the snap general election thread

steampowered

hallmark wrote: »

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.

No, it is nothing to do with whether people are Labour or Tory or Lib Dem or anything else.

There is strong evidence of serious, systematic failures in relation to this building. A cursory look at any of the news reports will tell you that. It is right that people should be made aware of that and the council held to account.

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.

Nonsense. The fact that people died makes this more of a political issue - not less of a political issue. If there were failings these need to be uncovered and the people responsible held to account. Not kicked into the long grass. Just listen to what the local community are saying.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

steampowered wrote: »

No, it is nothing to do with whether people are Labour or Tory or Lib Dem or anything else.

There is strong evidence of serious, systematic failures in relation to this building. A cursory look at any of the news reports will tell you that. It is right that people should be made aware of that and the council held to account.

Nonsense. The fact that people died makes this more of a political issue - not less of a political issue. If there were failings these need to be uncovered and the people responsible held to account. Not kicked into the long grass. Just listen to what the local community are saying.

So a Public Enquiry seems to be what is needed, right?

Joe_Horner

chucknorris wrote: »

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.

You're quite right I'm not, and I don't take your points as "being funny" in any way - seems to me the point of discussion is to learn from people who have more experience / knowledge in different fields. Otherwise "discussion" descends to mindless name calling faster than you can say "Tories Out!" That's why a certain poster on this thread isn't being dignified by any replies from me no matter how much he tries...

What I would still argue, though, is that when tendering for a project (any project in any field) cost is a necessary consideration - and rightly so. In the case of government (local and national) projects it often seems to become an over-riding factor. That jibes with me personally as a taxpayer because I would prefer the role of my money to be setting the benchmark in good practice rather the benchmark in cheapness.

In the current case, no doubt the specifications of materials used in the refurbishment will be dissected at great lengths over the coming weeks. If it does transpire that acknowledged safer materials could have been specified for a few dollars more - and especially if other rejected bids included those materials - then I would expect serious questions to be asked about the whole culture that these tenders operate in.

My gut feeling is that those concerns will turn out to be correct (at least partially) and that nothing will be done to change "the system" other than maybe patch over the cracks with a few specific regulatory changes such as sprinklers. At which point we'll learn one day that (surprise!) not all sprinklers are created equal but the ones fitted "met the regs".

That, incidentally, is not a party political prediction because all governments have been complicit in the situation as is and I'm not convinced that any future ones will have the stomach - or even, sadly, any real interest - for pursuing the fundamental changes I believe are needed.

Mr_Costcutter

My understanding is that the cost of making safe tower blocks and schools in the UK has been estimated at £1 bn. The same amount as the bribe to the D.U.P.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

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.

This has nothing to do with austerity. More a reflection of our wider culture. Where putting ones self interest first matters more than concern for the wider community.

vivatifosi

kabayiri wrote: »

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

To put that into context I work for a large council, not too far outside of London, employing several thousand. It only has two people earning over £140k.

LHW99

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.

But laws are rarely retrospective in the UK.
In your example, that would be like bringing in the law, and expecting manufacturers to fit extra dashboard padding in all the old models they had ever made, where perhaps it couldn't be safely attached, or it would jam or cover existing controls.

There are updated building regulations for many things, for example if you replace a window in your house, that window has to meet the latest standards. But if other older ones still remain, you don't have to replace those at the same time.

Joe_Horner

LHW99 wrote: »

But laws are rarely retrospective in the UK.
In your example, that would be like bringing in the law, and expecting manufacturers to fit extra dashboard padding in all the old models they had ever made, where perhaps it couldn't be safely attached, or it would jam or cover existing controls.

There are updated building regulations for many things, for example if you replace a window in your house, that window has to meet the latest standards. But if other older ones still remain, you don't have to replace those at the same time.

It wasn't intended to form a perfect corollary, simply an illustrative example of how, left to themselves, industry is liable to put costs / profits ahead of safety - even when safety issues are clearly identified and acknowledged - if they can do so "within the law".

hallmark

Joe_Horner wrote: »

It wasn't intended to form a perfect corollary, simply an illustrative example of how, left to themselves, industry is liable to put costs / profits ahead of safety - even when safety issues are clearly identified and acknowledged - if they can do so "within the law".

Absolute rubbish. I've worked for various companies over the last 30+ years & none of them remotely did that.

Corbyn & his followers would love to paint Corporations as evil but most people who've actually had a job understand this is not the case.

Still, if you just throw a few slurs at "industry" in general there's no chance of you being sued so it's a very very safe thing to do.

Thrugelmir

Joe_Horner wrote: »

left to themselves, industry is liable to put costs / profits ahead of safety - even when safety issues are clearly identified and acknowledged - if they can do so "within the law".

That's human nature. Not "industry". Cutting corners can happen in any walk of life.