the snap general election thread

Moby

steampowered wrote: »

No, if there is political comment to be made, it should be made. Otherwise people don't get held to account for their failings which will simply get swept under the rug; and the same thing happens again in a few years time.

Yep.....spot on.....call them out for what they are.....It's not as if Boris has ever learned to keep his mouth shut has he! I wonder in what way austerity has impacted on his lifestyle!

hallmark

steampowered wrote: »

No, if there is political comment to be made, it should be made. Otherwise people don't get held to account for their failings which will simply get swept under the rug; and the same thing happens again in a few years time.

Complete nonsense. These comments will not hold anybody to account. The public enquiry is the only thing that might do that & that's already been announced.

Basically you just think it's OK because you support Labour & these are Labour politicians. They could say or do anything & you'd find a way to justify it.

The rest of us recognize it for what it is. The vilest kind of politicizing of a huge tragedy. Loads of people died. I can't imagine what a piece of sh*t you'd need to be to wake up the next day & work out how you could increase your poll ratings off the back of it.

Time for me to sign off & go out in the fresh air, get the taste out of my mouth.

Sapphire

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is eventually found that builders erecting some of the horrendous new-build blocks (slums of the future) that are increasingly polluting the London environment sidestepped regulations, with deals being made with individuals in councils.

As for the '70s blocks built under labour, replacing housing that could have been updated (like some of it was), and thereby breaking up cohesive communities, they should probably have been demolished decades ago.

In any case, the fire brigade and experts need to first assess what went wrong here, before blame is assigned to builders or anyone else.

Joe_Horner

Seems to me there are two threads of argument being followed by the die-hard tories on here after the tragedy on Wednesday.

First, accusing the Labour leadership of "politicising" the event by simply repeating calls they've made repeatedly before this happened. that's not "politicising" it, that's consistency - something the current government seems to be woefully inadequate at recently.

Using the fact of that consistency in a faux-outrage attempt to smear Labour is, on the other hand, blatant and shameless politicising of the event.

Beyond pointing that out, their first argument really doesn't warrant any further reply.

The second argument is more interesting, because it reaches to the heart of what these people believe.

The claim that cuts and economising had no part to play because the recent works "must have met building regs" is flawed for the simple reason that fire retardant insulation exists in that free market they're so fond of - it has been developed, is marketed (by that free market they like so much), and is used on enough building projects to be commercially successful.

If, as appears likely, flammable insulation contributed to the speed and intensity of this fire, then the decision to use cheaper (though still approved) flammable insulation rather than more expensive (but non-flammable) can only have been made on cost-saving grounds.

The risks of flammable materials are well known, and many projects choose to bear the increased cost of safer alternatives rather than risk something like this happening.

Failing to do so can only be characterised as putting costs ahead of lives, regardless of whether or not it's strictly legal.

hallmark

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Using the fact of that consistency in a faux-outrage attempt to smear Labour is, on the other hand, blatant and shameless politicising of the event.

So very very very VERY glad your lot got a good hiding in the election & are powerless once again.

Corbyn & his scumbag MPs out of power still. His followers with nothing to do but post bile on bulletin boards. Meanwhile he runs around desperately trying to leverage every tragedy in sight into a few more votes. Too little too late though. He lost & he lost large. A new Tory Govt is being shaped as we speak & none of his disgusting antics will change that.

chucknorris

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The claim that cuts and economising had no part to play because the recent works "must have met building regs" is flawed for the simple reason that fire retardant insulation exists in that free market they're so fond of - it has been developed, is marketed (by that free market they like so much), and is used on enough building projects to be commercially successful.

If, as appears likely, flammable insulation contributed to the speed and intensity of this fire, then the decision to use cheaper (though still approved) flammable insulation rather than more expensive (but non-flammable) can only have been made on cost-saving grounds.

According to an 'expert' on tv this morning, this particular insulation is (allegedly) fire retardant, I don't think my argument is flawed, I think what is flawed is the requirements of the building regs by not being stringent enough.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Were sprinklers for every tower block costed in anyone's manifesto?

Wonder if that will change next time?

chucknorris

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

Were sprinklers for every tower block costed in anyone's manifesto?

Wonder if that will change next time?

I think sprinklers should be compulsory in the stairwells of the residential blocks, above a certain number of storeys, it seems crazy to me that this requirement isn't already in place. I hope that they will become compulsory, along with higher spec fire retardant cladding. Although it must be said that the latter was identified in a fire in Wandsworth which cost lives quite a few years ago (it was less than a mile from where I lived).

EDIT: One more thing I would add, I think out of respect for the dead and injured, all posters should try and refrain from trivialising this into a political argument. There is plenty scope elsewhere to do that (I'm not suggesting you are doing this).

masterwilde

right, lets look at this properly. the council flats were put up for improvements, this then went through contracts for tender, and the council issued the scope of the contract that had to be met.

If as it appears the insulation was not fire retardant then its a failure by the council for not stating so in the RFT (request for tender)

below is an direct copy from Kensington council

"There will also be a number of attachments, forming the Invitation to Tender pack:

an invitation to tender and instructions to tenderers: this will provide guidance on completing the tender response and advise when tender bids should be submitted.
the contract specifications: sets out what needs to be achieved including policies, procedures or guidelines to be followed. It sets out all the performance standards and the outcomes expected
the Royal Borough’s conditions of contract: provides definitions of the obligations of both parties and the legal framework
the tender evaluation criteria: advises how the tender bid will be evaluated and the contract awarded
any other relevant supporting information."

Joe_Horner

chucknorris wrote: »

According to an 'expert' on tv this morning, this particular insulation is (allegedly) fire retardant, I don't think my argument is flawed, I think what is flawed is the requirements of the building regs by not being stringent enough.

The problem is, "it met the regs" ignores the fact that the markets obviously accept that some products offer significantly lower protection than others - otherwise there would be no market for the significantly more expensive but "better" alternatives.

"Meeting the regs" has been the justification used in a huge number of tragedies over the years, from almost those detailed in Unsafe at Any Speed to multiple instances of pharmaceutical products that gain authorisation, subsequently turn out to have unacceptable risk, but continue to be sold by the makers until authorisation is withdrawn.

The fact is that the regs provide a minimum standard and are obviously flawed in many cases - in this example, not requiring a fire suppression system in a 24 floor residential building is clearly madness and failing to fit one, whether "legally required" or not, is placing cost ahead of lives in a very obvious and entirely predictable way.

It's like saying "we know that hard. sharp, corners on a dashboard will kill people if they crash but we don't have to fit padding so we won't". That's no longer the case because the regs were (eventually) updated but, before they were, many car makers continued to design and use things that were cheap but lethal.

They knew they were lethal, they knew there were better materials and designs available, but there was nothing forcing them to spend extra on a bit of foam and vinyl, or collapsible steering columns, so many of them didn't - and a lot of people died as a result.


eta:

chucknorris wrote: »

EDIT: One more thing I would add, I think out of respect for the dead and injured, all posters should try and refrain from trivialising this into a political argument. There is plenty scope elsewhere to do that (I'm not suggesting you are doing this).

Agreed, and I'm certainly trying to avoid doing that.

But there is an inevitable political element where certain groups are on record as having raised concerns well in advance and those concerns have been quashed by other groups because those concerns, if acted on, could well have led to the changes in regulation which this tragedy has highlighted as so long overdue.