Does it seem unfair to you that David Cameron.....

Yes. I was a silly thing to say as are all open-ended promises. It will come back to haunt him. What if we had a row of winters like this one? Quite on the cards with the jet stream on the wobble and causing weather patterns to persist much longer.
Many people will think he is talking about stopping it happen again. He has already forced huge cuts on DEFRA and the environment agency and delaying the redundant of 500 flooding experts is not going to amount to hill of beans.

Of course it wasn't fair but who ever promised life would be? Was it wise? Ah that's another question. Anyone can promise the moon but this will surely return to bite him in the posterior come the next election.

There is a road in Rothbury that was closed in 2012. It's one of the main roads into town. It will be closed until 2015 at the earliest. It was closed by a landslip. It's the road to Cragside, a National Trust property.
There is no extra money from the government for that, and never has been.

Shouldn't the NT bear/ share that cost? I know my sub seems high enough! We visited Cragside in, I think 2010. Loved the gardens!

I recall his promising a variety of things before the last election. He didn't keep those promises…

Oh like protecting the NHS and looking after the weak in society and being the greenest government ever. It all comes back to me.

Well it's not as if there has ever been a time when a politician has kept his / her promise.
He will find a way of squirming out of the "money no object " speech.

Will Hull receive the same help this time .

How are they going to sort out which small businesses have suffered enough for financial help? On this morning's news there was a taxi driver in Windsor who was saying he'd only had a couple of calls so far today and a newsagent, also in Windsor, complaining that his takings were down. That's nothing compared to the hardship suffered by many in Somerset and Cornwall.

Will the Home Counties be top of the list?

How right you are durhamjen. This road is the main road into Rothbury and the businesses in the area have suffered terribly as a result. No end in site. But there again it is "up North"

Not a chance that they will be able to compensate small businesses. Have they yet compensated those who made a claim after the riots?

Seems they have not:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25595050

If I were one of the people whose home or business had been ruined by any of the other floods that have happened since Cameron came to power, I would feel very bitter that he hadn't made me the same promise!

I think it depends on your postcode when it comes to compensation MamaCaz

Not sure that he is directly to blame for the floods though

What he is to blame for is stopping flood barriers being built in lots of places like Morpeth. Morpeth was flooded in 2007 and 8 and 12. The money was in place and planning well underway in 2010, but the funding was stopped. It is now being done, but there is not enough money to do all of it. One of the houses that was flooded in 2012 and which cost £50,000 in repairs is just outside the flood barrier area.
Again, as Gillybob said earlier, it's up north, but someone has to stick up for the north.
Soutra, the landslip at Rothbury is not the NT's fault. In fact Cragside is probably losing lots of money because of this road closure.

I think very few people deliberately buy houses in places that flood. The devastation of water, often tainted with sewage, coming through your house, your belongings ruined and having to move out for as much as a year or more, until it is repaired, the worrying unease you live with ever after when ever the rain is heavy, is equally devastating for every one, regardless of income or house price.

Most people live where they do for reasons of finance, job location, closeness to family etc. Floods like we have had this winter are exceptional. There have been a number of people flooded along the Thames who had lived in the same house for 60 years or more and never, until this year had their house flooded. I noticed that many of the little bungalows close to the river were nearly all raised up with a flight of stairs up to their front doors, their houses were above the flood level but temporarily marooned by water round the house, it was the houses away from the river that were devastated by water in the house.

Our village has now been flooded twice in seven years. The previous two floods were 1895 and 1947. When we and most people now living in the village first moved here it was never considered an area that flooded and even after 2007 it was seen as an exceptional event and it would be another 50 years before it happened again.

'Hardworking people' jingls. Shirkers need not apply.

What I want to know is what are the criteria for deciding whether a family is 'hard working' or not and how do you ensure that those who are not hardworking get no benefit

What happens to families where some members are hardworking and some are not?

A rather stupid man talking on Panorama suggested that some homes on flood plains would have to be allowed to go. It was also suggested that people living in these areas would have to take their own preventative steps or if they couldn't cope with this then they might have to move. Sorry, am I being stupid or what? Who will now buy homes put up for sale on the Somerset levels, no-one will be able to get insurance so if homes are allowed to 'go' then every penny homeowners have put into their residences will just float away too.

Our town has been built on two levels: upper (pretty safe); lower (apparently built on flood plain). Well over 50% of the town is on flood plain. We had been in our present house for over 5 years before learning it was flood plain. Fortunately our flood prevention scheme seems to be reasonably efficient (touch wood).

Drove near to the levels today and I've never seen anything like it. It is said we are a rich country but I reckon it is ALL going to cost far more than is anticipated.

Some houses may well have to be abandoned in the long term, sadly. Sea levels will rise, coastal erosion will continue and we can expect more weather like this in future, or so we have been led to believe.

The Somerset levels are predominantly reclaimed land and have always flooded and those who live there have generally built their houses on the bits that do not flood.

The problem is that the Somerset levels have flooded over a more extensive area than normal for longer than normal because the EA has neglected the flood alleviation measures that in the past have been part and parcel of managing land on the levels. Rivers have not been dredged and as these rivers are short and go straight into the sea, the faster the rivers run and clear the water away the better, there is nowhere down stream to flood if they clear water fast. Farmers have now found it difficult to clear drains and ditches as they have for centuries because they haveto get consents to do it and have been restricted by concerns about wildlife and the fact that what they clear out of the ditches has been classified as a hazardous waste, which has to be specially disposed of rather than just upcast onto the drain banks or surrounding fields.

Someone I know from the Thames Valley area believes that resources should be concentrated on the Thames Valley at the expense of the Levels, which she believes should be left to be reclaimed by the sea, because 'the Levels are sparsely populated and there are 6 million people at risk in the Thames Valley.'
These are her words not mine.

I just wondered if her opinion is part of a growing consensus and that, with budget constraints, the greater numbers will win out and claim the majority of the budget.

The levels are apparently only slightly above mean sea level. At some stage the sea is going to win - there is no doubt that sooner or later sea levels will rise - it is just that nobody can accurately predict how fast this will happen. It could be more slowly than scientists are predicting or it could be faster.
Even if you do not believe the burning of fossil fuels is causing it, we are still. clearly, in a period of rapid global warming.
Floating ice in the Arctic is retreating steadily every year since they started measurements in 1970s. That does not affect sea levels - but the melting of the icecaps on greenland and antarctica will.

Well, I live in the Thames Valley and I could not disagree more. You cannot think of flood prevention only in terms of people. We need to be fed, we need to earn our livings, we need to manufacture goods. The mismanagement of the drainage on the Levels is going to have a major deleterious effect on the agricultural production on that land this year.

The Somerset levels, like the fens are an important agricultural resource. They have been reclaimed from the sea over many centuries and until the EA came on the scene floods were managed effectively by local people. We should go back to that. Somerset is an important dairying area and the Levels supply good pasture for cattle. What does your friend want, starvation? High food prices? Dairy products from cows living abnormal lives in sheds living on fodder grown where crops for human consumption could grow and routinely treated with antibiotics that will be present in the milk?

Yes, rising sea levels will affect land management but reclaimed land should be able to stay reclaimed land. The Dutch seem to manage it very effectively. There are areas in Essex and Norfolk, for example where the nature of the local geology means managed retreat is the only answer - but there it is a process that has been going on for 100s of years with the names of villages that disappeared in the 12 century still known.

We should not forget that this years floods are at the exceptional end of the range. Many of the houses flooded this year had not flooded before in human memory and may well not flood again for another 50 years or more.