Spelman's flood insurance is the UK's Obamacare

Just wetter. And less controversial. Much like Britain.

Caroline Spelman is in talks with the insurance industry about mandating coverage of houses damaged through severe flooding.

The Telegraph reports:

Ministers are concerned that some insurance firms are able to "cherry pick" customers in low-risk areas and refuse to offer cover to home owners in flood-prone neighbourhoods.

At the same time, customers in high risk parts of the country cannot "shop around" for cheaper policies because they are tied in to their current providers under the existing agreement.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said most insurance companies already raise "a small sum" from policy holders to cover the cost of insuring homes at high risk of flooding.

Mrs Spelman said she was proposing nothing more than "formalising" the existing "cross-subsidy" and that talks with insurance firms have made "significant progress".

The paper reports this with the headline "Every home to pay price of floods", seemingly missing that this is the point of insurance. Individuals suffering severe losses mitigate the damage by spreading it around society. In most areas, this optional; in some, such as motoring and (in a way) health, it is not.

The real question is whether or not insurance companies should be allowed to refuse to insure those who live in areas prone to flooding.

The free-marketeer point of view is that of course they should. It's a commercial transaction, like any other, and it's not the government's prerogative to force one party to enter in to it if they aren't happy.

But the problem is that large swathes of the UK are prone to serious flooding. And as climate change bites, that's only going to get worse. It doesn't necessarily mean your house is definitely going to go underwater – if that were the case, you really should move – but it may be enough to render many places uninsurable.

And what then? It's all very well telling, say, the entire population of London, Kent and Essex east of the Thames Barrier that they are prone to flooding, but that isn't going to lead to them moving. Or, even worse, it might; Britain would be subject to development pressures like never before if that we the case.

It's almost exactly the same as the major change brought in by Barack Obama in his Affordable Healthcare Act. That requires American health insurers to cover anyone who applies for insurance, without discriminating against pre-existing conditions; the Spelman deal will require British home insurers to cover anyone, without discriminating against pre-existing general floodiness.

We do get off slightly lightly, in that the most controversial part of Obamacare isn't needed here. The individual mandate, which levies a fine on Americans who can afford health insurance but don't buy it, is needed because of the fear that people would wait until they were diagnosed with a long-term condition before buying health insurance. If they did, insurance costs would spiral as insurers would be unable to use the premiums of healthy people to pay for the sick.

Luckily, there isn't really a comparable problem for homes. If your house is underwater, it's probably a bit too late to buy insurance. Although if Spelman's deal leads to people desperately dialing Direct Line as the water flows up their street towards their front porch, that may need to be reconsidered.

The flooded village of Penkridge. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How a small tax rise exposed the SNP's anti-austerity talk for just that

The SNP refuse to use their extra powers to lessen austerity, says Kezia Dugdale.

"We will demand an alternative to slash and burn austerity."

With those few words, Nicola Sturgeon sought to reassure the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland last year that the SNP were a party opposed to public spending cuts. We all remember the general election TV debates, where the First Minister built her celebrity as the leader of the anti-austerity cause.

Last week, though, she was found out. When faced with the choice between using the powers of the Scottish Parliament to invest in the future or imposing cuts to our schools, Nicola Sturgeon chose cuts. Incredible as it sounds the SNP stood shoulder to shoulder with the Tories to vote for hundreds of millions of pounds worth of cuts to schools and other vital public services, rather than asking people to pay a little bit more to invest. That's not the choice of an anti-austerity pin-up. It's a sell-out.

People living outside of Scotland may not be fully aware of the significant shift that has taken place in politics north of the border in the last week. The days of grievance and blaming someone else for decisions made in Scotland appear to be coming to an end.

The SNP's budget is currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament. It will impose hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts to local public services - including our schools. We don't know what cuts the SNP are planning for future years because they are only presenting a one year budget to get them through the election, but we know from the experts that the biggest cuts are likely to come in 2017/18 and 2018/19. For unprotected budgets like education that could mean cuts of 16 per cent.

It doesn't have to be this way, though. The Scottish Parliament has the power to stop these cuts, if only we have the political will to act. Last week I did just that.

I set out a plan, using the new powers we have today, to set a Scottish rate of income tax 1p higher than that set by George Osborne. This would raise an extra half a billion pounds, giving us the chance to stop the cuts to education and other services. Labour would protect education funding in real terms over the next five years in Scotland. Faced with the choice of asking people to pay a little bit more to invest or carrying on with the SNP's cuts, the choice was pretty simple for me - I won't support cuts to our nation’s future prosperity.

Being told by commentators across the political spectrum that my plan is bold should normally set alarm bells ringing. Bold is usually code for saying something unpopular. In reality, it's pretty simple - how can I say I am against cuts but refuse to use the powers we have to stop them?

Experts - including Professors David Bell and David Eiser of the University of Stirling; the Resolution Foundation; and IPPR Scotland - have said our plan is fair because the wealthiest few would pay the most. Trade unions have backed our proposal, because they recognise the damage hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts will do to our schools and the jobs it will cost.

Council leaders have said our plan to pay £100 cashback to low income taxpayers - including pensioners - to ensure they benefit from this plan is workable.

The silliest of all the SNP's objections is that they won't back our plan because the poorest shouldn't have to pay the price of Tory austerity. The idea that imposing hundreds of millions of pounds of spending cuts on our schools and public services won't make the poorest pay is risible. It's not just the poorest who will lose out from cuts to education. Every single family and business in Scotland would benefit from having a world class education system that gives our young the skills they need to make their way in the world.

The next time we hear Nicola Sturgeon talk up her anti-austerity credentials, people should remember how she did nothing when she had the chance to end austerity. Until now it may have been acceptable to say you are opposed to spending cuts but doing nothing to stop them. Those days are rapidly coming to a close. It makes for the most important, and most interesting, election we’ve had in Scotland.

Kezia Dugdale is leader of Scottish Labour.