, but for instance I dont think Tesco or that hotel on Water Lane can really complain as its not exactly a shock that that particular area has flooded. The clue is in the road name after all and they are idiots if they didnt know that area was going to flood
Bit harsh blaming the council, three bad floods (not including this one) in over 100 years isnt exactly going to make this a priority for anyone is it. Two in five and yes this maybe needs some further investigation but judge them from now and not what hasnt really been an issue since long before any of us where born. I do agree the issue of where building is allowed to happen needs to be looked at, but for instance I dont think Tesco or that hotel on Water Lane can really complain as its not exactly a shock that that particular area has flooded. The clue is in the road name after all and they are idiots if they didnt know that area was going to flood garston tony

3:08pm Tue 11 Feb 14

watford06 says...

i know this is probably not the reason or the cure but am i the only one who has noticed we don't get the trcuks that used to come round and clear the drains with the large hoover for want of a better word. as i say maybe would not have made a bit of difference but if the drains are clear they stand a chance of coping with the water.
i know this is probably not the reason or the cure but am i the only one who has noticed we don't get the trcuks that used to come round and clear the drains with the large hoover for want of a better word. as i say maybe would not have made a bit of difference but if the drains are clear they stand a chance of coping with the water. watford06

3:15pm Tue 11 Feb 14

watfordood says...

Easy solution. Return the land to flood plain as it was !! OR spend the money from business rates on protective measures. I do not want my council tax used to protect commercial property.

By the way will the road linking the hospital to the M1 link road go ahead ???? bet it does. More flooding.

This is insane
Easy solution. Return the land to flood plain as it was !! OR spend the money from business rates on protective measures. I do not want my council tax used to protect commercial property. By the way will the road linking the hospital to the M1 link road go ahead ???? bet it does. More flooding. This is insane watfordood

3:41pm Tue 11 Feb 14

phil mitchel says...

Flooding isn't new to the lower high street as the name Watford tells us, Watford may have arisen from the Old English for "waet" (full of water – the area was marshy), and ford. Giles Medhurst is just using this as another libdem band wagon to jump on as it floats by, these councils really are as wet as the sand bags piled u outside the houses down at the arches.
Flooding isn't new to the lower high street as the name Watford tells us, Watford may have arisen from the Old English for "waet" (full of water – the area was marshy), and ford. Giles Medhurst is just using this as another libdem band wagon to jump on as it floats by, these councils really are as wet as the sand bags piled u outside the houses down at the arches. phil mitchel

3:50pm Tue 11 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

watfordood wrote:
Easy solution. Return the land to flood plain as it was !! OR spend the money from business rates on protective measures. I do not want my council tax used to protect commercial property.

By the way will the road linking the hospital to the M1 link road go ahead ???? bet it does. More flooding.

This is insane
There is some merit to this solution, in which case raising of some of the main arterial roads so they don't flood would be an idea
[quote][p][bold]watfordood[/bold] wrote: Easy solution. Return the land to flood plain as it was !! OR spend the money from business rates on protective measures. I do not want my council tax used to protect commercial property. By the way will the road linking the hospital to the M1 link road go ahead ???? bet it does. More flooding. This is insane[/p][/quote]There is some merit to this solution, in which case raising of some of the main arterial roads so they don't flood would be an idea dontknowynot

3:54pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Leavesdenlad wrote:
Not building on every inch of green space whether parks, playing fields or gardens would have been a good start. Just where is all the water supposed to go?
Don't forget allotments too.
[quote][p][bold]Leavesdenlad[/bold] wrote: Not building on every inch of green space whether parks, playing fields or gardens would have been a good start. Just where is all the water supposed to go?[/p][/quote]Don't forget allotments too. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford

4:29pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Harry Caine says...

One of the primary causes that Tesco filled in the Water Lane flood plane run-off to build their filling station and the other mob filled much of the other side of the road to build a hotel, the water has to go somewhere so it now floods the Lower High Street.

When the Viking site was redeveloped about 12 years ago, Tony Mitchell the owner took the trouble to increase the floor level by a couple of feet while he was at it. Perhaps more people in that part of Watford should do the same.

BTW Medhurst does not live in Central Watford, so none of this actually affects him directly. He lives several miles away. The only time he visits Central and Oxhey seemingly is for Photo-opportunities, surprised there isn't one of him in wellies for this piece.
One of the primary causes that Tesco filled in the Water Lane flood plane run-off to build their filling station and the other mob filled much of the other side of the road to build a hotel, the water has to go somewhere so it now floods the Lower High Street. When the Viking site was redeveloped about 12 years ago, Tony Mitchell the owner took the trouble to increase the floor level by a couple of feet while he was at it. Perhaps more people in that part of Watford should do the same. BTW Medhurst does not live in Central Watford, so none of this actually affects him directly. He lives several miles away. The only time he visits Central and Oxhey seemingly is for Photo-opportunities, surprised there isn't one of him in wellies for this piece. Harry Caine

4:41pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Harry Caine says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
2 pumps in 2009 was a step in the right direction, maybe it should have been four but it is notoriously difficult to get politicians to spend on freak weather events that may not happen in their time in office.

As these two pumps did not resolve the problem this year it is worth re-evaluating the situation and deciding whether more pumps are needed permanently or whether two pumps and two on standby is adequate.

The canoeist who was going the wrong way down the high street last week and local residents might agree that flood prevention was not good enough this time.

I agree with Giles Medhurst that if the flooding could have been made to happen on flood plain fields then this could also be a cheaper and more natural solution to the town flooding we have seen.

All parties and independents should work together to bring about the best solution for Watford. Opportunist comments from Watford Labour party are not helpful, in particular neglecting to mention who was in power before the LibDems and why they didn't do anything during their time in power.
Clearly either Mr Cox has a short memory or hasn't lived in Watford very long.

The last big flood in Lower High Street occurred in 2002, WHEN THE LIB DEMS CONTROLLED THE COUNCIL. Clearly they didn't learn any lessons from that because here we go yet again with more floods. £4.5 mill on a vanity bridge for the Parade and nothing for Lower High Street seems to sum it up nicely

Credit where credit's due - this mess is all down to Downhill Dorothy and her Lib Dem Munchkins

Seemingly, Mr Cox has a fixation about the Labour Party I can't help wondering why. Does he see them as a threat to his political ambitions and that ever so handy £70 grand a year?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: 2 pumps in 2009 was a step in the right direction, maybe it should have been four but it is notoriously difficult to get politicians to spend on freak weather events that may not happen in their time in office. As these two pumps did not resolve the problem this year it is worth re-evaluating the situation and deciding whether more pumps are needed permanently or whether two pumps and two on standby is adequate. The canoeist who was going the wrong way down the high street last week and local residents might agree that flood prevention was not good enough this time. I agree with Giles Medhurst that if the flooding could have been made to happen on flood plain fields then this could also be a cheaper and more natural solution to the town flooding we have seen. All parties and independents should work together to bring about the best solution for Watford. Opportunist comments from Watford Labour party are not helpful, in particular neglecting to mention who was in power before the LibDems and why they didn't do anything during their time in power.[/p][/quote]Clearly either Mr Cox has a short memory or hasn't lived in Watford very long. The last big flood in Lower High Street occurred in 2002, WHEN THE LIB DEMS CONTROLLED THE COUNCIL. Clearly they didn't learn any lessons from that because here we go yet again with more floods. £4.5 mill on a vanity bridge for the Parade and nothing for Lower High Street seems to sum it up nicely Credit where credit's due - this mess is all down to Downhill Dorothy and her Lib Dem Munchkins Seemingly, Mr Cox has a fixation about the Labour Party I can't help wondering why. Does he see them as a threat to his political ambitions and that ever so handy £70 grand a year? Harry Caine

4:52pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Andrew Turpie says...

Would be nice if we could have one comments thread, which is not turned into a political mud slinging match.

*sighs*
Would be nice if we could have one comments thread, which is not turned into a political mud slinging match. *sighs* Andrew Turpie

4:56pm Tue 11 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
2 pumps in 2009 was a step in the right direction, maybe it should have been four but it is notoriously difficult to get politicians to spend on freak weather events that may not happen in their time in office.

As these two pumps did not resolve the problem this year it is worth re-evaluating the situation and deciding whether more pumps are needed permanently or whether two pumps and two on standby is adequate.

The canoeist who was going the wrong way down the high street last week and local residents might agree that flood prevention was not good enough this time.

I agree with Giles Medhurst that if the flooding could have been made to happen on flood plain fields then this could also be a cheaper and more natural solution to the town flooding we have seen.

All parties and independents should work together to bring about the best solution for Watford. Opportunist comments from Watford Labour party are not helpful, in particular neglecting to mention who was in power before the LibDems and why they didn't do anything during their time in power.
The flooding of the colne is not a freak occurrence it happens frequently to albeit to a lesser extent and climate change is having an effect sure as I am not a cllr.
Your apparent allies (libdems) have been in power quite a while in Watford
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: 2 pumps in 2009 was a step in the right direction, maybe it should have been four but it is notoriously difficult to get politicians to spend on freak weather events that may not happen in their time in office. As these two pumps did not resolve the problem this year it is worth re-evaluating the situation and deciding whether more pumps are needed permanently or whether two pumps and two on standby is adequate. The canoeist who was going the wrong way down the high street last week and local residents might agree that flood prevention was not good enough this time. I agree with Giles Medhurst that if the flooding could have been made to happen on flood plain fields then this could also be a cheaper and more natural solution to the town flooding we have seen. All parties and independents should work together to bring about the best solution for Watford. Opportunist comments from Watford Labour party are not helpful, in particular neglecting to mention who was in power before the LibDems and why they didn't do anything during their time in power.[/p][/quote]The flooding of the colne is not a freak occurrence it happens frequently to albeit to a lesser extent and climate change is having an effect sure as I am not a cllr. Your apparent allies (libdems) have been in power quite a while in Watford dontknowynot

4:59pm Tue 11 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Andrew Turpie wrote:
Would be nice if we could have one comments thread, which is not turned into a political mud slinging match.

*sighs*
used to happan all the time before a certain party decided to use this to spam for its meetings and use the WO as a propaganda vehicle
[quote][p][bold]Andrew Turpie[/bold] wrote: Would be nice if we could have one comments thread, which is not turned into a political mud slinging match. *sighs*[/p][/quote]used to happan all the time before a certain party decided to use this to spam for its meetings and use the WO as a propaganda vehicle dontknowynot

5:04pm Tue 11 Feb 14

WD18Firm says...

So what a spiffing idea it is to build a new link road to the hospital and a bunch of 'Health' Campus houses on what is currently flood plain along the river Colne.

Have we not learned anything?
So what a spiffing idea it is to build a new link road to the hospital and a bunch of 'Health' Campus houses on what is currently flood plain along the river Colne. Have we not learned anything? WD18Firm

5:04pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Keefer says...

dontknowynot wrote:
watfordood wrote:
Easy solution. Return the land to flood plain as it was !! OR spend the money from business rates on protective measures. I do not want my council tax used to protect commercial property.

By the way will the road linking the hospital to the M1 link road go ahead ???? bet it does. More flooding.

This is insane
There is some merit to this solution, in which case raising of some of the main arterial roads so they don't flood would be an idea
Another solution would be to get the Water companies in the region to spend some of their substantial profits on effective water management. I find it hard to believe they've managed to escape media attention & their responsibilities to local communities. It is their remit to manage the waterways & drainage of the town & they charge us for their "expertise" in the matter... so where are they when there's so obviously a failure of their management? and why are they not being held to account?

Central Government has just announced they will be picking up 100% of the bill for flood relief, So build a reservoir & store the excess for dryer times.

If I hear any talk of a "hosepipe ban" at anytime over the next 3 years, I'm going to blow a gasket.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watfordood[/bold] wrote: Easy solution. Return the land to flood plain as it was !! OR spend the money from business rates on protective measures. I do not want my council tax used to protect commercial property. By the way will the road linking the hospital to the M1 link road go ahead ???? bet it does. More flooding. This is insane[/p][/quote]There is some merit to this solution, in which case raising of some of the main arterial roads so they don't flood would be an idea[/p][/quote]Another solution would be to get the Water companies in the region to spend some of their substantial profits on effective water management. I find it hard to believe they've managed to escape media attention & their responsibilities to local communities. It is their remit to manage the waterways & drainage of the town & they charge us for their "expertise" in the matter... so where are they when there's so obviously a failure of their management? and why are they not being held to account? Central Government has just announced they will be picking up 100% of the bill for flood relief, So build a reservoir & store the excess for dryer times. If I hear any talk of a "hosepipe ban" at anytime over the next 3 years, I'm going to blow a gasket. Keefer

6:24pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Wacko Jacko says...

It's easy to point fingers at the authorities when no-one anticipated the unforeseeable. The fact is judgements have to be made about what level of risk to plan for and at what cost, in this instance the extreme conditions have gone beyond those plans, but would anyone have supported spending more at the time? I don't think so. Anyone watching the news over the past couple of days will have seen that Watford's problems pale into insignificance in comparison with those thousands of residents further along the river where the Colne meets the Thames. Any measures to ease Watford's flooding has to be considered in relation to the wider picture of impacts up and down stream. It is far from simple.
It's easy to point fingers at the authorities when no-one anticipated the unforeseeable. The fact is judgements have to be made about what level of risk to plan for and at what cost, in this instance the extreme conditions have gone beyond those plans, but would anyone have supported spending more at the time? I don't think so. Anyone watching the news over the past couple of days will have seen that Watford's problems pale into insignificance in comparison with those thousands of residents further along the river where the Colne meets the Thames. Any measures to ease Watford's flooding has to be considered in relation to the wider picture of impacts up and down stream. It is far from simple. Wacko Jacko

7:30pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Cuetip says...

Leavesdenlad wrote:
Not building on every inch of green space whether parks, playing fields or gardens would have been a good start. Just where is all the water supposed to go?
Well said.

It is not a time to play politics and those in authority need to recognise that flood plains exist for a reason and increasingly building on marginal land is not acceptable at the expense of long term water management.
[quote][p][bold]Leavesdenlad[/bold] wrote: Not building on every inch of green space whether parks, playing fields or gardens would have been a good start. Just where is all the water supposed to go?[/p][/quote]Well said. It is not a time to play politics and those in authority need to recognise that flood plains exist for a reason and increasingly building on marginal land is not acceptable at the expense of long term water management. Cuetip

7:53pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Nascot says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
2 pumps in 2009 was a step in the right direction, maybe it should have been four but it is notoriously difficult to get politicians to spend on freak weather events that may not happen in their time in office.

As these two pumps did not resolve the problem this year it is worth re-evaluating the situation and deciding whether more pumps are needed permanently or whether two pumps and two on standby is adequate.

The canoeist who was going the wrong way down the high street last week and local residents might agree that flood prevention was not good enough this time.

I agree with Giles Medhurst that if the flooding could have been made to happen on flood plain fields then this could also be a cheaper and more natural solution to the town flooding we have seen.

All parties and independents should work together to bring about the best solution for Watford. Opportunist comments from Watford Labour party are not helpful, in particular neglecting to mention who was in power before the LibDems and why they didn't do anything during their time in power.
In an ideal world you can never have enough equipment sitting around, just in case it is needed. However when it is for years and years and not being used, someone in a 'department' somewhere will cost benefit analyse it and question why money was spent on it. Take all those snow ploughs everyone moaned about us not having a few years ago. As much use as a chocolate fireguard this winter.

This is MUCH bigger than local politics. Global warming, over development, planning controls etc
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: 2 pumps in 2009 was a step in the right direction, maybe it should have been four but it is notoriously difficult to get politicians to spend on freak weather events that may not happen in their time in office. As these two pumps did not resolve the problem this year it is worth re-evaluating the situation and deciding whether more pumps are needed permanently or whether two pumps and two on standby is adequate. The canoeist who was going the wrong way down the high street last week and local residents might agree that flood prevention was not good enough this time. I agree with Giles Medhurst that if the flooding could have been made to happen on flood plain fields then this could also be a cheaper and more natural solution to the town flooding we have seen. All parties and independents should work together to bring about the best solution for Watford. Opportunist comments from Watford Labour party are not helpful, in particular neglecting to mention who was in power before the LibDems and why they didn't do anything during their time in power.[/p][/quote]In an ideal world you can never have enough equipment sitting around, just in case it is needed. However when it is for years and years and not being used, someone in a 'department' somewhere will cost benefit analyse it and question why money was spent on it. Take all those snow ploughs everyone moaned about us not having a few years ago. As much use as a chocolate fireguard this winter. This is MUCH bigger than local politics. Global warming, over development, planning controls etc Nascot

8:23pm Tue 11 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

http://www.metoffice
.gov.uk/media/image/
m/p/compare_datasets
_hadsst3_logo_large3
.png
The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected'
I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change.
Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.
http://www.metoffice .gov.uk/media/image/ m/p/compare_datasets _hadsst3_logo_large3 .png The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected' I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change. Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly. dontknowynot

8:37pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Nascot says...

dontknowynot wrote:
http://www.metoffice

.gov.uk/media/image/

m/p/compare_datasets

_hadsst3_logo_large3

.png
The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected'
I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change.
Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.
How much are you prepared to pay? Ultimately it all comes down to taxes. I would wager that no political party has ever won an election based on a higher taxes manifesto.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: http://www.metoffice .gov.uk/media/image/ m/p/compare_datasets _hadsst3_logo_large3 .png The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected' I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change. Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.[/p][/quote]How much are you prepared to pay? Ultimately it all comes down to taxes. I would wager that no political party has ever won an election based on a higher taxes manifesto. Nascot

8:45pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Let`s`aveitright says...

The first settlers came along and inhabited riverbanks. The houses in Lower High Street have been standing there for twice as long as cars have been invented. Yes the area was known in Victorian times as Water Meadows. The sewage system down there remains Victorian yet how many flats have been built near Bushey station without a thought for upgrading the drainage system to cope with the increase. Lower High Street closed due to flooding in Oct 2000, Jan 2003 saw residents evacuated from their homes for up to a year after they were flooded inside with sewage and river water. 2009 Road closed again due to floods. 2014 Road again closed and sewage floating in floodwaters. The river Colne was diverted by Tesco when it was built in around 1987. You do the maths! Oh and now we get a Waitrose being built on the only piece of remaining soak-land in Lower High Street where the Gasworks were.
The first settlers came along and inhabited riverbanks. The houses in Lower High Street have been standing there for twice as long as cars have been invented. Yes the area was known in Victorian times as Water Meadows. The sewage system down there remains Victorian yet how many flats have been built near Bushey station without a thought for upgrading the drainage system to cope with the increase. Lower High Street closed due to flooding in Oct 2000, Jan 2003 saw residents evacuated from their homes for up to a year after they were flooded inside with sewage and river water. 2009 Road closed again due to floods. 2014 Road again closed and sewage floating in floodwaters. The river Colne was diverted by Tesco when it was built in around 1987. You do the maths! Oh and now we get a Waitrose being built on the only piece of remaining soak-land in Lower High Street where the Gasworks were. Let`s`aveitright

8:50pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
It's easy to point fingers at the authorities when no-one anticipated the unforeseeable. The fact is judgements have to be made about what level of risk to plan for and at what cost, in this instance the extreme conditions have gone beyond those plans, but would anyone have supported spending more at the time? I don't think so. Anyone watching the news over the past couple of days will have seen that Watford's problems pale into insignificance in comparison with those thousands of residents further along the river where the Colne meets the Thames. Any measures to ease Watford's flooding has to be considered in relation to the wider picture of impacts up and down stream. It is far from simple.
Hardly unforseeable, it has happened before and it will no doubt happen again in the next 50 years or so.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: It's easy to point fingers at the authorities when no-one anticipated the unforeseeable. The fact is judgements have to be made about what level of risk to plan for and at what cost, in this instance the extreme conditions have gone beyond those plans, but would anyone have supported spending more at the time? I don't think so. Anyone watching the news over the past couple of days will have seen that Watford's problems pale into insignificance in comparison with those thousands of residents further along the river where the Colne meets the Thames. Any measures to ease Watford's flooding has to be considered in relation to the wider picture of impacts up and down stream. It is far from simple.[/p][/quote]Hardly unforseeable, it has happened before and it will no doubt happen again in the next 50 years or so. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford

8:57pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

dontknowynot wrote:
http://www.metoffice

.gov.uk/media/image/

m/p/compare_datasets

_hadsst3_logo_large3

.png
The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected'
I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change.
Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.
Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will.

The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: http://www.metoffice .gov.uk/media/image/ m/p/compare_datasets _hadsst3_logo_large3 .png The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected' I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change. Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.[/p][/quote]Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will. The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford

9:23pm Tue 11 Feb 14

watfordrick says...

Right - first thing is install a f*****g drain down water lane. Its not rocket science!
Right - first thing is install a f*****g drain down water lane. Its not rocket science! watfordrick

9:39pm Tue 11 Feb 14

sjtrebar says...

And getting rid of the fantastic water absorbing asset which is Farm terrace by concreting over the entire site is only going to make matters a whole lot worse!!
And getting rid of the fantastic water absorbing asset which is Farm terrace by concreting over the entire site is only going to make matters a whole lot worse!! sjtrebar

10:03pm Tue 11 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Nascot wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
http://www.metoffice


.gov.uk/media/image/


m/p/compare_datasets


_hadsst3_logo_large3


.png
The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected'
I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change.
Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.
How much are you prepared to pay? Ultimately it all comes down to taxes. I would wager that no political party has ever won an election based on a higher taxes manifesto.
yep it comes to money, and how it is spent,
That the recent traffic chaos will happen again I would say is a given, maybe money will be spent on raising the level of key river crossings to alleviate that.
Maybe it will become uneconomic for businesses to remain on the flood plane, maybe houses will have to be abandoned, It may well be more economic to do that, but essentially we are at a point where the choices and plans are best laid out and made.
[quote][p][bold]Nascot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: http://www.metoffice .gov.uk/media/image/ m/p/compare_datasets _hadsst3_logo_large3 .png The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected' I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change. Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.[/p][/quote]How much are you prepared to pay? Ultimately it all comes down to taxes. I would wager that no political party has ever won an election based on a higher taxes manifesto.[/p][/quote]yep it comes to money, and how it is spent, That the recent traffic chaos will happen again I would say is a given, maybe money will be spent on raising the level of key river crossings to alleviate that. Maybe it will become uneconomic for businesses to remain on the flood plane, maybe houses will have to be abandoned, It may well be more economic to do that, but essentially we are at a point where the choices and plans are best laid out and made. dontknowynot

10:10pm Tue 11 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
http://www.metoffice


.gov.uk/media/image/


m/p/compare_datasets


_hadsst3_logo_large3


.png
The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected'
I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change.
Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.
Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will.

The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening.
I am unconvinced by your rhetoric here it is straight out of the UKIP climate change denial handbook and is wrong headed,
IF you look at the facts and data there is a clear trend over the past thirty years and in the northern hemisphere it is of increasing sea temperature and a shrinking polar ice cap, the trend cannot be denied and shows no sign of reversing.
It is a FACT
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: http://www.metoffice .gov.uk/media/image/ m/p/compare_datasets _hadsst3_logo_large3 .png The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected' I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change. Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.[/p][/quote]Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will. The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening.[/p][/quote]I am unconvinced by your rhetoric here it is straight out of the UKIP climate change denial handbook and is wrong headed, IF you look at the facts and data there is a clear trend over the past thirty years and in the northern hemisphere it is of increasing sea temperature and a shrinking polar ice cap, the trend cannot be denied and shows no sign of reversing. It is a FACT dontknowynot

11:51pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Andrew1963 says...

The flood plain at lower high street has been built on since the 1850s and before that. One problem is that we expect life to be uninterrupted by the weather, despite the fact that we alter the landscape. If you build roads below the water table then you should expect flooding after weeks of winter rain. The most depleted habitat in England are traditional water meadows. Partly because they have built on and partly because they have been drained and ploughed up for arable crops. When you get heavier rain than average all the drained land fills rivers more quickly than a natural landscape and you then get floods. In urban Watford it is all the surface water from roads and buildings that creates a quick run off. To solve the problem you really need to impact on people's lives. For example banning parking on front gardens; disconnecting drainpipes from mains sewerage; removing buildings and roads from the bottom of the river valleys. If that is unpalatable, the alternative is a bit of flooding to put up with.i
The flood plain at lower high street has been built on since the 1850s and before that. One problem is that we expect life to be uninterrupted by the weather, despite the fact that we alter the landscape. If you build roads below the water table then you should expect flooding after weeks of winter rain. The most depleted habitat in England are traditional water meadows. Partly because they have built on and partly because they have been drained and ploughed up for arable crops. When you get heavier rain than average all the drained land fills rivers more quickly than a natural landscape and you then get floods. In urban Watford it is all the surface water from roads and buildings that creates a quick run off. To solve the problem you really need to impact on people's lives. For example banning parking on front gardens; disconnecting drainpipes from mains sewerage; removing buildings and roads from the bottom of the river valleys. If that is unpalatable, the alternative is a bit of flooding to put up with.i Andrew1963

12:32am Wed 12 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
http://www.metoffice



.gov.uk/media/image/



m/p/compare_datasets



_hadsst3_logo_large3



.png
The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected'
I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change.
Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.
Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will.

The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening.
I am unconvinced by your rhetoric here it is straight out of the UKIP climate change denial handbook and is wrong headed,
IF you look at the facts and data there is a clear trend over the past thirty years and in the northern hemisphere it is of increasing sea temperature and a shrinking polar ice cap, the trend cannot be denied and shows no sign of reversing.
It is a FACT
So basically you are saying the climate is changing. You spell the word FACT out in capitals.

May I refer you to the first line of my post that you quoted but clearly did not read properly?

"Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will"

Do you agree with that statement?
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: http://www.metoffice .gov.uk/media/image/ m/p/compare_datasets _hadsst3_logo_large3 .png The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected' I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change. Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.[/p][/quote]Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will. The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening.[/p][/quote]I am unconvinced by your rhetoric here it is straight out of the UKIP climate change denial handbook and is wrong headed, IF you look at the facts and data there is a clear trend over the past thirty years and in the northern hemisphere it is of increasing sea temperature and a shrinking polar ice cap, the trend cannot be denied and shows no sign of reversing. It is a FACT[/p][/quote]So basically you are saying the climate is changing. You spell the word FACT out in capitals. May I refer you to the first line of my post that you quoted but clearly did not read properly? "Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will" Do you agree with that statement? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford

1:19am Wed 12 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
http://www.metoffice




.gov.uk/media/image/




m/p/compare_datasets




_hadsst3_logo_large3




.png
The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected'
I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change.
Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.
Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will.

The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening.
I am unconvinced by your rhetoric here it is straight out of the UKIP climate change denial handbook and is wrong headed,
IF you look at the facts and data there is a clear trend over the past thirty years and in the northern hemisphere it is of increasing sea temperature and a shrinking polar ice cap, the trend cannot be denied and shows no sign of reversing.
It is a FACT
So basically you are saying the climate is changing. You spell the word FACT out in capitals.

May I refer you to the first line of my post that you quoted but clearly did not read properly?

"Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will"

Do you agree with that statement?
It is true but in a sense that is entirely irrelevant to say that "the climate is always changing" that is a changing climate does not necessarily equate to climate change, and really it is an entirely irrelevant statement, it is one I find incredible for anyone to hold as relevant.
Climatic change is apparent from a detectable trend not from a variance and there is a detectable trend in sea ice temperature and arctic ice area and volume, it is not something that can be disputed with any credabilty and it cannot be dismissed by saying climate is always changing any more than it can be dismissed by say arctic ice rapidly increasing from oct to nov last year (incidentally from dec to feb it has slowed significantly and is now indicative of another record low for arctic ice this summer(although that may change))
So yes I agree with the utterly irrelevant statement that "Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will" it has no bearing on Climatic Change
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: http://www.metoffice .gov.uk/media/image/ m/p/compare_datasets _hadsst3_logo_large3 .png The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected' I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change. Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.[/p][/quote]Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will. The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening.[/p][/quote]I am unconvinced by your rhetoric here it is straight out of the UKIP climate change denial handbook and is wrong headed, IF you look at the facts and data there is a clear trend over the past thirty years and in the northern hemisphere it is of increasing sea temperature and a shrinking polar ice cap, the trend cannot be denied and shows no sign of reversing. It is a FACT[/p][/quote]So basically you are saying the climate is changing. You spell the word FACT out in capitals. May I refer you to the first line of my post that you quoted but clearly did not read properly? "Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will" Do you agree with that statement?[/p][/quote]It is true but in a sense that is entirely irrelevant to say that "the climate is always changing" that is a changing climate does not necessarily equate to climate change, and really it is an entirely irrelevant statement, it is one I find incredible for anyone to hold as relevant. Climatic change is apparent from a detectable trend not from a variance and there is a detectable trend in sea ice temperature and arctic ice area and volume, it is not something that can be disputed with any credabilty and it cannot be dismissed by saying climate is always changing any more than it can be dismissed by say arctic ice rapidly increasing from oct to nov last year (incidentally from dec to feb it has slowed significantly and is now indicative of another record low for arctic ice this summer(although that may change)) So yes I agree with the utterly irrelevant statement that "Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will" it has no bearing on Climatic Change dontknowynot

7:37am Wed 12 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
http://www.metoffice





.gov.uk/media/image/





m/p/compare_datasets





_hadsst3_logo_large3





.png
The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected'
I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change.
Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.
Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will.

The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening.
I am unconvinced by your rhetoric here it is straight out of the UKIP climate change denial handbook and is wrong headed,
IF you look at the facts and data there is a clear trend over the past thirty years and in the northern hemisphere it is of increasing sea temperature and a shrinking polar ice cap, the trend cannot be denied and shows no sign of reversing.
It is a FACT
So basically you are saying the climate is changing. You spell the word FACT out in capitals.

May I refer you to the first line of my post that you quoted but clearly did not read properly?

"Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will"

Do you agree with that statement?
It is true but in a sense that is entirely irrelevant to say that "the climate is always changing" that is a changing climate does not necessarily equate to climate change, and really it is an entirely irrelevant statement, it is one I find incredible for anyone to hold as relevant.
Climatic change is apparent from a detectable trend not from a variance and there is a detectable trend in sea ice temperature and arctic ice area and volume, it is not something that can be disputed with any credabilty and it cannot be dismissed by saying climate is always changing any more than it can be dismissed by say arctic ice rapidly increasing from oct to nov last year (incidentally from dec to feb it has slowed significantly and is now indicative of another record low for arctic ice this summer(although that may change))
So yes I agree with the utterly irrelevant statement that "Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will" it has no bearing on Climatic Change
Such fuzzy thinking is why our taxes are so high.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: http://www.metoffice .gov.uk/media/image/ m/p/compare_datasets _hadsst3_logo_large3 .png The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected' I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change. Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.[/p][/quote]Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will. The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening.[/p][/quote]I am unconvinced by your rhetoric here it is straight out of the UKIP climate change denial handbook and is wrong headed, IF you look at the facts and data there is a clear trend over the past thirty years and in the northern hemisphere it is of increasing sea temperature and a shrinking polar ice cap, the trend cannot be denied and shows no sign of reversing. It is a FACT[/p][/quote]So basically you are saying the climate is changing. You spell the word FACT out in capitals. May I refer you to the first line of my post that you quoted but clearly did not read properly? "Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will" Do you agree with that statement?[/p][/quote]It is true but in a sense that is entirely irrelevant to say that "the climate is always changing" that is a changing climate does not necessarily equate to climate change, and really it is an entirely irrelevant statement, it is one I find incredible for anyone to hold as relevant. Climatic change is apparent from a detectable trend not from a variance and there is a detectable trend in sea ice temperature and arctic ice area and volume, it is not something that can be disputed with any credabilty and it cannot be dismissed by saying climate is always changing any more than it can be dismissed by say arctic ice rapidly increasing from oct to nov last year (incidentally from dec to feb it has slowed significantly and is now indicative of another record low for arctic ice this summer(although that may change)) So yes I agree with the utterly irrelevant statement that "Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will" it has no bearing on Climatic Change[/p][/quote]Such fuzzy thinking is why our taxes are so high. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford

7:42am Wed 12 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
http://www.metoffice






.gov.uk/media/image/






m/p/compare_datasets






_hadsst3_logo_large3






.png
The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected'
I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change.
Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.
Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will.

The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening.
I am unconvinced by your rhetoric here it is straight out of the UKIP climate change denial handbook and is wrong headed,
IF you look at the facts and data there is a clear trend over the past thirty years and in the northern hemisphere it is of increasing sea temperature and a shrinking polar ice cap, the trend cannot be denied and shows no sign of reversing.
It is a FACT
So basically you are saying the climate is changing. You spell the word FACT out in capitals.

May I refer you to the first line of my post that you quoted but clearly did not read properly?

"Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will"

Do you agree with that statement?
It is true but in a sense that is entirely irrelevant to say that "the climate is always changing" that is a changing climate does not necessarily equate to climate change, and really it is an entirely irrelevant statement, it is one I find incredible for anyone to hold as relevant.
Climatic change is apparent from a detectable trend not from a variance and there is a detectable trend in sea ice temperature and arctic ice area and volume, it is not something that can be disputed with any credabilty and it cannot be dismissed by saying climate is always changing any more than it can be dismissed by say arctic ice rapidly increasing from oct to nov last year (incidentally from dec to feb it has slowed significantly and is now indicative of another record low for arctic ice this summer(although that may change))
So yes I agree with the utterly irrelevant statement that "Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will" it has no bearing on Climatic Change
Such fuzzy thinking is why our taxes are so high.
burrting our heads in the sand results in the flooding we have and their is nothing fuzzy about refuting your nonsense
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: http://www.metoffice .gov.uk/media/image/ m/p/compare_datasets _hadsst3_logo_large3 .png The above graph illustrates that sea temperatures are rising, we live on a small Island surrounded by warming water, we also are vulnerable to changes in the jet stream. Put the two together and more wet weather is to be expected' I know that this may not be popular and climate change deniers will say oh look they said that the arctic could be ice free by now, but the truth is the decline has been dramatic and although the headline not having an ice free summer does not mean that there is no climate change. Furthermore if the facts fit the theory and the theory looks sound then, reason says it would be better to believe it and act accordingly.[/p][/quote]Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will. The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening.[/p][/quote]I am unconvinced by your rhetoric here it is straight out of the UKIP climate change denial handbook and is wrong headed, IF you look at the facts and data there is a clear trend over the past thirty years and in the northern hemisphere it is of increasing sea temperature and a shrinking polar ice cap, the trend cannot be denied and shows no sign of reversing. It is a FACT[/p][/quote]So basically you are saying the climate is changing. You spell the word FACT out in capitals. May I refer you to the first line of my post that you quoted but clearly did not read properly? "Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will" Do you agree with that statement?[/p][/quote]It is true but in a sense that is entirely irrelevant to say that "the climate is always changing" that is a changing climate does not necessarily equate to climate change, and really it is an entirely irrelevant statement, it is one I find incredible for anyone to hold as relevant. Climatic change is apparent from a detectable trend not from a variance and there is a detectable trend in sea ice temperature and arctic ice area and volume, it is not something that can be disputed with any credabilty and it cannot be dismissed by saying climate is always changing any more than it can be dismissed by say arctic ice rapidly increasing from oct to nov last year (incidentally from dec to feb it has slowed significantly and is now indicative of another record low for arctic ice this summer(although that may change)) So yes I agree with the utterly irrelevant statement that "Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will" it has no bearing on Climatic Change[/p][/quote]Such fuzzy thinking is why our taxes are so high.[/p][/quote]burrting our heads in the sand results in the flooding we have and their is nothing fuzzy about refuting your nonsense dontknowynot

8:24am Wed 12 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I agree.

Burying our heads in the sand of flooding and climate change is not an option, nor have we any intention of doing so.

As I said before

"Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will.

The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening."

Chris Smith on the other hand ( Ex-Labour minister and head of the Environment Agency - his qualifications are...? He was Labour Minster of Culture, Media and Sport ) has certainly had his head stuck somewhere dark because he followed to the letter the EU principle of not dredging rivers in Somerset and not maintaining pumping stations on the Somerset levels.

This led to these floods or at least led to them being far worse than they needed to be.

In effect, Ex-Labour minister Chris Smith deliberately allowed Somerset to flood for some "higher EU purpose."

I'm not sure the residents, businesses and farmers of Somerset would think he has done a good enough job here. Bird sanctuaries are all very nice, but there is also the business of keeping the levels from flooding that needs to be done as well. Maybe it just wasn't a priority for him. Is he a twitcher, DKYN?

That's yet another reason why we need people in power who know what the right thing to do is and not just do what they are told by the EU.

What we need is Ukip.

Ukip would spend properly on flood defences and the last person we would put in charge of such an important body as the Environment Agency would be some ex-Labour luvvy who is more interested in the arts than keeping Britain from flooding. Jobs for the boys is not the Ukip way.

DKYN. Would you say that Chris Smith, ex-Labour minister, has done a good job over these floods? Was he the right man for the job? I'd appreciate your opinion, after all he is one of yours.
I agree. Burying our heads in the sand of flooding and climate change is not an option, nor have we any intention of doing so. As I said before "Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will. The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening." Chris Smith on the other hand ( Ex-Labour minister and head of the Environment Agency - his qualifications are...? He was Labour Minster of Culture, Media and Sport ) has certainly had his head stuck somewhere dark because he followed to the letter the EU principle of not dredging rivers in Somerset and not maintaining pumping stations on the Somerset levels. This led to these floods or at least led to them being far worse than they needed to be. In effect, Ex-Labour minister Chris Smith deliberately allowed Somerset to flood for some "higher EU purpose." I'm not sure the residents, businesses and farmers of Somerset would think he has done a good enough job here. Bird sanctuaries are all very nice, but there is also the business of keeping the levels from flooding that needs to be done as well. Maybe it just wasn't a priority for him. Is he a twitcher, DKYN? That's yet another reason why we need people in power who know what the right thing to do is and not just do what they are told by the EU. What we need is Ukip. Ukip would spend properly on flood defences and the last person we would put in charge of such an important body as the Environment Agency would be some ex-Labour luvvy who is more interested in the arts than keeping Britain from flooding. Jobs for the boys is not the Ukip way. DKYN. Would you say that Chris Smith, ex-Labour minister, has done a good job over these floods? Was he the right man for the job? I'd appreciate your opinion, after all he is one of yours. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford

8:33am Wed 12 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

"On 8 May 2008, he was announced as the new Chairman of the Environment Agency and took up the new role in mid July. In an interview with The Independent in August that year, he said Britain faced hard choices over which coasts to defend and which to leave to the sea because it would not be possible to save all coastal homes from sea erosion.

Lord Smith was re-appointed as Chair of the Environment Agency for a further three years by Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman in 2011.

Lord Smith, will now continue in this role until 13 July 2014. On re-appointment he received £100,813 pro rata for 2011/12, based on working three days per week."

I wonder what skills he brings that are worth £81 p.h.?

Labour fat cat?
"On 8 May 2008, he was announced as the new Chairman of the Environment Agency and took up the new role in mid July.[12] In an interview with The Independent in August that year, he said Britain faced hard choices over which coasts to defend and which to leave to the sea because it would not be possible to save all coastal homes from sea erosion.[13] Lord Smith was re-appointed as Chair of the Environment Agency for a further three years by Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman in 2011. Lord Smith, will now continue in this role until 13 July 2014. On re-appointment he received £100,813 pro rata for 2011/12, based on working three days per week.[14]" I wonder what skills he brings that are worth £81 p.h.? Labour fat cat? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford

9:59am Wed 12 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil cox
Firstly When you say “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” it is to be dismissive of the issue, it is to say that this is the change we have is the norm, whereas the data does not support this. What the data supports is Climate Change is happening, that is a marked and significant change in Climate has and is occurring. It is a realty and we are going to have to deal with it. Trying to square the circle of UKIP climate change denial with your spin is nonsense the reality is that glib statements such as “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” are a classic non denial, denial, which kind of scuppers your claim to be different.
Secondly what is emerging with the environent agency is that the government, that is this Tory and Libdem gov that you seem to think can do no wrong on this, are using Lord Smith as a scapegoat, indeed your good friend Eric Pickles was caught out on this over the dredging issue where the restricting factor was treasury rules and not the environment agency who made what money they could available for it.
Thirdly what is becoming clear is that when things go wrong two things happen there is a negative economic, social and personal impact and it takes government to put it right. That is community’s suffer, there is a cost to the economy and individuals suffer. Also central gov has to step in and pick up the pieces by for example putting more money on the table for dredging or sending in the army to sand bag places.
Fourthly if you are accepting that “climate change” is real then yes we have to deal with it, the first thing to relise is that we are all in it together, there is no point creating a bottleneck at one point so it floods further upstream or indeed pumping the water down the river to flood further down stream. People and different agency’s have to work together and yes there is a roll for central gov.
The danger in saying “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” is that you deny the urgency and the need for action that you normalise the problem and that we will continue to tinker at the edges, putting in another pump at water lane or some such, which will not be adequate to avoid further problems with flooding.
What is needed in my opinion (and itis opinion borne of reason and not a desire to recast party rhetoric) is a comprehensive program for the Thames and Thames tributaries such as Colne and Gade and for it to be centrally funded and coordinated, not for local politicians to press for this or that bit of protection on a piecemeal basis. Now I know that this is a centralist approach and those committed to localism may not be that keen but they would have to be involved to get a full picture of the issues.
Phil cox Firstly When you say “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” it is to be dismissive of the issue, it is to say that this is the change we have is the norm, whereas the data does not support this. What the data supports is Climate Change is happening, that is a marked and significant change in Climate has and is occurring. It is a realty and we are going to have to deal with it. Trying to square the circle of UKIP climate change denial with your spin is nonsense the reality is that glib statements such as “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” are a classic non denial, denial, which kind of scuppers your claim to be different. Secondly what is emerging with the environent agency is that the government, that is this Tory and Libdem gov that you seem to think can do no wrong on this, are using Lord Smith as a scapegoat, indeed your good friend Eric Pickles was caught out on this over the dredging issue where the restricting factor was treasury rules and not the environment agency who made what money they could available for it. Thirdly what is becoming clear is that when things go wrong two things happen there is a negative economic, social and personal impact and it takes government to put it right. That is community’s suffer, there is a cost to the economy and individuals suffer. Also central gov has to step in and pick up the pieces by for example putting more money on the table for dredging or sending in the army to sand bag places. Fourthly if you are accepting that “climate change” is real then yes we have to deal with it, the first thing to relise is that we are all in it together, there is no point creating a bottleneck at one point so it floods further upstream or indeed pumping the water down the river to flood further down stream. People and different agency’s have to work together and yes there is a roll for central gov. The danger in saying “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” is that you deny the urgency and the need for action that you normalise the problem and that we will continue to tinker at the edges, putting in another pump at water lane or some such, which will not be adequate to avoid further problems with flooding. What is needed in my opinion (and itis opinion borne of reason and not a desire to recast party rhetoric) is a comprehensive program for the Thames and Thames tributaries such as Colne and Gade and for it to be centrally funded and coordinated, not for local politicians to press for this or that bit of protection on a piecemeal basis. Now I know that this is a centralist approach and those committed to localism may not be that keen but they would have to be involved to get a full picture of the issues. dontknowynot

11:10am Wed 12 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

You are talking nonsense DKYN.

You don't like the way I say the climate is changing? Ridiculous! What an advert you are for Labour.

You then say the Environment Agency didn't have the money to dredge the rivers. True in one sense, it costs £1.7m to dredge the rivers and the govt only gave £400,000.

But can you explain why the Environment Agency under ex-Labour minister for culture Chris Smith decided it was more important to spend £2.4 million on publicity rather than dredge the rivers?

They would still have had £1.1million for publicity which still sounds a lot to me.

Priorites were clearly wrong and your own Chris Smith was the one in charge of this fiasco. Maybe he was set up by the government but that doesn't stop him being not up to the job.

Clearly you DKYN have jumped on an emotive bandwagon but frankly I am not sure you understand the issues at all. Why not leave it to those of us that do?
You are talking nonsense DKYN. You don't like the way I say the climate is changing? Ridiculous! What an advert you are for Labour. You then say the Environment Agency didn't have the money to dredge the rivers. True in one sense, it costs £1.7m to dredge the rivers and the govt only gave £400,000. But can you explain why the Environment Agency under ex-Labour minister for culture Chris Smith decided it was more important to spend £2.4 million on publicity rather than dredge the rivers? They would still have had £1.1million for publicity which still sounds a lot to me. Priorites were clearly wrong and your own Chris Smith was the one in charge of this fiasco. Maybe he was set up by the government but that doesn't stop him being not up to the job. Clearly you DKYN have jumped on an emotive bandwagon but frankly I am not sure you understand the issues at all. Why not leave it to those of us that do? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford

11:40am Wed 12 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
You are talking nonsense DKYN.

You don't like the way I say the climate is changing? Ridiculous! What an advert you are for Labour.

You then say the Environment Agency didn't have the money to dredge the rivers. True in one sense, it costs £1.7m to dredge the rivers and the govt only gave £400,000.

But can you explain why the Environment Agency under ex-Labour minister for culture Chris Smith decided it was more important to spend £2.4 million on publicity rather than dredge the rivers?

They would still have had £1.1million for publicity which still sounds a lot to me.

Priorites were clearly wrong and your own Chris Smith was the one in charge of this fiasco. Maybe he was set up by the government but that doesn't stop him being not up to the job.

Clearly you DKYN have jumped on an emotive bandwagon but frankly I am not sure you understand the issues at all. Why not leave it to those of us that do?
the issue is as I have explained it

You clearly are a Tory/libdem type in that you seek to blame all the worlds ills on Labour,.

Your partys environment policy underscores your position and it is wrong headed, that is "climate change" is very real and your party wants to dismiss it.

No nonsense about advertising or smokescreens about it being Labours fault
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: You are talking nonsense DKYN. You don't like the way I say the climate is changing? Ridiculous! What an advert you are for Labour. You then say the Environment Agency didn't have the money to dredge the rivers. True in one sense, it costs £1.7m to dredge the rivers and the govt only gave £400,000. But can you explain why the Environment Agency under ex-Labour minister for culture Chris Smith decided it was more important to spend £2.4 million on publicity rather than dredge the rivers? They would still have had £1.1million for publicity which still sounds a lot to me. Priorites were clearly wrong and your own Chris Smith was the one in charge of this fiasco. Maybe he was set up by the government but that doesn't stop him being not up to the job. Clearly you DKYN have jumped on an emotive bandwagon but frankly I am not sure you understand the issues at all. Why not leave it to those of us that do?[/p][/quote]the issue is as I have explained it You clearly are a Tory/libdem type in that you seek to blame all the worlds ills on Labour,. Your partys environment policy underscores your position and it is wrong headed, that is "climate change" is very real and your party wants to dismiss it. No nonsense about advertising or smokescreens about it being Labours fault dontknowynot

11:52am Wed 12 Feb 14

G_Whiz says...

As long as my council tax is not used, they can do what they like.

Labour and Libs wanted overpopulation and overdevelopment, and they still do!

- They have a lot to answer for!
As long as my council tax is not used, they can do what they like. Labour and Libs wanted overpopulation and overdevelopment, and they still do! - They have a lot to answer for! G_Whiz

12:58pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Andrew1963 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I agree. Burying our heads in the sand of flooding and climate change is not an option, nor have we any intention of doing so. As I said before "Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will. The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening." Chris Smith on the other hand ( Ex-Labour minister and head of the Environment Agency - his qualifications are...? He was Labour Minster of Culture, Media and Sport ) has certainly had his head stuck somewhere dark because he followed to the letter the EU principle of not dredging rivers in Somerset and not maintaining pumping stations on the Somerset levels. This led to these floods or at least led to them being far worse than they needed to be. In effect, Ex-Labour minister Chris Smith deliberately allowed Somerset to flood for some "higher EU purpose." I'm not sure the residents, businesses and farmers of Somerset would think he has done a good enough job here. Bird sanctuaries are all very nice, but there is also the business of keeping the levels from flooding that needs to be done as well. Maybe it just wasn't a priority for him. Is he a twitcher, DKYN? That's yet another reason why we need people in power who know what the right thing to do is and not just do what they are told by the EU. What we need is Ukip. Ukip would spend properly on flood defences and the last person we would put in charge of such an important body as the Environment Agency would be some ex-Labour luvvy who is more interested in the arts than keeping Britain from flooding. Jobs for the boys is not the Ukip way. DKYN. Would you say that Chris Smith, ex-Labour minister, has done a good job over these floods? Was he the right man for the job? I'd appreciate your opinion, after all he is one of yours.
Weather is constantly changing - Climate is pretty static, with in the past few changes which when they do occur are dramatic. We have a temperate climate, when small changes to it occur or weather changes quickly and dramatically.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I agree. Burying our heads in the sand of flooding and climate change is not an option, nor have we any intention of doing so. As I said before "Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will. The big question is whether we should try to prevent the changes that are happening and whether we are actually able to prevent the changes happening." Chris Smith on the other hand ( Ex-Labour minister and head of the Environment Agency - his qualifications are...? He was Labour Minster of Culture, Media and Sport ) has certainly had his head stuck somewhere dark because he followed to the letter the EU principle of not dredging rivers in Somerset and not maintaining pumping stations on the Somerset levels. This led to these floods or at least led to them being far worse than they needed to be. In effect, Ex-Labour minister Chris Smith deliberately allowed Somerset to flood for some "higher EU purpose." I'm not sure the residents, businesses and farmers of Somerset would think he has done a good enough job here. Bird sanctuaries are all very nice, but there is also the business of keeping the levels from flooding that needs to be done as well. Maybe it just wasn't a priority for him. Is he a twitcher, DKYN? That's yet another reason why we need people in power who know what the right thing to do is and not just do what they are told by the EU. What we need is Ukip. Ukip would spend properly on flood defences and the last person we would put in charge of such an important body as the Environment Agency would be some ex-Labour luvvy who is more interested in the arts than keeping Britain from flooding. Jobs for the boys is not the Ukip way. DKYN. Would you say that Chris Smith, ex-Labour minister, has done a good job over these floods? Was he the right man for the job? I'd appreciate your opinion, after all he is one of yours.[/p][/quote]Weather is constantly changing - Climate is pretty static, with in the past few changes which when they do occur are dramatic. We have a temperate climate, when small changes to it occur or weather changes quickly and dramatically. Andrew1963

11:01pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Let`s`aveitright says...

Bring to this political stage the party who delivers sandbags!
Bring to this political stage the party who delivers sandbags! Let`s`aveitright

1:10pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Popeonarope says...

Dredge the River Colne, deepening it if necessary, from Bushey Mill Lane to the various lakes in Ricky. Oxhey Park used to be dredged regularly but is silted up again.
Clean the drains and ensure all the outfalls are clear of debris. There has been very little maintenance in the last decade. We have a canal system that could be utilsed more efficiently to carry water away and a Waste Treatment Works in Maple Cross that could be have more storm tanks added.
However, SUDs and flood aliviation schemes need to be looked at seriously.
The hotel on the waterfields should never have been built.
Dredge the River Colne, deepening it if necessary, from Bushey Mill Lane to the various lakes in Ricky. Oxhey Park used to be dredged regularly but is silted up again. Clean the drains and ensure all the outfalls are clear of debris. There has been very little maintenance in the last decade. We have a canal system that could be utilsed more efficiently to carry water away and a Waste Treatment Works in Maple Cross that could be have more storm tanks added. However, SUDs and flood aliviation schemes need to be looked at seriously. The hotel on the waterfields should never have been built. Popeonarope

1:54am Tue 18 Feb 14

Honest Rog says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil cox
Firstly When you say “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” it is to be dismissive of the issue, it is to say that this is the change we have is the norm, whereas the data does not support this. What the data supports is Climate Change is happening, that is a marked and significant change in Climate has and is occurring. It is a realty and we are going to have to deal with it. Trying to square the circle of UKIP climate change denial with your spin is nonsense the reality is that glib statements such as “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” are a classic non denial, denial, which kind of scuppers your claim to be different.
Secondly what is emerging with the environent agency is that the government, that is this Tory and Libdem gov that you seem to think can do no wrong on this, are using Lord Smith as a scapegoat, indeed your good friend Eric Pickles was caught out on this over the dredging issue where the restricting factor was treasury rules and not the environment agency who made what money they could available for it.
Thirdly what is becoming clear is that when things go wrong two things happen there is a negative economic, social and personal impact and it takes government to put it right. That is community’s suffer, there is a cost to the economy and individuals suffer. Also central gov has to step in and pick up the pieces by for example putting more money on the table for dredging or sending in the army to sand bag places.
Fourthly if you are accepting that “climate change” is real then yes we have to deal with it, the first thing to relise is that we are all in it together, there is no point creating a bottleneck at one point so it floods further upstream or indeed pumping the water down the river to flood further down stream. People and different agency’s have to work together and yes there is a roll for central gov.
The danger in saying “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” is that you deny the urgency and the need for action that you normalise the problem and that we will continue to tinker at the edges, putting in another pump at water lane or some such, which will not be adequate to avoid further problems with flooding.
What is needed in my opinion (and itis opinion borne of reason and not a desire to recast party rhetoric) is a comprehensive program for the Thames and Thames tributaries such as Colne and Gade and for it to be centrally funded and coordinated, not for local politicians to press for this or that bit of protection on a piecemeal basis. Now I know that this is a centralist approach and those committed to localism may not be that keen but they would have to be involved to get a full picture of the issues.
Well said dontknowynot. Floundering Phil has met his match here. Trouble is that while he and others attempt to make political capital out of other people's misfortune the problem is ongoing.
Funny how climate change deniers seem to (IMO) fit the demograph of Sun/Daily Wail reading Jeremy Clarkson fans.
I'm surprised that flip-flop Phil hasn't quoted a fellow UKIP colleague on the flooding problems. You know, the guy who told people flooded in the West Country that it was the wrath of god manifesting itself cos of same sex marriage.
I dread to think what the people of Lower High Street/Water Lane area have been up to!
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Phil cox Firstly When you say “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” it is to be dismissive of the issue, it is to say that this is the change we have is the norm, whereas the data does not support this. What the data supports is Climate Change is happening, that is a marked and significant change in Climate has and is occurring. It is a realty and we are going to have to deal with it. Trying to square the circle of UKIP climate change denial with your spin is nonsense the reality is that glib statements such as “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” are a classic non denial, denial, which kind of scuppers your claim to be different. Secondly what is emerging with the environent agency is that the government, that is this Tory and Libdem gov that you seem to think can do no wrong on this, are using Lord Smith as a scapegoat, indeed your good friend Eric Pickles was caught out on this over the dredging issue where the restricting factor was treasury rules and not the environment agency who made what money they could available for it. Thirdly what is becoming clear is that when things go wrong two things happen there is a negative economic, social and personal impact and it takes government to put it right. That is community’s suffer, there is a cost to the economy and individuals suffer. Also central gov has to step in and pick up the pieces by for example putting more money on the table for dredging or sending in the army to sand bag places. Fourthly if you are accepting that “climate change” is real then yes we have to deal with it, the first thing to relise is that we are all in it together, there is no point creating a bottleneck at one point so it floods further upstream or indeed pumping the water down the river to flood further down stream. People and different agency’s have to work together and yes there is a roll for central gov. The danger in saying “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” is that you deny the urgency and the need for action that you normalise the problem and that we will continue to tinker at the edges, putting in another pump at water lane or some such, which will not be adequate to avoid further problems with flooding. What is needed in my opinion (and itis opinion borne of reason and not a desire to recast party rhetoric) is a comprehensive program for the Thames and Thames tributaries such as Colne and Gade and for it to be centrally funded and coordinated, not for local politicians to press for this or that bit of protection on a piecemeal basis. Now I know that this is a centralist approach and those committed to localism may not be that keen but they would have to be involved to get a full picture of the issues.[/p][/quote]Well said dontknowynot. Floundering Phil has met his match here. Trouble is that while he and others attempt to make political capital out of other people's misfortune the problem is ongoing. Funny how climate change deniers seem to (IMO) fit the demograph of Sun/Daily Wail reading Jeremy Clarkson fans. I'm surprised that flip-flop Phil hasn't quoted a fellow UKIP colleague on the flooding problems. You know, the guy who told people flooded in the West Country that it was the wrath of god manifesting itself cos of same sex marriage. I dread to think what the people of Lower High Street/Water Lane area have been up to! Honest Rog

8:01am Tue 18 Feb 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Honest Rog wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Phil cox
Firstly When you say “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” it is to be dismissive of the issue, it is to say that this is the change we have is the norm, whereas the data does not support this. What the data supports is Climate Change is happening, that is a marked and significant change in Climate has and is occurring. It is a realty and we are going to have to deal with it. Trying to square the circle of UKIP climate change denial with your spin is nonsense the reality is that glib statements such as “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” are a classic non denial, denial, which kind of scuppers your claim to be different.
Secondly what is emerging with the environent agency is that the government, that is this Tory and Libdem gov that you seem to think can do no wrong on this, are using Lord Smith as a scapegoat, indeed your good friend Eric Pickles was caught out on this over the dredging issue where the restricting factor was treasury rules and not the environment agency who made what money they could available for it.
Thirdly what is becoming clear is that when things go wrong two things happen there is a negative economic, social and personal impact and it takes government to put it right. That is community’s suffer, there is a cost to the economy and individuals suffer. Also central gov has to step in and pick up the pieces by for example putting more money on the table for dredging or sending in the army to sand bag places.
Fourthly if you are accepting that “climate change” is real then yes we have to deal with it, the first thing to relise is that we are all in it together, there is no point creating a bottleneck at one point so it floods further upstream or indeed pumping the water down the river to flood further down stream. People and different agency’s have to work together and yes there is a roll for central gov.
The danger in saying “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” is that you deny the urgency and the need for action that you normalise the problem and that we will continue to tinker at the edges, putting in another pump at water lane or some such, which will not be adequate to avoid further problems with flooding.
What is needed in my opinion (and itis opinion borne of reason and not a desire to recast party rhetoric) is a comprehensive program for the Thames and Thames tributaries such as Colne and Gade and for it to be centrally funded and coordinated, not for local politicians to press for this or that bit of protection on a piecemeal basis. Now I know that this is a centralist approach and those committed to localism may not be that keen but they would have to be involved to get a full picture of the issues.
Well said dontknowynot. Floundering Phil has met his match here. Trouble is that while he and others attempt to make political capital out of other people's misfortune the problem is ongoing.
Funny how climate change deniers seem to (IMO) fit the demograph of Sun/Daily Wail reading Jeremy Clarkson fans.
I'm surprised that flip-flop Phil hasn't quoted a fellow UKIP colleague on the flooding problems. You know, the guy who told people flooded in the West Country that it was the wrath of god manifesting itself cos of same sex marriage.
I dread to think what the people of Lower High Street/Water Lane area have been up to!
Rog,

I will do what is right and what is necessary for Watford. It is what people would expect of a Ukip Mayor and Ukip councillors. No petty party jealousies or (failed) political dogma, just good solid common sense.

I was speaking to an ex-Labour member recently who made this point. You might appreciate it, being a Labour supporter yourself.

Many people joined the Labour party because they believe in good quality public services, proper funding for the NHS, Schools and so on. Labour used to be the party that fully tried to fund such things, Conservatives often the party of cuts to such services.

The problem lies apparently with Labour's waste. The money Labour pours in does not get value for money. Often much of Labour spending is wasted, fails to hit the target, produces more managers than doctors, more quangos for failed politicians to go to when they leave office. For instance why on earth is Chris Smith head of the Environment Agency? What a mess he has made.

Anyway Rog, it was likened to having a child. No matter how much you love a child, you would not give them unlimited access to your credit cards because they cannot be trusted to spend responsibly. It's exactly the same with Labour.

You just cannot trust Labour to spend responsibly. Quite the opposite in fact. Labour always leaves a financial mess behind. Always. Watford. Uk. Everywhere it has ever been. You can't run a town like that. You can't run a country like that. You couldn't run anything like that. It's madness, the waste and overspending is unsustainable.

And then we discussed the benefits of Ukip compared to Labour.

Ukip, like Labour believes in a good quality NHS and Schools, free at the point of access, but Ukip would be responsible with spending and would produce far more for the same money, or produce the same with less money. That sounds good to me whichever way you look at it.

Who would not prefer to pay less in council and other taxes?

Who would not prefer to have all the necessary services, delivered to a high standard, for less money?

Who would not want value for money where our txes are concerned? Spending billions?

Who would go into a shop and pick up a loaf that cost £2.80 because the bakery had a manager sitting over each member of staff doing nothing very useful, instead of a loaf produced efficiently for just £1.40?

So if we look for value for money in a loaf of bread costing a pound or so, why do we not insist on the same for our NHS and schools where billions of pounds are spent?

Why do we allow Labour to produce the most bloated and inefficient public services possible?

People still remember the Labour council in Watford and what a disaster it was.

And I believe that's why Labour supporters are voting Ukip, supporting Ukip and joining Ukip. The same services we all care about, delivered efficiently and for lower cost.

Personally, I can't see a downside.

BTW Rog, I can let you have a loaf of "Labour Bread" for £2.80. Just let me know how many you want and I'll pop down to Sainsbury's and double the price before handing them over to you. Mybe I'll put a sticker saying "Labour bread" in the to make you feel you are getting what you paid for. Brown or white?

Ukip supporters just pop down to your local shop or supermarket and buy it at cost. It's the same as "Labour bread", just half the price.

We will bring the same approach to everything we do. Common sense and value for money.

Vote Ukip, it makes a lot of sense.
[quote][p][bold]Honest Rog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Phil cox Firstly When you say “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” it is to be dismissive of the issue, it is to say that this is the change we have is the norm, whereas the data does not support this. What the data supports is Climate Change is happening, that is a marked and significant change in Climate has and is occurring. It is a realty and we are going to have to deal with it. Trying to square the circle of UKIP climate change denial with your spin is nonsense the reality is that glib statements such as “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” are a classic non denial, denial, which kind of scuppers your claim to be different. Secondly what is emerging with the environent agency is that the government, that is this Tory and Libdem gov that you seem to think can do no wrong on this, are using Lord Smith as a scapegoat, indeed your good friend Eric Pickles was caught out on this over the dredging issue where the restricting factor was treasury rules and not the environment agency who made what money they could available for it. Thirdly what is becoming clear is that when things go wrong two things happen there is a negative economic, social and personal impact and it takes government to put it right. That is community’s suffer, there is a cost to the economy and individuals suffer. Also central gov has to step in and pick up the pieces by for example putting more money on the table for dredging or sending in the army to sand bag places. Fourthly if you are accepting that “climate change” is real then yes we have to deal with it, the first thing to relise is that we are all in it together, there is no point creating a bottleneck at one point so it floods further upstream or indeed pumping the water down the river to flood further down stream. People and different agency’s have to work together and yes there is a roll for central gov. The danger in saying “Climate is always changing, it always has and it always will” is that you deny the urgency and the need for action that you normalise the problem and that we will continue to tinker at the edges, putting in another pump at water lane or some such, which will not be adequate to avoid further problems with flooding. What is needed in my opinion (and itis opinion borne of reason and not a desire to recast party rhetoric) is a comprehensive program for the Thames and Thames tributaries such as Colne and Gade and for it to be centrally funded and coordinated, not for local politicians to press for this or that bit of protection on a piecemeal basis. Now I know that this is a centralist approach and those committed to localism may not be that keen but they would have to be involved to get a full picture of the issues.[/p][/quote]Well said dontknowynot. Floundering Phil has met his match here. Trouble is that while he and others attempt to make political capital out of other people's misfortune the problem is ongoing. Funny how climate change deniers seem to (IMO) fit the demograph of Sun/Daily Wail reading Jeremy Clarkson fans. I'm surprised that flip-flop Phil hasn't quoted a fellow UKIP colleague on the flooding problems. You know, the guy who told people flooded in the West Country that it was the wrath of god manifesting itself cos of same sex marriage. I dread to think what the people of Lower High Street/Water Lane area have been up to![/p][/quote]Rog, I will do what is right and what is necessary for Watford. It is what people would expect of a Ukip Mayor and Ukip councillors. No petty party jealousies or (failed) political dogma, just good solid common sense. I was speaking to an ex-Labour member recently who made this point. You might appreciate it, being a Labour supporter yourself. Many people joined the Labour party because they believe in good quality public services, proper funding for the NHS, Schools and so on. Labour used to be the party that fully tried to fund such things, Conservatives often the party of cuts to such services. The problem lies apparently with Labour's waste. The money Labour pours in does not get value for money. Often much of Labour spending is wasted, fails to hit the target, produces more managers than doctors, more quangos for failed politicians to go to when they leave office. For instance why on earth is Chris Smith head of the Environment Agency? What a mess he has made. Anyway Rog, it was likened to having a child. No matter how much you love a child, you would not give them unlimited access to your credit cards because they cannot be trusted to spend responsibly. It's exactly the same with Labour. You just cannot trust Labour to spend responsibly. Quite the opposite in fact. Labour always leaves a financial mess behind. Always. Watford. Uk. Everywhere it has ever been. You can't run a town like that. You can't run a country like that. You couldn't run anything like that. It's madness, the waste and overspending is unsustainable. And then we discussed the benefits of Ukip compared to Labour. Ukip, like Labour believes in a good quality NHS and Schools, free at the point of access, but Ukip would be responsible with spending and would produce far more for the same money, or produce the same with less money. That sounds good to me whichever way you look at it. Who would not prefer to pay less in council and other taxes? Who would not prefer to have all the necessary services, delivered to a high standard, for less money? Who would not want value for money where our txes are concerned? Spending billions? Who would go into a shop and pick up a loaf that cost £2.80 because the bakery had a manager sitting over each member of staff doing nothing very useful, instead of a loaf produced efficiently for just £1.40? So if we look for value for money in a loaf of bread costing a pound or so, why do we not insist on the same for our NHS and schools where billions of pounds are spent? Why do we allow Labour to produce the most bloated and inefficient public services possible? People still remember the Labour council in Watford and what a disaster it was. And I believe that's why Labour supporters are voting Ukip, supporting Ukip and joining Ukip. The same services we all care about, delivered efficiently and for lower cost. Personally, I can't see a downside. BTW Rog, I can let you have a loaf of "Labour Bread" for £2.80. Just let me know how many you want and I'll pop down to Sainsbury's and double the price before handing them over to you. Mybe I'll put a sticker saying "Labour bread" in the to make you feel you are getting what you paid for. Brown or white? Ukip supporters just pop down to your local shop or supermarket and buy it at cost. It's the same as "Labour bread", just half the price. We will bring the same approach to everything we do. Common sense and value for money. Vote Ukip, it makes a lot of sense. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford

7:18pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Keefer says...

The Politicians posters here would do better to shut up & listen to the residents! They might get some policy ideas. Instead they're flooding the topic with political bile that convinces nobody with a clue to how real world politics differs from the "sales talk" we're subjected to in the run up to every election.

STFU.
The Politicians posters here would do better to shut up & listen to the residents! They might get some policy ideas. Instead they're flooding the topic with political bile that convinces nobody with a clue to how real world politics differs from the "sales talk" we're subjected to in the run up to every election. STFU. Keefer

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree