What many londoner fail to realise is that if everyone paid for things locally, then we would be left paying both for expensive flood defences and teh 2012 olympics all by our selves and the rest of the country would probably better off. The 'I'm alright Jack' attutide doesn't help anyone. Not those who are losing their farms and not us

Lizzi, London,

Kevin, presumably as a Londoner and therefore living in an area at risk of flooding you will be more than happy with the idea that Londoners alone should subsidise the very expensive flood defences that will be required to keep the rising seas at bay.

Nick on the other hand would presumably want all other flod defence funding to be diverted to London on the basis of a purely per capita count of the persons impacted.

If you look at the money Holand has wisely spent on flood defences you can only summaise that as a Nation this is because they have seen the true costs to the nation of losingland and have decided to act collectively.

We should protect our country (all of it) because it s the only one we have. For the short-sighted I would suggest they be careful what they wish for as I suspect we would all be impacted by the forecast 6m rise in sea levels over the next 100 years. Still I don't have to worry I am living on a hill on Cheshire so I'm alright Jack!!

Noah, Knutsford, UK

Farmers will only withdraw when the subsidy gusher is turned off.l If the farmers want to protect farmland, let them pay for it themselves. It's there business; they don't share the profits with me, so they shouldn't expect me to share the costs with them. I am sick and tired of the way that farmers expect all the irregular and off-off costs of farming to be paid for out of the urban population's taxes.

Oliver Chettle, Bedford,

If this farmland is so valuable, can't the farmers pay for flood defences themselves, rather than demanding more subsidies from taxpayers?
The alternative to "managed retreat" is an increased risk of a storm surge flooding central London, which would affect the livelihoods of millions of people rather than a handful of farmers.

Nick, London,

A government with its already limited mind concentrated on a 'war on terror' can hardly be expected to deal with the unpredictable, mighty forces of nature. Please cut Mr Brown & Co. some slack!

Rakibuddin Ahmed, Edgware, Middlesex

Mr Kemmish
That I feel is a very selfish point of view
Why shouldn't the Council Tax payer so London pay for the buildings of the 2012 olympics.
Why was it that theTidal barrier for London was part paid by Tax payers from Bradford or Huddersfield, who will never know the risk of flooding from the sea.
Maybe you have already drank a pint of milk from the farm that is next to go into the sea.
We all live in this island and all expect each other to help for the greater good. In a time where we can see food becoming more expensive and we wish t reduce food miles isn't it more sensible to have the greatest possible ammount of food grown in the UK. Hence we need to defend the farm land.

Derek, Brough, East Yorkshire

Let's give up on the expensive and pointless Kyoto protocol, and its progeny, and spend some of the money on flood defences instead. Even if (as I personally doubt) there is a correlation between sea levels and CO2, spending the money in this way will be greatly more cost-effective, and it doesn't put our East coast at the mercy of India and China.

Stephen Morris, Shrewsbury, UK

We all have to pay taxes and to my mind I'd rather they were spent on our floodline defences than on wars that are unnecessary. I do not feel that I am 'subsidising' anyone it is purely a situation that the government will spend my tax money on what they see fit. Unfortunately I think the government far too often wastes all our taxes on think tanks, consultants and wars. It would be nice to see some investment in our own land for once.

Lucy, Hampshire,

Don't need expensive consultants, or even more expensive government agencies deciding the matter.

People who choose to live in flood-dangered areas should pay for their defence, not the wider community. If they feel it is needed, they can raise the money locally and pay it. As the article says, these are smart people and they know what is needed and what is not. But they do nothing because they wait around to find out if central subsidies will do it instead...."something must be done" - but not by us locals, obviously.

Kevin, London, UK

Sadly this government seems to rejoice in the magnitude of its incompetence, not in the nature of it.

David Williams, Eastnor, England

Out here in East Yorkshire the Holderness coast is being steadily eroded by the North Sea. Except in a few places, in order to protect established towns and villages, absoloutely nothing is being done to prevent this loss of land. Most of the land being lost is good farming land.

We hear a mantra being mutterd from DEFRA about "managed retreat". Just when is this retreat going to be halted and the erosion halted? after another mile of land is lost? When the sea starts lapping against the east side of Beverley,or Kingston upon Hull?

If the bureaucrats in Holland came up with this policy of letting the sea take over their hard won land then they would be taken from their offices and given counselling by teams of psychiatrists.

Davidka. East Yorkshire

W D Toulman , Walkington East Yorkshire, UK

Ian is quite correct in his analysis of where the money has gone.

He might also have added that most rural communities don't vote Labour, so they are obviously unworthy of any taxpayers' money, whether for flood defences, disease prevention, or even compensation for DEFRA's own errors!

Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU

Mr Kemmish...when these coastal people become displaced and otherwise good building or agricultural land is lost to the sea, they''ll all squeeze up elsewhere, making less room for you and the rest of us - AND they'll want new houses - probably built in your back garden.
Defence - whether it's against incoming bombers or tides - is a national thing.....always has been.

Phil, Preston,

We need more space. We should be reclaiming land, not just protecting it, and we should be prepared to pay for it...

Steve, London, UK

I was in Holland last week. Some notes in the press about approaching bad weather. Around the clock nationwide dyke watch (last time was in 1976). All coastal barriers closed for a few hours. Water reached +4 meter above normal in places , but no problems whatever, and no damage worth mentioning.

"Give up on sea defenses"? You must be joking.

Ed Zuiderwijk, Cambridge, UK

The current coastline does not seem so valuable that I, as an inland taxpayer, should subsidise a place where I shall never live. If you believe that throwing money at this is the key, then the most natural approach is to give councils complete responsibility for defences and pay for the defences through Council Tax. That way, the locals, who you say know what they want, will be able to ensure they get what they want.

As for the MRE - one quite direct cause of many of New Orleans' problems is that the river is not allowed to flow through the Atchafalaya basin. The MRE are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

We search the world for [primarily imaginary] enemies, to justify the enormous 'defence' budget. These enemies, who by our actions become very real, operate almost totally in their own countries. Can someone explain to me the cost-effectiveness of our invasion of Iraq? Or our intervention in Afghanistan? Conversely, the enemy which attacks our shores, consuming many square miles of our precious, irreplaceable land annually, is ignored. 'Measures... are not cost effective'! Lately, we have pandered and given favourable consideration to 'reed warblers, ducks and waders'. Not those farmers whose lands they will be enabled to occupy. We suffer an incredible lack of sensible system of priorities. S. Barraclough.

S Barraclough, Huddersfield, W. Yorkshire

What they do not tell you is where DEFRA's budget for flood defenses and maintenance of inland waterways has gone. By squandering over £350 million in bungled EU subsidy payments to farmers, Brown refused to bail them out. Quite rightly so.

Unfortunately, that £350 million was earmarked for... any guesses? Flood defenses and clearing out choked canals and rivers that allow flood water to dissipate more quickly. Round of applause I think is in order don't you?

Ian, London,