Government minister sets up CROWDFUNDER for Storm Bert - because clearly Labour isn't doing enough

Government minister sets up CROWDFUNDER for Storm Bert – because clearly Labour isn’t doing enough

Labour Party minister Chris Bryant took to Sky News to beg people who are still worse off than before the financial crash for donations in response to Storm Bert flooding. And in a social media post, he urged people to “give generously”. In one of the richest countries in the world, government ministers are setting up GoFundMe pages rather than actually providing disaster relief.

Climate change, flooding, and Storm Bert

Again, the super rich are off the hook – not just in terms of Storm Bert. Looming climate catastrophe makes flooding more likely. That’s because warmer air can hold more water vapour leading to heavier rainfall, while rising sea levels threaten coastal cities and towns.

A 2C rise in global temperatures would mean the number of UK people significantly at risk of flooding increasing by 61% as of 2050. And the super rich and fossil fuel giants are making obscene profits out of the climate crisis.

Through the world’s richest billionaires’ average investments and luxury lifestyle, people like Elon Musk produce more carbon in an hour and a half than an everyday person does in their entire life time. Meanwhile, dirty energy giant Shell reported profits of £22.4bn in 2023.

So, why are they not paying for the clean up after Storm Bert?

Flood defences are a no-brainer

The Conservative government’s lack of funding for flood defences also worsened consequences for Storm Bert. More than 500 homes and businesses flooded across England and Wales.

Last year, the government reduced the number of properties that will be protected from floods as of 2027 by 40%. And that is the government failing on its own goalposts. One in six homes in England are at risk of flooding. And the government has not maintained one in 15 of those already protected, with the defences rated ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. That’s more than 4,000 vital defences.

All this shows the UK was not ready for Storm Bert.

It’s unclear if Labour is making up for the Tories’ shortfall. The governing party has allocated £2.4bn for flood defences over the next two years. But environment secretary Steve Reed hasn’t clarified whether that comes from the existing budget the Conservatives already pledged. At the same time, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced cuts of 2% for every department in the budget for 2025, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Flood defences are a clear example of worthwhile government investment. The return on investment (ROI) for flood defence spending means the government can save up to £13 for every £1 spent through avoided damage. And in all scenarios analysed the economic benefits far outweighed the costs.

GoFundMe says the government

Yet a government minister’s response to Storm Bert is so far a GoFundMe. And let’s not forget that at the height of the storm, Keir Starmer was sat in the director’s box at the Emirates Stadium watching Arsenal.

Labour’s managing of the disaster is nearly as wild as the climate crisis-induced Storm Bert itself.

Featured image via Saul Staniforth – X and Channel 4 News – YouTube

Tags: climate crisis Labour Party

Comments 3

Jonathan Anderson says:

2 years ago

There is a lot of news about taxes. Arguments over who should pay what? But, anyone who avoids tax, through whatever scheme, should be denied access to tax payer funded services. Those who evade it should be imprisoned
Or, give those on PAYE the opportunity to avoid tax by introducing avoidance schemes

Gregg says:

2 years ago

Wonder how long it will be before Britons will have to resort to GoFundMe to raise money for their or loved ones’ operations or medical treatments. Like so many Americans have been forced to do.

David Willetts says:

2 years ago

It’s important to be careful with ROI arguments, for savings, as in this article £13 saved for each £1 spent, because microeconomics and macroeconomics are different. If I can save £13 by spending £1, that makes sense, however, macroeconomically it’s a problem for those people who won’t be getting that £13. If govt spends less, then the economy will shrink, since govt “savings” mean less income for people in the population, so if govt “saves” 25% of its spending through “efficiency” savings the economy will be at last £300billion smaller (about 12.5%), with obvious catastrophic knock-on consequences. And the private sector cannot make up that shortfall, because it’s only govts that can make money, and the private sector shits its pants over far less than govt spending cuts, and the private sector only survives because people spend their money in it, and govt spending cuts mean less money for people to spend, which is also incidentally why Rachel Reeves is utterly clueless, apart from the fact that she’s deliberately destroying the public sector for the many, whilst simultaneously propping up the increasingly useless private sector. It’s much better to argue the moral/ethical point and, instead of “saving” money, argue that it frees up money to be spent on other things. The last thing the vast majority need is govt spending less, we need a govt spending (much) more and taxing to a much greater extent larger incomes and wealth progressively to control inflationary pressure (I e. the psychopathic greed of the already wealthy). Govts spend money into existence, but it’s pointless and cruel not to spend it on flood defences which would ultimately prevent all the hassle of the repairs needed by not doing so, and there’s much better things to do than create remedial work through inaction. Ultimately, money is a proxy for the allocation of resources (people’s efforts and physical things), govts don’t need to “save” money because they create it at will (literally every time they spend), but those resources need directing well, and money can be used to do that, but isn’t at the moment. At the moment all govts are directing more resources to those with the most, and less to everyone else. There are limits to resources, but not to money, that’s just a convenient lie. So, if there are thousands of people spending all week toiling for the Windsors, for instance, they can’t spend that time supporting each other, and the other resources used, can’t be used for something worthwhile instead as they’ll have, literally in most cases, gone up in smoke. That’s also the argument against SUVs – all the time, effort, materials and energy consumed by them/their owners could be far-better used to support people in their lives, but nothing seems to capture our ideas of wealth quite like stuff.