Whingers.

[Andy Hall]

Except that the point isn't wrong in this context.

[Andy Hall]

The issue here is the one of *expectation* that there should be a handout of cash and services, and it is that which is unacceptable.

There are two main parts to the issue of what happens after flooding of a wide area.

- Removal of the water from the area. Clearly that is beyond the householder's immediate control and has to be handled by the various authorities responsible for it.

- Cleaning up and reinstatement of the property. Without any doubt, the responsibility for that is with the householder.

That does not mean that there should not be some form of financial assistance in cases of genuine need. What it does mean is that there should be a very detailed check of the financial affairs of any applicants for such financial assistance. Expenditure that goes beyond the basics of provision of roof over head, food, energy, normal water services and a few other necessities is largely discretionary. If somebody has chosen to spend discretionary money on other things rather than insuring themselves (which should be coming out of the roof-over-head allocation anyway) then there is no justification for their receiving public funds at all.

[Adam Lea]

Wow strong sweeping statement!

[Adam Lea]

They also have got to find somewhere to live whilst the water is being removed, and the house is being made habitable. Do you think they should have to sort that themselves as well, or should they receive some assistance?

[Andy Hall]

Same principles apply.

a) If insured, insurance company pays for alternative accommodation.

b) If not insured and could not reasonably have been expected to have been insured (i.e. no siginficant discretionary funds), then assistance provided.

c) If not insured and could reasonably have been expected to have been insured, no assistance provided.

[Andy Hall]

A very reasonable one.

[Col]

*Everywhere* is on a flood plain if it rains hard enough. Just ask Noah :)

This is true but missing the point. The taxpayer shouldn't be expected to compensate people who could have bought insurance, but chose not to.

[Geronimo W. Christ Esq]

That's what I thought. The insurance premium on my house is around £100 per year, so it's foolish not to pay it. But if it were £1000 I can see how people on lower incomes would simply not be able to do it.

If the government is going to provide funding though, there would have to be some kind of means testing. There was flooding in Belfast back in June, in areas with no recent history of flooding. People were interviewed on the TV news in their living rooms, saying that they couldn't afford the insurance premium. Large LCD/plasma TV screens, Xboxes and Playstations were visible in the background ...

[Geronimo W. Christ Esq]

The only thing then is that the government has to appoint people to go around the place looking to see who would or would not have been "reasonably expected to have been insured". I'm sure some consultant somewhere is rubbing his hands with glee at that idea.

[dennis]

She will be in more of a mess than the kitchen.. they are normally covered by buildings insurance aren't they? No buildings insurance will make the £15k for the kitchen look cheap once they start ripping the floors and walls.

[dennis]

Your point was

Which isn't true. The same statistical distribution of claims would exist if half the number were insured. So the total payout would be halved. However the costs would not be halved so you would have to pay more in premiums to cover the extra costs. Your statement is obviously wrong in this context.

[Andy Hall]

Clearly you don't understand the basis of actuarial calculation and re-insurance.

[Andy Hall]

Since a significant proportion of the working population are already parasites of the public purse, this should not be too hard to find.

That would be the depressing aspect.

[Andy Hall]

That's a circular argument. Income, place and cost of residence and hence insurance premium are generally well linked.

The possible exception to this is people who have chosen to invest all of their income into their home, or who have experienced a stronger than average rise in price because of improved desirability of the area. These are the asset rich/income poor - often retired. While one can't level the same criticism as one can about those who choose to spend their discretionary income on the goods which they now expect the public purse to replace, there are ways and means to unlock the capital secured in the property.

[Brian Sharrock]

Not quite: 'the government' merely has to set out a stall with a notice indicating the opening hours and a sign saying ' Funds for people who haven't got insurance- apply here!' The population is self-selecting and the 'government doesn't need to appoint people to go around the place ... ' at all. Anybody applicant with bling, piercing, tattoos, bingo-club membership would be sent to the back of the line ... BTW; I watched a 'blog' on Sky News --- a couple were moaning that they couldn't afford insurance and displayed the interior of their house -- using their digital cam-corder. 'Look at the damage done to the plasma TV! Who's going to pay for it?" ....

[dennis]

£100 pa will only get you rebuilding cost of around £35k IIRC so your home must be a shed. I would check to see if you are under insured if its actually a house of any kind.

[dennis]

I understand it.. you think that having half the number insured results in lower costs and/or less than half the number of claims.

[Andy Hall]

As I said, Clearly you don't understand the basis of actuarial calculation and re-insurance.

[Clive George]

Well, there is a bit of a problem of insurance companies running away screaming if there's the slightest hint of potential flood claims, even if they're nothing like the several-foot-deep stuff it's hard to protect against.

cheers, clive

[Clive George]

Except the buying cost of a residence isn't that terribly well linked to the rebuilding cost. And the insurance cost varies even more depending on potential for damage.

cheers, clive