Waste of taxpayers' money

Oh yes. I see. Mr P.

Good grief! Does that really explain it? Is that what it comes down to?

Why would the media lie when the EA'S Annual report and accounts are available online for all to see?
And why waste any money when there was a funding shortfall?

I thought there could have been a reasoned debate on the misuse of taxpayers' hard-earned money but it seems to be developing into a MOS-v-Guardian match.

So no more to be said really.

Maybe the article isn't completely bad. I wouldn't have wanted my grandchildren to have seen that parade if the pictures are genuine, and I'm sure they are.

The Gay Pride round here is much more family friendly!

Like I say, London is always more extreme.

I don't think it was at all appropriate for government money towards that.

I don't think it appropriate for the EA to be spending money in that way, it's not relevant to their remit IMO. It's unlikely someone's house flooded because the owner was gay.

But I do think it's quite right that the Metropolitan Police have a float at the Gay Pride March because it fosters better relations and shows a commitment to aim for fair policing for minorities.

I think it was Brum and and I did think 'well, that's years ago' but over those years the money could have been put to more effective use, perhaps used in schools for environmental education if not on flood defence schemes per se.

(I did say no more to be said but DH says "you just can't shut up, can you")

Oh Dear! how easy it is for the media to wind us up. Always remember that they are working to an agenda. I am sure that every GN'er can point to a report in the media that later turned out to be totally untrue, so don't let the media treat us as total idiots, and always try to verify reports from another source., and certainly not from another media report!!

I can't see why the EA should need to attend events to promote itself. Why? Shouldn't all its funds be spent on the environment?

Surely the only government departments which need to promote themselves are health and those which need to reach people in need of benefits? Maybe more but I think you get the gist.

I don't understand all the minor waste either. I've just received a letter from my MP when I specifically asked her to reply by email to save the environment and money!

Our local floods caused huge blockages under the arches of a bridge and we were told a couple of weeks ago that they couldn't do anything about it while the river was so high. DH said why not reach over from the bridge and get it that way. Yesterday, 2 weeks on and much more debris collected, they did just that. Of course there was so much more collected than if they had removed it and allowed the river to flow properly at the beginning. No common sense or thought about the cost.

If this is actually in the annual report margaretm74 then could you let us have a page reference please. It is very long.
It just there are so many shock/horror stories in some parts of the press that it is difficult to take any of them seriously unless the story is backed up by actual facts.
They were telling us that there were hordes of Romanians buying tickets to come to Britain in the first week of January. Which turned out to be complete fiction according to a BBC report a couple of weeks ago.

I saw the Severn blocked at the bridge in Worcester on the TV. I wonder if it will cost £30, 000 to clear that debris? Could be an interesting comparison of costs.

I do not think the report in the Sunday paper was lies, despite some people thinking that, I think that it is fact and has been reported previously in the local press.

Perhaps some people don't mind some of their money being spent on alternative schemes by these Quangos but I do. It is our money and they should be answerable to us not using our money on their own agenda which has nothing whatsoever to do with the job in hand.

They are answerable to us through the elected government, but the fact remains that nothing they do is done without government approval, the EA is not a department out of control as some of the press seems to be suggesting and if they were then questions should be asked of the department responsible for them and not the EA.

I noticed a couple of years ago that the local Housing Association 'sponsored' a bridge near their offices (a small road bridge over a river), paying for boxes full of flowers to be hung along its sides.

My thoughts at the time were much the same as those expressed in the thread title: What a waste of taxpayers' / rent payers' money!

I see in the Guardian today that the Env Agency was directed to scrap flood defence programmes as part of cuts to its budget:

www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/16/flood-area-defences-funding-cuts

All the more reason not to waste a penny.

I do not understand your response Margaret. The article that Penstemmon talks about shows how many areas in Somerset and Kent were left without flood defences because the government decided to save money in 2010. One of the schemes scrapped was at Dawlish where the railway fell into the sea and now there are no trains in the west country. Do you think that that was a good way to save money? It will now cost much more to put flood defences in those places.

Surely margaret's response related back to the OP, durhamjen.

Yes, Ana, I see what you mean. Sorry, Margaret, if that's what you meant.
Haven't looked at the photos, but Chris Smith was the first gay MP to come out without being forced to, I seem to recall.

Thanks ana, yes that is what I meant. With budget constraints why spend money on frivolities.
Eg if you can't afford to feed your children would you splash on new clothes for yourself?

I have absolutely no issue with that whatsoever, as I said in the OP. Good kn him for being so honest, but don't use taxpayers' money on your own pet schemes which have no connection to the job in hand.

The EA was just an example which is topical, I am sure there will be many other examples

Isn't one of the problems that the government still holds the reins, whatever else it says. It gives money to the EA, then tells it how much of that money it can spend on flood defences each year.
It's the same with local councils. and the NHS. They are given money for each year, told not to overspend, but if they underspend are given proportionately less the next year.
The NHS has been told to save money, the Nicholson Challenge, then when it spends less, it has the excess taken away, instead of being allowed to use it to keep nurses, and keep wards open.One good thing about the floods is that EA workers might avoid redundancy for now.
The government has always said it wants less central control, but it has more now in education, the NHS, local government, etc.

Yes, if the LAs don't spend all their budget they can't carry it over to next year. At least that used to be the case.
That is why small schemes are hurriedly carried out before the end of the financial year.

A very interesting subject. The only source of revenue for any government is the poor old taxpayer. Government expenditure used to be subject to the authority of parliament and the consent of the taxpayer at the election. Ministers were personally accountable for the conduct of their departments and there was little opportunity to pass the buck. Yes, it was old fashioned and a bit slow, but it worked. That was then.

Now, more and more government functions and strategic requirements have been hived off to a vast network of quangos, boards, committees, spivs, crooks and cheats at enormous public cost. These bodies are often staffed by armies of friends and relations on huge salaries with little control or regulation. The results? Chaos - nobody is responsible for anything, there is little national organisation left and folk in distress are left to fend for themselves. All those mission statements, citizen's charters and other waffle are so much waste paper.

I was proud to be a civil servant in the old days. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole these days!

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Well, I wouldn't really put it like that, ninny, I just think money shouldn't be wasted on projects that have nothing to do with the job in hand, ie I would be annoyed if he spent money on anything not connected to the environment, such as promoting any type of religion, any sexuality, race or lavish corporate entertainment.

Of course, it's easy to spend it when it is taxpayers' money and not your own. And they all do it. The problem as papaoscar said, is that the system of quangos has resulted in out-of-control chaos.