the snap general election thread

Moby

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

I agree everyone should be allowed to debate.

I am interested if anyone has found out yet why this very old block had no fire upgrade during the very many years of the last Labour government.

That is not politically intended comment, but asking what really changed since then - aside more fires in tower blocks.

The safety of the cladding certainly needs questioning. But it has been used far more globally and widely than just tower blocks for the poor.

If you go back a few pages I posted the link from the Lakanal House fire. The point is the recommendations were not followed because this Government had another agenda - Austerity - which compromised and undermined public safety as the first consideration in all such cases. Also if you are prepared to look Labour politicians have a far better record on health and safety campaigning than the present Government.
http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/corbyn-tried-pass-law-make-homes-safe-last-year-conservatives-rejected/14/06/

According to Parliament’s register of interests, 72 of the MPs who voted against the amendment were themselves landlords who derive an income from a property.

The amendment will surely now be scrutinised after a London fire in the 27-storey residential Grenfell Tower in North Kensington claimed a number of lives and resulted in multiple casualties.

Residents had previously complained that only a catastrophic event would expose the ineptitude and incompetence of the landlord and “bring an end to the dangerous living conditions and neglect of health and safety legislation that they inflict upon their tenants and leaseholders”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/28/lakanal-house-fire-deaths-prevented

hallmark

chucknorris wrote: »

But calling May a murderer (as some protesters have been shouting), stating the Gov is covering up the number of deaths, demanding an enquiry into Grenfell (when one has already been announced) and demanding the number of dead should be immediately stated (when they don't even know how many have died yet) is not only absolutely ridiculous, but it also shouldn't be done for political advantage.

Yes, it's surprising & depressing that it isn't being called out for what it is & stamped down on.

It's hard to think of too many other countries that would allow their democratically elected leader that treatment.

In today's world it takes no leap of imagination whatsoever to envisage a situation where the hatred being whipped up by these Corbyn supporters holding up huge banners saying "Blood on her hands" etc could lead to some lunatic trying or succeeding to assassinate her. Allowing extremists to organize angry hate-filled mobs is an exceptionally foolish thing to do.

kabayiri

chucknorris wrote: »

...
My view is that a massive error has been made regarding the use of this particular type of cladding in tower blocks, apparently it is already banned on such buildings in both the States and Germany. Something should be, and I've little doubt that it will be done about this.
....

There are clearly many errors. But some, are more pivotal than others.

This is where I despise politics, because some errors can be blown out of all proportion for political gain.

Take the cladding. They have run lab tests on the stuff used. It can be used, but you need the fire breakers to work, to contain the fire within certain panels.

I'm guessing here, but I'd want fire breakers in as many places as possible if I were a resident.

Containment == buying time == efficient fire fighting response == saving lives.

There were also suggestions of fire prevention material being removed during the refit. These need to be investigated.

One guy who used to work on refits in the area said that the newer firms now used cheap multi-skilled labour, and it needed experience when dealing with things like safety procedures. I can see how cutting corners could speed up refit work.

Rather than blame people, we need honest answers as to what the current failings are. They spent £2.6m on the recladding exercise. Surely, that should have been enough for a safe installation?

hallmark

Moby wrote: »

If you go back a few pages I posted the link from the Lakanal House fire. The point is the recommendations were not followed because this Government had another agenda - Austerity - which compromised and undermined public safety as the first consideration in all such cases. Also if you are prepared to look Labour politicians have a far better record on health and safety campaigning than the present Government.
http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/corbyn-tried-pass-law-make-homes-safe-last-year-conservatives-rejected/14/06/




https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/28/lakanal-house-fire-deaths-prevented

You appear to have completely ignored the question which was

"I am interested if anyone has found out yet why this very old block had no fire upgrade during the very many years of the last Labour government. "

Instead you chose to simply post yet another article trying to blame the Tories.

Labour had 13 years in power & their treatment of tower blocks was no different than later Governments. This nonstop attempt to pretend that fire risk is some new thing caused by "austerity since 2010" is repulsive.

kabayiri

hallmark wrote: »

...
It's hard to think of too many other countries that would allow their democratically elected leader that treatment.
...

I reckon that if this had occurred in New York, all the focus would be on the Mayor's department.

We have had high profile Mayors in London for a few years now. Mr Khan needs to state either he has the power to influence change in his jurisdiction, or admit he is limited.

He has a very wealthy city, and things like this are very bad PR for the investors he needs to retain.

kabayiri

hallmark wrote: »

...
Labour had 13 years in power & their treatment of tower blocks was no different than later Governments. This nonstop attempt to pretend that fire risk is some new thing caused by "austerity since 2010" is repulsive.

This place had a multi million pound refit just last year. In a complete austerity environment that wouldn't have happened!

I'm not sure what the critics are saying. Are they claiming that if £20m were spent instead of £10m, that the proportion spent on the cladding would have been increased?

I'd imagine instead the residents would demand better refurbs and facilities and all the visible things you see.

Moby

hallmark wrote: »

You appear to have completely ignored the question which was

"I am interested if anyone has found out yet why this very old block had no fire upgrade during the very many years of the last Labour government. "

Instead you chose to simply post yet another article trying to blame the Tories.

Labour had 13 years in power & their treatment of tower blocks was no different than later Governments. This nonstop attempt to pretend that fire risk is some new thing caused by "austerity since 2010" is repulsive.

I think you chose to ignore what I actually said in my answer. Also just for your benefit your opinion of my views is not something I take a great deal of notice of;)

hallmark

Moby wrote: »

I think you chose to ignore what I actually said in my answer. Also just for your benefit your opinion of my views is not something I take a great deal of notice of;)

And again you ignore the question.

Awfully inconvenient when people ask you questions that you can't answer without making your entire argument look preposterous isn't it?

Moby

hallmark wrote: »

And again you ignore the question.

Awfully inconvenient when people ask you questions that you can't answer without making your entire argument look preposterous isn't it?

Despite what you may believe I am not answerable to you and what you consider to be inconvenient is not my concern.;)

hallmark

Still can't answer the question eh?

You realise it shows up your attacks on the Tories for what they are when you don't? Politically motivated bile & using a tragedy to further a political agenda.