Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A NEW SURVEY shows there is no appetite among homeowners to help their counterparts in areas at risk of flooding to get insurance.
According to the research, homeowners are “emphatically against” an idea mooted by Minister Phil Hogan to introduce a 1 per cent levy to enable 50,000 houses to get flood cover.
The AA Consumer Panel of 16,500 people met the idea with “widespread cynicism”.
Just 13 per cent of those polled gave their full support to a plan to enhance flood prevention infrastructure along Ireland’s coasts and rivers.
AA Director of Consumer Affairs Conor Faughnan gives the Minister more credit for his idea, calling it a “constructive proposal” to a “real problem”.
“However…People seemed to be supportive of the principle but had little faith that government would use the money appropriately. 87 per cent did not believe that the State would keep a promise to spend the money on flood relief; 76 per cent felt that paying property tax was enough.”
The research indicated that if the proposed tax was used for a no-hods barred access to flood insurance cover for every home – irrespective of claims history or location – then support would be slightly stronger. However, 28 per cent were still completely opposed.
Many participants in the survey expressed frustration at the granting of planning permission by local authorities in these areas.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
If I were the iranian delegation I wouldn’t give an inch until the talks become all inclusive. How is it that Israel, the greatest threat to regional and world peace, has a carte blanche to develop and maintain a nuclear arsenal and Iran can’t even develop a civilian nuclear programme.
because Israel are big allies with the US
i think he knows that aaron,it was more rhetorical !!
Nothing Controversial about their ‘Nuclear’ ambitions, Pakistan have nukes (I’d be far more concerned here but they are (were) a former ally of Uncle Sam and no threat to Israel) India have Nuclear arms, Israel have nuclear arms so why not Iran?
I don’t see how increasing the amount of countries with nuclear arms can be a good thing whatever their motive.
If they want nuclear power all well and good but do we really want a world where this kind of thing is not carefully controlled and policed?
Over 2,000 nuclear bombs have been detonated to date by countries such such as the US, France, UK etc. Why is it that they are allowed to keep their nuclear weapons?They have shown themselves to be irresponsible. Iran has repeatedly said it will not go after nuclear weapons and it has not detonated a single one.
There are persistent reports of late of Pakistan helping Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons. There is no mention of this in the corporate media. Let’s also bear in mind that the US actively helped Pakistan acquire nuclear weapons and turned a blind eye to Pakistan to helping North Korea with its nuclear weapons programme. So there are precedents.
There have been many proposals to date which the US gave repeatedly rejected to have all of the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction but the US has repeatedly stood by Israel.
Let’s have a little objectivity in the reporting.
Well said Horgay. As for increasing the number of nuclear weapons, no one even suggested that. Iran is playing brinkmanship, hoping to get a level playing field, one based on a nuclear free middle esst. Good for them, at least someone in the region is being pragmatic.
As long as the AIPAC is still a strong voice in congress agreement will be very hard to reach.
They know no nuclear nation has ever been invaded by another. Yet the don’t speak about Israeli bombs and the disregard to international treaties and law it consistently shows
It means nothing to me!
Obviously not fans of vltravox.
have your say