the snap general election thread

hallmark

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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

And in fact "industry" overrides human nature & imposes standards.

As anybody who's worked for any large company during the last 30 years knows, safety & legal standards are endlessly drummed into employees.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Mr_Costcutter wrote: »

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.

Oh you mean things like:_
> keeping the Triple Lock (which Labour wanted to do) - 0.3Bn
> WASPI - 0.3Bn
> Winter Fuel Allowance retained - a saving McDonnell projected to be 10M pensioners not getting £300

So there you go 1Bn+ in things Labour wanted to do the DUP may have secured for them both.

How is that a bribe not worth having? IN effect, Labour policies implemented by the Tories.

Or they could do all three as planned and save the 1Bn for something else...

Joe_Horner

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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

Agreed, but industry (in general terms as distinct from private individuals) is in a position where cost cutting can have devastating effects, as we've seen this week.

On the matter of sprinklers, the (then) Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis), who also served as the Fire Minister, had this to say in a Westminster Hall debate in 2014:

Since taking ​office in 2010, the coalition Government have been very clear about their policy on sprinklers, but I want to put it on the record again. Sprinklers work. We know that. No one can deny it. The myths around sprinklers have been well explained and debunked here today. They are an effective way of controlling fires and of protecting lives and property. That is why they are required, as hon. Members know, in certain higher-risk premises, under building regulations, and why all guidance that we make available to support compliance with the fire safety order highlights sprinklers as an effective risk-mitigation measure. It is right that it does so.

[...]

In our commitment to be the first Government to reduce regulation, we have introduced the one in, two out rule for regulation, which the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned. I reassure him that I am coming to his point about business rates. Under that rule, when the Government introduce a regulation, we will identify two existing ones to be removed. The Department for Communities and Local Government has gone further and removed an even higher proportion of regulations. In that context, Members will understand why we want to exhaust all non-regulatory options before we introduce any new regulations.

[...]

We believe that it is the responsibility of the fire industry, rather than the Government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation. It is clear that fire sprinklers work, and I am happy that the Government continue to emphasise that; I do not think there is any disagreement about that. Fire sprinkler week is an important part of the education process, which I hope will make industry, businesses and individuals more aware of what is possible.

I appreciate that there are differences of opinion about the costs of sprinkler systems. I spoke to Nick Ross, whose view is that a sprinkler system can be installed in a new-build house for as little as £600, and the industry will be keen to make a similar case to debunk some of the myths about cost. Research held by the Department shows that the cost per house is still in the thousands of pounds. I appreciate the argument that has been made about Wales, although no houses have yet been built under the new regulation. The cost of fitting a fire sprinkler system may affect house building—something we want to encourage—so we must wait to see what impact that regulation has.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-02-06/debates/14020653000002/FireSprinklersWeek


So, he acknowledged that sprinklers work but was reluctant to regulate on a mixture of possible cost grounds and a purely political requirement to maintain the Conservatives "one in, two out" policy on regulation.

Instead he suggested that the fire industry should sell the systems better to property owners and landlords - effectively "letting the market decide".

That's worked well, hasn't it?

GreatApe

It seems cold to say but life only has a finite value

People themselves place little value on their own life and safety, for instance there are low cost things that can be done to lower your own personal risk hell there are things that are cost saving and lower your risks like stopping smoking

Corporations and governments probably often overvalue life and put in place measures which are in excess of cost benefit analysis. So I wouldn't judge too negatively regulators or people having to decide these cost benefit tradeoffs. That is not to say there was not a !!!!up here in this instance there may well have been.

Its a bit like the NHS how much money should be spent to save 1 life year? The answer isn't infinity. Lines have to be drawn on costs vs benefits

hallmark

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Agreed, but industry (in general terms as distinct from private individuals) is in a position where cost cutting can have devastating effects, as we've seen this week.

Nobody knows what we've seen this week, which is why there's a judge-led public enquiry.

Of course you seem to think you're better informed than everybody else. Or maybe you just have an agenda to push.

Pretty disgusting. Maybe try having some respect for the lives that were lost & not openly speculate from your position of ignorance of any facts.

GreatApe

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Agreed, but industry (in general terms as distinct from private individuals) is in a position where cost cutting can have devastating effects, as we've seen this week.

On the matter of sprinklers, the (then) Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis), who also served as the Fire Minister, had this to say in a Westminster Hall debate in 2014:




https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-02-06/debates/14020653000002/FireSprinklersWeek


So, he acknowledged that sprinklers work but was reluctant to regulate on a mixture of possible cost grounds and a purely political requirement to maintain the Conservatives "one in, two out" policy on regulation.

Instead he suggested that the fire industry should sell the systems better to property owners and landlords - effectively "letting the market decide".

That's worked well, hasn't it?

People don't value their lives highly.

How many home owners have sprinkler systems in their own homes?
I don't have them even though in the event of a fire I accept that the chance of dying would be reduced to almost zero. Do you have a sprinkler system in your own home? Why not? Its unfair to beat with a stick 'the free markets' for not doing what you are not willing to do in your own home

Its a cost vs benefit question.
If a sprinkler system is going to cost me £10,000 in my own home and it reduces the chances of me dying or being badly harmed by fire by 1 in 1 million then its simply not worthwhile. It would mean £10 billion to save 1 life. In that instance you are better off spending the £10 billion much more effectively saving many more people using the funds more wisely

Thrugelmir

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That's worked well, hasn't it?

Jumping to conclusions with speculative comments doesn't help anyone.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

We live in a world with scarce resources - we will always have more good and more less worthy causes than e will have funds to pay for them.

Exactly as above - you have to decide cost/benefit and which has the most compelling need.

So I wonder if given the choice to add sprinklers to every tower block and council house or flat
OR
reduce all queues in the NHS by half which we would choose and which would save more lives? And which would cost more?

Of course, to try to choose is understandably tougher where you have relative needing heart surgery or live in a tower block ...or both.

Joe_Horner

GreatApe wrote: »

People don't value their lives highly.

How many home owners have sprinkler systems in their own homes?
I don't have them even though in the event of a fire I accept that the chance of dying would be reduced to almost zero. Do you have a sprinkler system in your own home? Why not? Its unfair to beat with a stick 'the free markets' for not doing what you are not willing to do in your own home

Its a cost vs benefit question.
If a sprinkler system is going to cost me £10,000 in my own home and it reduces the chances of me dying or being badly harmed by fire by 1 in 1 million then its simply not worthwhile. It would mean £10 billion to save 1 life. In that instance you are better off spending the £10 billion much more effectively saving many more people using the funds more wisely

There's an essential diffetence in that you're not making a profit out of living in your own home, whereas a landlord is. If sprinkler systems wre required in rented properties - at least high rise ones where the chance of escape without are severely reduced - then the landlords would still make a profit, just a slightly smaller one, over any reasonable timescale.

GreatApe

Joe_Horner wrote: »

There's an essential diffetence in that you're not making a profit out of living in your own home, whereas a landlord is. If sprinkler systems wre required in rented properties - at least high rise ones where the chance of escape without are severely reduced - then the landlords would still make a profit, just a slightly smaller one, over any reasonable timescale.

Nothing can be made infinitely safe the only question is what number we put on the value of a life.

Once you have that figure you can then go about eliminating risks that cost more than that and accepting risks that cost less than that.

Regarding your point of renting being different, well the costs will be passed onto the tenants and if you are personally unwilling to safeguard your own house and family with a sprinkler system that you personally feel is unjustified taken into account the cost and relatively modest reduction in risk then what right do you have to impose that same cost you are unwilling to bear onto others?

Anyway I hope this event triggers more R&D into fire suppression. Something which is so effective and affordable that even you as a homeowner is willing to buy it.