The Environment Agency Chair, Lord Smith, has lied twice when talking about flooding and his agency’s reaction to events.

Once when he claimed the Agency had no policy to deliberately flood the Somerset Levels, and again when he claimed Eric Pickles was wrong when he said the Agency had advised the government wrongly about dredging.

The BBC has ignored the huge inconsistencies in his story and continues to report and support Smith’s line unchallenged.

Today the BBC, in the shape of Chris Mason, has decided to look at the ‘politics’ of the floods….But the last paragraph is the most interesting….it seems not only has history actually been forgotten but has been rewritten.

Hilariously he starts with:

‘….the last few days have been an insight into the raw politics of crisis management.’

The ‘raw politics’ has seen a Labour peer lying and getting away with it…possibly with the collusion of  ‘Labour’ supporting BBC journalists….and a distinct lack of interest in Smith’s own ‘raw politics’.

Mason goes on…..

‘The political rewards of getting it right can be huge – as shown when Gordon Brown was judged to have had a good flood in 2007, confounding sceptics with a popularity boom in his first few weeks as prime minister.’

So Gordon Brown had a ‘good flood’ did he?  And Labour can stand tall now and criticise the Government for causing the floods because of their budget cuts?

Strange how history hasn’t provided the journalists of the BBC with any perspective at all, perhaps this article from 2007 can help whent here is talk of ‘cuts’ and ‘having a good flood’:

Brown axe cuts flood fight fund

GORDON Brown ordered a freeze in Britain’s flood defence budgets just weeks before the deluge that left huge swathes of the country under water.

Documents shown to the Sunday Express reveal the Environment Agency has been told not to expect any more money for its floods budget the next three years. With the impact of inflation that means the budget is effectively being cut.

The news comes after last year’s flood defence budget was slashed by £15million as the Government tried to claw back £200million in cost overruns elsewhere.

Sources at the Environment Agency, responsible for Britain’s crumbling flood defences, said the Treasury was demanding further budget cuts as recently as a few weeks ago.

Or perhaps this from the Socialist Worker in 2007:

Flood warnings that were ignored by the government

Hilary Benn, the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, said earlier this month, “It is vital that we learn lessons now about how to manage and respond to this type of disaster in the future.”

But this is not the first time the New Labour government has promised to learn lessons. After severe flooding in 2000 the government said the devastation was “a wake up call” and Hull MP John Prescott, then the environment secretary, told parliament, “We must take practical action now.”

There have been 25 reports since then from parliamentary committees and official bodies on how to reduce risks. They have all talked about the need for funding and planning ahead to deal with floods.

But money for flood defences has been systematically cut and vital infrastructure such as transport and water maintenance have been allowed to suffer at the hands of the market.

Last year then chancellor Gordon Brown cut the Environment Agency budget by £14 million, prompting cuts in flood defence plans.

Mark Serwotka, the PCS general secretary, said, “There is a real fear that cuts will hamper the ability of Defra to coordinate future responses to floods and extreme weather conditions.

“We urge Gordon Brown, as part of the promised review into the flooding crisis, to halt the cuts in Defra and ensure that department has the capacity and resources to respond to future floods.”

In Mason’s article you’re led to believe that any criticism of the Environment Agency and Smith was the result of pure spin from his political enemies……

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles apologised for the flooding and caustically observed: “We thought we were dealing with experts.”

While Mr Pickles went further than any other minister in his criticisms of the agency, plenty of others refused to endorse Lord Smith, who is due to stand down in a few months anyway.

But in fact the most anger came from the flood victims themselves who were highly critical of the Environment Agency:

Anger at environment chief in flood-hit Somerset

Residents of the flood-hit Somerset Levels have accused Environment Agency chairman Lord Smith of “letting everyone down”, as he visited the area.

Lord Smith said he had “no intention” of resigning in the face of criticism for not doing more to help but resident Jim Winkworth said he was “bloody mad” not to get an apology from the peer.

Farmer Julian Green confronted Lord Smith during his visit and claimed he should resign, telling him: “We’ve had this for too long now. We’ve had this for five weeks.”

And speaking to reporters after meeting Lord Smith, Mr Winkworth said: “He is letting himself down, he is letting his organisation down and he is letting us down.

“He hasn’t come down here to apologise, which is what he should be here for.”

And the discussion on the floods and their causes, apart from climate change, has led onto where houses are built…..such as on flood plains.

Not heard any comment from any BBC presenter that the pressure to build houses is due mainly to the vast increase in population due to immigration…just one more ‘benefit’ to add to the BBC’s list.

What also doesn’t get mentioned now is this from 2007:

Flood crisis test for Brown 

There have already been fears that might see incursions into the green belt – now there are more pressing fears that such a massive programme will see homes built in areas liable to flooding.

Take control

Meanwhile, minister Yvette Cooper, in charge of the house building plans, suggested that opponents of the building programme were “playing politics” with the floods.

That article was from 2007…interesting to compare it to Mason’s one from today…the 2007 article defends Brown and explains his actions whilst subtly suggesting the opposition are playing politics:

He wants to reassure the public that he has a grip of the issue. But with more flooding expected, and opposition parties questioning the emergency preparations, this crisis seems far from over.

….Whilst Mason’s is critical of the Government’s 2012 approach and their ‘political spin’  he defends the Labour peer Lord smith.

As for climate change…the floods in 2012 in the Somerset Levels…what caused them?  The rainfall for November 2012 was heavy but nothing out of the ordinary…there have been 18 years when the rain in November exceeded the 2012 total in the South West…..so what caused the floods?

Was it the Environment Agency’s actions?

The BBC are not investigating too hard….they just accept the ‘climate change’ line and roll from there.

Name: Lord Smith

Rank: Incompetent

Number:  Well, his number’s up.

Or his number should be up if the BBC were doing its job properly and fully investigating Lord Smith’s role as Chair of the Environment Agency and its policies.

Lord Smith has made two statements today which can unequivocably be called lies….about issues that go right to the heart of the flooding in the Somerset Levels.

This morning on the Today programme Evan Davis asked Lord Smith about an Environment Agency flood management plan from 2008 which stated that it was a policy to allow the Somerset Levels to flood, to encourage it to flood in fact so that other areas would have less flooding.

Lord Smith stated that there were no such plans….the document was an old document that he had never seen.

He repeated all this in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxvolaXDQmw

The problem with all that is that in 2012, when Lord Smith was in position, there is this flood management plan for the Somerset Levels from the Environment Agency:

Somerset Levels and Moors

The vision and preferred policy

Policy Option 6-  We will take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits. By adopting this policy and redistributing water some areas will be subject to increased flooding while others will benefit from reduced flooding. The aim is to achieve a net overall benefit. The distribution of floodwater between moors can be determined to some extent by the use of sluices and other structures on the rivers

The distribution of floodwater has developed to some extent by historical ‘accident’ rather than design. When considering the distribution of assets across the sub-area it makes sense to direct water to areas which have limited assets at risk. By redistributing floodwater, primarily from upstream of Langport to the King’s Sedgemoor Drain, the overall damage and disruption from flooding would be reduced. Other redistribution options may also be possible, although modelling has shown that technically not all options are feasible.

So either Smith is incompetent or a liar.

Question for the Biased BBC website is why the BBC only chose the 2008 document which allowed Smith to deny all knowledge and brush off all accusations that he was to blame for the flooding in the Somerset levels…or at least for exacerbating the flooding by having a clear policy for using the area as a storage area for flood water.

The 2012 document proves it was policy at a time when he was at the helm.

Smith even admitted to prioritising certain areas...which means allowing others to flood:

He [Smith] also insisted that the agency was right to focus on homes rather than agricultural land. “Lives and people’s homes have to come first,” he said.

So clearly he knew of the policy and agreed with it.

As for ‘politicisation’, Pickles blamed the government and the Environment Agency not Labour……it is Labour politicising the issues….with the BBC cheering things on.

The second lie?

Eric Pickles stated that the Environment Agency gave the government the wrong advice about dredging…and that he now believes they should have dredged….so clearly the advice was not to dredge.

Lord Smith said, in the video above, ‘He is wrong’.….Smith then diverts and tries to blame lack of money.

But was Pickles wrong?  What advice did the Environment Agency give about dredging?

Could it have been something like this from August 2013?

To me that advice is saying dredging has too many downsides and should be used sparingly and only in very certain circumstances.

In fact what Lord Smith himself was advising:

You would have needed a heart of stone NOT to laugh at Evan Davis this morning when he was advised by Ed Davey re the floods  “It’s been 300 years since there were floods like this, it’s unprecedented” Haha! New open thread for you.

Same story…..completely different take:

From the Guardian 13 Sept. 2013:

Amazing what a difference a month makes.

One month ago:

Storms’ link to climate change uncertain – Met Office

One month later:

Met Office: Evidence ‘suggests climate change link to storms’

Originally they told us:

The recent storms that have brought heavy rain and floods to much of the UK cannot definitely be linked to climate change, the Met Office has said.

A spokesman said that was “a research project which hasn’t been done”.

Guess they must have rushed through that research project…..

Now we have:

Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was “no definitive answer” to what caused the storms.

“But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change,” she added.

“There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.”

I guess that’s ‘all the evidence’ as in ‘all the evidence points to the Boston Bombers being white supremacists’.

Don’t you just love that ‘There is no evidence to counter the basic premise…..’?

…but there is no evidence to prove the basic premise either…..

and hang on….the lack of evidence to counter AGW causing storms?…..emm….17 years of no warming is evidence of no warming….for 17 years…so how is global warming causing storms?

The lack of evidence that CO2 causes global warming doesn’t stop them closing down Western industry does it?

Science eh….who needs it when you’ve got the Voodoo princess, Julia Slingo, making it up as they go along and the BBC unquestioningly printing everything she prophesises.

Guess…conjecture, surmise, speculate, reckon, dare say, dodgy…hocum.

Some words for any BBC environmental journo looking to investigate the issues.

Climate Change has brought freezing cold rain dripping down the back of my neck so I recommend you stay indoors and fill this up…

You’d never have known that there were any concerns about growing Union power over the Labour Party from this Today interview last Saturday in which we had Labour man Jim Naughtie interviewing (08:10)  (unfortunately now timed out) Ian Davidson, Labour MP for Glasgow south-west and the former Labour lord chancellor, Lord Falconer to discuss the proposals….so three Labourites in a BBC studio…any possibility they might come up with the truth?

No….You’d have had no idea that the Unions might come out as the dominant group…we were told the concerns are that the Party becomes too centralised…marginalising other groups like the Unions…..no inkling  that that centralisation favours the Unions….and blocks out those inconvenient MPs who voted against Ed Miliband.

No questions from Naughtie that might indicate the Unions will in fact benefit….you come away thinking the opposite….the new rules will marginalise and minimise the role of Trade Unions….‘That’s the intent of these changes…breaking the link with the Unions’.…Lord Falconer telling us that it will increase the power of the individual voter….not a small group of Union leaders…..

All rubbish…even the BBC itself admits that there are huge concerns about a Union power grab (and Miliband’s intent is in fact to tighten links to the Unions):

Some senior Labour party figures are worried a move aimed at diminishing the unions’ influence could end up handing them even more power.

Just for your information here’s a closer look at what the reforms might mean……

Here are the voting splits in final round of the Labour Party leadership election 2010:

Section 1 is the MPs, section 2 is LP members, section 3 the Unions….

As you can see 262 MPs get the same percentage vote (33.33%)  as 199,671 union members who voted.

This is to change under Miliband’s reforms….the MPs will still select which candidates go on to the short list for leader but lose their block vote in the actual election.

Also…only union members who will have actively chosen to be affiliated with Labour through their union can vote and only their affiliation fees will be forwarded to Labour.

At present there are 15 unions affiliated to Labour (not the NUT surprisingly…though allegedly most Labour membership is made up of teachers)…in total there are 6.5 million Trade Union members…

but …

Together, the 15 affiliated trade unions bring the voices of almost 3 million union members to the heart of the Labour Party.

So 2.7 million are actually paying into the general political fund……but at present they are automatically affiliated with Labour and fees for that affiliation (£3 each) finds its way into Labour coffers….£8 million/year.

If under the reformed rules say 33% (as with Unison)  decide to opt-in and affiliate personally that’s still 900,000….and if 50% can be persuaded to vote as the Union directs that’s a potential 450,000 votes…up against 190,000 votes of the Labour Party members who of course won’t vote all for one candidate….as shown above Ed Miliband actually got fewer votes in the members vote but was levered into place by the unions….who will become even more powerful now.

Even on the figures from the 2010 election you can see 200,000 union members actually bothered to vote as against 123,000 LP members….so already they out vote the members on a one man one vote system….and that’s only 7.5% (of 2.7 million affiliated now).

So are the Unions losing power or gaining it?

The Unions have the potential to absolutely control the Labour leadership election result.

It should be noted that Labour, as an Opposition party gets ‘short Money’ from public funds to help pay running costs…this amounts to around £8m per year.

Many people suggest that Labour will suffer financially from changing the rules whereby anyone not opting out of the Union’s scheme have a portion of their fees paid into the political fund and to Labour….now they have to actively opt-in to pay Labour.

However…Labour could just raise its affiliation fees….and the Union member wouldn’t actually notice.

For example…Unite has 1.1 million members paying into its political fund (of 1.4 members in total)…..they pay in total around £155 million a year in union subs…..and of that £3.5 million in 2012 went in affiliation fees to Labour….or £3 per person paying into the general political fund and automatically being affiliated to Labour. (Bare in mind full membership of Labour Party costs £45/year)

It has been suggested that maybe only 10% of those paying into the political fund will agree to some of that being siphoned off to support Labour once Miliband’s reforms kick in…if ever…there is a 5 year time schedule…and will Labour want to enforce this change just before the next election?

However Unison already adopts the ‘opt-in’ scheme…in its own unique way and:

Approximately a third of Unison members who pay into our political fund are in the APF.

So not 10% but 33% pay into the Labour affiliation fund at Unison.

You might say 33% at Unite would still a big drop….it will only raise around £1.2 million…..but Labour could raise its affiliation fees…and the member wouldn’t pay any more in total…he pays around £150 a year into the Union general fund….and of that only £3 goes at present into the affiliation fees….so treble the fees to £9 and Labour would still get its money…but no one pays any extra in total….the general political fund shrinks a bit but…….

Another wrinkle is that although the general Political Fund is separate from the Labour Party affiliation fund in reality the political fund is used to indirectly support Labour as the Union uses it to campaign on issues that are in effect Labour policies….

As a Unite insider tells us:

In reality, the vast majority of UNITE’s spending from the political fund currently goes to support the Labour Party.

Labour’s Electoral College system by which they elect their leader, 1/3 of the vote for MPs, 1/3 to LP members, 1/3 to the Unions, is to go…and the system will be one man one vote.

This is the system now within the union sector of that system…there is no union ‘block vote’ as such….candidates relied upon the Union which backed them to persuade their members to vote for the chosen one.

Does the Union actually have any influence you might ask?

Yes they do.

It’s proven by these figures….GMB, Unison and Unite backed and campaigned for Ed Miliband, USDAW backed David Miliband.

The results show clearly that union members voted mainly in favour of the Union’s favoured candidate….USDAW members voted in bulk for David Miliband…which went against the trend.

They show that any candidate might expect around 50% of any union’s vote that backs him….and here shows that Ed Miliband often received more than double the votes his brother and nearest rival received, the rest shared between other candidates. (What is scary is just how many votes Diane Abbott received!)

So the Union’s decision on which candidate to back certainly influences its members…therefore the Unions will not only retain their influence over the leadership election but have it enhanced.

The Union Barons will be up against Labour Party members…or at least those that oppose the Union’s chosen candidate.

Your next question might be….what if I want to have the Union send money to the Conservatives and not Labour?

Unfortunately the Unions have close ties to Labour, for example Unite:

The union’s political committees are closely tied to Labour and closed to the vast majority of UNITE members.  A small percentage of UNITE members are in the Labour Party, but not even all of these are eligible to take part in UNITE’s political conferences and committees – Rule 22.5 puts extra hurdles in the way.  Only Labour Party members who are delegated from other UNITE committees or who are delegates to Constituency Labour Parties can take part.  The effect is often to make these committees more like the voices of Labour in the union, rather than the voice of the union in the Labour Party.

Unite will tell you that voting to have a political fund is vital…whatever party you support…

A YES vote to a Political fund is not a vote
for Labour – it is a vote for a voice
You don’t need to be a Labour supporter to recognise
that over the last century, Labour and the unions have
provided a political balance to the Conservative Party
and the rampant interest of big business. 90 percent of
the current funding of the Tory party comes from big
business. 23 of the current cabinet are millionaires.

but of course that is rubbish…as Unite supports only one party…Labour:

With the formation of Unite, our members also approved our own Rule Book, setting out the clear political objectives of our union, which are that we are affiliated to the Labour Party, the party found by working people for working people

From Unite’s rule book:  Their aims….

2.1.5 To further political objectives including by affiliation to the Labour Party….[which are] public ownership of important areas of economic activity and services, including health, education, water, post, rail and local passenger transport

Everything is controlled by Unite’s Executive Council….which is controlled by Labour Party members essentially….many key, influential positions must be occupied by a Labour Party member.

So many of the Unions are almost irrevocably tied to Labour and any political fund will go to furthering Labour’s objectives.

So the Union’s voting power is almost certainly increased dramatically by Miliband’s reforms….and the Unions are irrevocably tied to the Labour Party.

So the question might be will Miliband’s reforms work?

The reforms were supposed to be a response to the now proven allegations of vote rigging in Falkirk….to stop abuses of the electoral system and to demonstrate that Miliband wasn’t just a Union puppet, bought and paid for.

The reforms as seen above completely fail to rein in the Unions, doing the opposite in fact…and Labour will probably not lose any funding….at worst any shortfall being made up by use of the Union’s general political funds to campaign on Labour issues….far from remedying the issues raised by Falkirk they exacerbate them….encouraging even more Union ‘persuasion’ and dubious methods of gathering support.

The reality is that the reforms are a also ploy designed to recruit more people to Labour…making loose connections at first that they hope will lead to full membership of the Party.

Unite for instance has its own ploy…by allowing students and the unemployed to join the Union…. starting them off on a path that leads to more influence and connections to Labour.

3.3 There shall be a further category of membership open to students and others not in employment who wish to play a part in the work of the union in the wider community.

This is from the Collins report that lays out Labour’s reforms:

So you can see that these reforms are intended to create a stepping stone, a path for recruitment of supporters who hopefully will turn into full members.

One other aspect is Party funding…the potential is that Labour might not lose any money…but its plan also undercuts the Tories funding.

Miliband is proposing a cap of £5,000 on individual donations……as the Tories get millions from individuals that would have a serious effect upon the Tories…whilst Labour can freely continue to get funding from the Unions…not as a single large Union donation but as a collection of individual donations gifted by people who individually opt-in to affiliation.

The reforms are not about Miliband ‘standing tall‘, as the BBC claim, in opposing the Unions it’s in fact the complete opposite….still doing the Union’s bidding and forging even closer ties to them than at present.

And last summer, after the disaster that kept giving that was Falkirk – when Unite was accused of attempting to rig the process to select a Labour candidate in the by-election – Ed Miliband stood tall and declared it was time for change.

Yes change alright…..bit like the Russian Revolution was a ‘change’.

Two think tanks, Policy Exchange and Civitas, have criticised Ofsted…..apparently that is not allowed.

The boss of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw, said he was ‘spitting blood’ about the ‘attacks’…he claims the ‘attack dogs’ were set on him by Michael Gove.

Apparently Sir Michael Wilshaw believes he is above criticism.

The BBC seems to agree…at least when it is from ‘Right leaning’ think tanks…or ‘rightwing’ think tanks as they described them on Today this morning.

They are happy to repeat the very political choice of words used…using ‘attack’ in the headline instead of ‘criticism’…which gives the impression of a determined attempt to undermine Ofsted and to destroy it.

Sir Michael Wilshaw ‘spitting blood’ over Ofsted attack

Wilshaw is the one doing the ‘attacking’ with intemperate language and ill-judged refusal to accept criticism….all seemingly backed up by the BBC.

The categorisation of the criticism as ‘rightwing’ clearly demonstrates the intent to discredit the source and label the criticism as purely ideological rather based on any substance.

However…..from the ‘leftwing’ Demos:

The BBC were quick to follow Miliband’s lead and challenge the Tories on their supposed lack of women in government…as opposed to Miliband’s  abundance of the female of the species on his front bench….most of whom shouldn’t actually have been there…merely shipped in ‘decoration’ for a photo opportunity….a bit of Politicians’ Page three…..not cheap exploitation of women by Labour there then!

Political point scoring aside…does it do Miliband any good?  The BBC aren’t too keen to check that out despite their proclivity for polls on everything.

Here’s one that must make uncomfortable reading for those at the BBC who continue to tell us that Miliband is making the political running with his populist, opportunist empty promises…..

Even Nigel Farage is usually ahead of Miliband.

About time the BBC started to recognise and admit that Miliband is Kinnock MkII….a windbag with lots of headline catching promises but no substance.

Just think..if Miliband is doing this badly now just how badly would he do if the BBC were to tell the truth about him…that he ran scared from the unions, that far from reining in the Unions’ power he has enhanced it, that he knew all along about Unite’s little vote rigging charade, that Assad sits safely in control in Syria happily bombing schoolchildren because Miliband cowardly ducked the decision to threaten force to bring him to the negotiating table…he was brave to stab his brother in the back in the corridors of Westminster but when it really counted and lives were at stake he dodged the decision.

Miliband is a coward, a charlatan and a liar.

Good job the BBC has his back.

Ever get the impression that if Miliband crapped himself in the studio someone from BBC props would rush out and paint it gold?