The line between acts of God and government blunders is narrow. Voters do not blame politicians for catastrophes: the foot-and-mouth outbreak in spring 2001; the heatwave in France in summer 2003; Hurricane Katrina in summer 2005; the floods in Humberside and Yorkshire a few weeks ago, and, now, in Warwickshire, Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire. What the public cares about is what follows these events.

Some disasters have been anticipated by meteorologists or been seen as high risk, as in the case of the breaching of the flood defences in New Orleans. Invariably, actions could have been taken that might have averted or reduced the impact of a disaster. But voters are, on the whole, willing to accept the limitations of hindsight.

The crucial question is always: how does the Government respond? That is how politicians are judged, and often found wanting. The heatwave in France contributed to the early death of well over 10,000, mainly elderly, people. The Government of Jean-Pierre Raffarin was widely seen as failing to react in time. His popularity slumped, never to recover.

President Bush made similar errors in response to Hurricane Katrina. He delayed and mishandled his first visit to New Orleans, while federal emergency agencies were woefully incompetent in their response. This failure quickly registered in the polls, with 60 per cent of US voters saying they were unhappy with the Bush Administration’s reaction to Katrina.

In Britain, natural disasters have so far had a limited political impact. The foot-and-mouth outbreak of 2001 exposed big flaws in emergency arrangements. ICM polls then showed that, by a two-to-one margin, voters disapproved of the way in which the Government had handled the crisis. But there was virtually no effect on Labour’s ratings.

Mr Brown was slow to respond to the Hull and Sheffield floods. He did not seem to have adapted fully from his Treasury mindset, offering a meagre-seeming £14 million package. This time, he and Hilary Benn have responded more rapidly.

It is silly to complain about how short a time Mr Brown spent in Gloucester yesterday, and comparing it with what Tony Blair might have done. Prime ministerial visits are largely about showing that they care. There is little, in practice, that anyone can do to halt the floods. The key now is dealing with the results — not just damaged houses but also providing power and drinking water.

Mr Brown was busy announcing or, rather, confirming existing reviews into the floods yesterday. This is better than some of the ill thought-out instant initiatives of the late 1990s. But reviews are no substitute for decisions about flood defences and housing. There are limits to the public’s patience. This is a test not of Mr Brown’s good intentions, but of the Government’s competence.

Times Recommends

• A new kind of western conservatism
• Georgiana is the wrong role model
• Alaska, where cops don't bother you