The infantilisation of the Nation progresses. Now we have calls for people who did not take out contents insurance but who could have to be "compensated".
Did anyone ask me if I wanted to pay?
Surely if you had anything of value in your home you would have the means to pay insurance.
A flat panel TV is about 5 years cover. We have one "hard luck story" about somebody putting in a £15,000 kitchen extension but not bothering to spend 1% p.a. of that value insuring it against damage...and yet the implication is that we need to compensate people.
If people are compensated or see that other are compensated then they will become ever more dependent, irrational, irritable, grasping and feckless - just where the Sociofascists want them.
In this case we see a classic example of why the Welfare State is so often a form of outsourced theft. Why rob from people when you can get the State to so it for you as a willing partner?
As for people who could NOT get insurance, like in Hull, it begs the question how can they benefit on one had from lower house prices as a result of living in a flood plain, NOT have the cost of insurance to pay, yet get compensation? If you choose not to live in a flood plain you have to pay more for your house AND pay insurance.
I am sorry that flooding happens to anyone, but the argument against compensation still holds.
p.s. Countries that have regular flooding tend to build their homes on stilts. That is the answer for anyone in a flood plain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
These people with no insurance have my sympathy. But they took a bet and lost. That is sad and tough.
Will the tax payer be expected to bail out big losers at the race track next?
Rog, super post as ever, but a) you've said it all and b) it's so depressing.
My take on this is that it has got bugger all to do with global warming and unusual weather patterns, and all to do with the government failing to delegate power to clear out drains (and to raise the tax to cover the cost thereof) down to local authorities.
It is not about government failing to delegate power, but that they took it away. If it is given back, they treat it as a "gift" and something to be grateful for!
True, the problem is that central government took away these powers in the first place.
And the extra hundred quid tax per household per year is not even a real cost, if people's insurance bill goes down by the same amount.
Question is why build on flood plains in the first place
Northampton being a prime example
The question is not so much: Why build on flood plain? As: Why not allow for flooding when you build on a flood plain?
I have seen communities on the east coast of the US that Keep the ground floor for parking and storage of boats. It is only greed and stupidity that prompts builders to construct a ‘standard’ identikit UK home in such locations - And probably short sightedness and the incompetence of local solicitors that leads purchasers into buying them.
Thailand is the same. Ground floor is for cars and chickens.
The boats must come in bloody handy when there's a flood on the East Coast!
I think that's what the boats were for. Only little ones with outboard motors though.
Post a Comment