the snap general election thread

masterwilde

The council are therefore accountable.

the procurement/tender page:-

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/business-and-enterprise/procurement-guide/tendering-contracts

economic

chucknorris wrote: »

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).

i think in the ideal scenario it should be made compulsary for each flat to have a workign fire/smoke alarm fitted - and each one fitted to a system that can be monitored. there should also be a 24/7 manager of the building (like a concierge) that would know if there was a potential fire by monitoring the alarm system. if there was a genuine fire, people can be evacuated from the building quicker.

chucknorris

Joe_Horner wrote: »

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subsequently turn out to have unacceptable risk, but continue to be sold by the makers until authorisation is withdrawn.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.

Joe I'm not being funny here, but from your line of argument I can tell that you are neither an architect or a quantity surveyor (QS), and most probably not another discipline of building professional on the client's side. I am a quantity surveyor, and as such, a substantial part of my role is to argue/negotiate with the architect to reduce the specification to save costs. I can tell you emphatically that no architect would reduce the specification to save costs if it endangered lives, and no QS would continue the argument once the architect had pointed out that it was a health and safety issue. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Have you any idea how hard it is to get an architect to change something simple like the service yard gates to a supermarket to save money? There is no way that the architect would compromise their practice by reducing the specification of the insulation, and anyway insulation isn't particularly expensive, the saving would be minimal, there are far better targets to save money than insulation.

chucknorris

economic wrote: »

i think in the ideal scenario it should be made compulsary for each flat to have a workign fire/smoke alarm fitted - and each one fitted to a system that can be monitored. there should also be a 24/7 manager of the building (like a concierge) that would know if there was a potential fire by monitoring the alarm system. if there was a genuine fire, people can be evacuated from the building quicker.

I don't think inside the flats is as important as the means of escape to the common areas, it wouldn't be particularly expensive to install sprinklers to the stairwell though. But as I understand social landlords are not required to fit smoke alarms (inside flats), I would support that being changed, many social housing tenants are poor and may not be able to afford them.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

chucknorris wrote: »

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).

Agreed. This is not trivial and experts in the relevant fields should decide what will best work not the politicians and they should then back that up with costed plans that are deliverable.

But, with I think I read 4000 tower blocks in the UK - if only half of these need a multi-million pound upgrade - that is a manifesto / national budget level commitment.

A winter fuel allowance abolition for the richest 50% of those in receipt would start to fund it as would a removal of the pensions triple lock. Makes you think who/what you consider a priority (not making a political point but identifying change of scale that would be a start...)

chucknorris

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

Agreed. This is not trivial and experts in the relevant fields should decide what will best work not the politicians and they should then back that up with costed plans that are deliverable.

But, with I think I read 4000 tower blocks in the UK - if only half of these need a multi-million pound upgrade - that is a manifesto / national budget level commitment.

A winter fuel allowance abolition for the richest 50% of those in receipt would start to fund it as would a removal of the pensions triple lock. Makes you think who/what you consider a priority.

It will be crazy to give me the winter fuel allowance when I reach that age, I would back it being means tested, but TBH I will take it when i reach that age, because I have paid the taxes and I know most others would take it. Obviously if all agreed not to, I would join them (I donate to charities well above what that is anyway.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

chucknorris wrote: »

It will be crazy to give me the winter fuel allowance when I reach that age, I would back it being means tested, but TBH I will take it when i reach that age, because I have paid the taxes and I know most others would take it. Obviously if all agreed not to, I would join them (I donate to charities well above what that is anyway.

I think this is fair comment and I am not sure I would do any different.

So the answer is you have to remove it as not many will volunteer that ; but if you tell the "better off losers" (that reads wrongly ) precisely what the money will be used for instead - it is less unpopular / gains more support.

kabayiri

chucknorris wrote: »

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).
...

It's carrying out the refit work needed in a building which might have asbestos which makes it difficult.

You'd probably need to evacuate the residents for several weeks to do this.

Office buildings with asbestos cause headaches for anyone trying to refit network/comms/power transmission.

Do we know if there was asbestos, and was it removed?

chucknorris

kabayiri wrote: »

It's carrying out the refit work needed in a building which might have asbestos which makes it difficult.

You'd probably need to evacuate the residents for several weeks to do this.

Office buildings with asbestos cause headaches for anyone trying to refit network/comms/power transmission.

Do we know if there was asbestos, and was it removed?

I get your point, but they could start with new build, and perhaps extend to 'when substantial refurbishment takes place', except where significant risk has been identified.

kabayiri

I feel split on this austerity business, and how it impacts things like safety.

On the one hand, I think we need to try and cut state spend to try and balance the books.

On the other, the typical nature of austerity is that it is often linked with uneven cuts, with people at the bottom being impacted the most.

Take the management company involved in this case. I believe there are 4 officials at the top, each earning £140K+.

You'd think austerity would mean money saving at that level, but it's probably easier for them to let go of cheap H&S officials.