the snap general election thread

TrickyTree83

antrobus wrote: »

That's b0ll0x, quite frankly.

The budget for the refursbishment of Grenfel was £10.3m.

The scope of works included the following:

• New heating and hot water
• New double glazed windows
• Thermal cladding of the building
• Smoke/safety and ventilation works
• Improved foyer and door entry
• Associated environmental works
• 9x new hidden homes
• New nursery
• New boxing club
• Landscaping improvements

You can find the report by the director of housing of K&C via this Grauniad report.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/long-builder-chain-for-grenfell-a-safety-and-accountability-issue




Both the Grauniad and the Daily Mail agree on one thing. That the cost of the fire resistant panels was only about £6,250 more than the cheaper kind. That is, to be blunt, a piddling amount of money in a £10.3m refurbishment project. Whoever made that decision, or knew about it, whether it's the council, KCTMO, the project managers, the contractors Rydon or Harley, or whoever, should be f in well prosecuted. Gross negligence manslaughter. You can get life for that.

These Labour types that Blair managed to keep quiet are bloody awful.

Blame who they want rather than who should be to blame. Whatever is politically convenient or expedient to achieve the goal and damn to rational thought and truth.

And "Tory voters" are the devil incarnate according to these people...

Chrysalis

antrobus wrote: »

You have no idea of what you are on about.

The official employment and indeed unemployment figures are based on the Labour Force Survey, it doesn't exclude anybody.



You clearly do not understand that there is a difference between unemployment and claimant count. They are two different things.

And economic inactivity is something else again.



I do hope that this "proper left wing labour" of which you speak has a better understanding of basic economic data than you do. Otherwise we are all going to be in trouble if they ever form a government.:)

You only need to read some of my recent posts to see what my economic knowledge is.

Also knowledge of the unemployment account has absolutely no relevance to what you saying.

Unemployment in london alone is over 5%.

https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/unemployment-rate-region

Fella

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

These Labour types that Blair managed to keep quiet are bloody awful.

Funny you should say that. When I used to look at people like Gordon Brown & his hideous inner clique, I honestly would never have dreamed there were a much worse lot hidden from public view.

Joe_Horner

Rinoa wrote: »

If Phillip Hammond went on national TV and said this stuff was illegal and it wasn't, we'd certainly have known about it by now.

Curious that he's made that statement without anyone so far backing it up with any reference to regulations. Of course, absence of references don't prove they don't exist but blindly repeating it as "must be true cos he said it" is a little naive, n'est pas?

If it were so would you not also have expected at least one of the many fire experts who've been called on, and given, opinions over the past few days to have, kinda, you know, mentioned the small fact of illegal materials rather than just saying it's not the best stuff available?

There is, after all, a fairly huge difference between "not the best choice" and "illegal / contravening regulations"!

Joe_Horner

antrobus wrote: »

That's b0ll0x, quite frankly.

The budget for the refursbishment of Grenfel was £10.3m.

The scope of works included the following:

• New heating and hot water
• New double glazed windows
• Thermal cladding of the building
• Smoke/safety and ventilation works
• Improved foyer and door entry
• Associated environmental works
• 9x new hidden homes
• New nursery
• New boxing club
• Landscaping improvements

You can find the report by the director of housing of K&C via this Grauniad report.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/long-builder-chain-for-grenfell-a-safety-and-accountability-issue

Have already seen the report, as well as several of the associated planning documents thanks, and a recurring theme through them was how much better it'd make the area look.

Call me cynical by all means, but a few new boilers and a bit of better sound proofing provided for the poor people is a small price
to pay if it can be used to justify maintaining local property values.

the funny thing is, I'm not naturally a cynical person - I sometimes even return jobs by post with an invoice and trust people to pay it on the basis they've trusted me with the watch in the first place!

But years of Blair followed by this shower, and matters like the ex leader of our council living in a council house while renting out his own properties ("perfectly legal, don't y'know") have made me a tad less trusting when it comes to government at all levels.

antrobus wrote: »

Both the Grauniad and the Daily Mail agree on one thing. That the cost of the fire resistant panels was only about £6,250 more than the cheaper kind. That is, to be blunt, a piddling amount of money in a £10.3m refurbishment project. Whoever made that decision, or knew about it, whether it's the council, KCTMO, the project managers, the contractors Rydon or Harley, or whoever, should be f in well prosecuted. Gross negligence manslaughter. You can get life for that.

Absolutely agree on that, but would add that if it was a decision further down the line then the council, as the originators, still bear ultimate responsibility.

If I employ someone and they screw up your Rolex then it's my responsibility. No ifs, no buts, no "well, I trusted they knew what they were doing". MY responsibility. It's called accountability and it's part of what you sign up for when you take certain paths in life.

Luckily, AFAIK, no-one ever died from a broken Rolex.

Spidernick

I've just noticed that this thread was started two months ago today, with the following included in the original post:

Mistermeaner wrote: »

A great move by May IMO

Will give the tories the majority they need to crack on with sorting the defecit (sic) and managing Brexit (whether support it or not it needs doing)

If a week is a long time in politics then two months is an absolute age!

Let's all sing along to a Cher classic with Theresa :

Fella

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Have already seen the report, as well as several of the associated planning documents thanks, and a recurring theme through them was how much better it'd make the area look..

It goes without saying they'd want to make the building look better. The residents themselves would have been just as keen for that to be the case. Nobody would want refurbishments that made where they live look worse. This is a total red-herring. I guarantee you that you won't find planning documents for anything that say "this is going to make the area look much worse".

mrginge

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

These Labour types that Blair managed to keep quiet are bloody awful.

Blame who they want rather than who should be to blame. Whatever is politically convenient or expedient to achieve the goal and damn to rational thought and truth.

And "Tory voters" are the devil incarnate according to these people...

The pure unadultered bile stemming from sadiq Khan was a truely horrendous sight today.
It's all because of 'politicians' (but not him of course)
It's all because those politicians have ignored people for years (about seven years at a guess)
He's trying his very best to help but it's either a (Tory) council or a (Tory) national problem.
He even decided to harp on about religious tolerance just to show his man of the people credentials and nail down a few more votes.

Typical point scoring !!!!!!!! from someone who I used to have some respect for.

They all (and that is all parties) talk a good game on wanting less confrontational and more policy led politics. None of them mean it.

Tromking

GreatApe wrote: »

How have they royally shafted you?

Gawd,where do I start?
Thanks to wholesale benchmarking with the private sector, my workplace now mirrors their pitiful standards.
It's become highly stressful and dangerous to my mental and physical health to do my job now and where I used to be able to just about guarantee the safety of those in my charge, I now operate in a highly violent and chaotic environment.
I've had one solitary 1% uplift in my salary since 2010 and am now, thanks to added pension contributions earning approx.£70 a month less than I did in 2007.
As soon as my employer manages to recruit enough saps to join me on a third less wages than I get, I plan to go part time so as to limit my time breathing in the fumes of the psycho-active substances that many of my charges are off their t*ts on most of the time. Just a couple of weeks ago, I witnessed two female colleagues crawling along toward me on the floor, after unwittingly imbibing the aforementioned PS.
I could go on.

Fella

mrginge wrote: »

The pure unadultered bile stemming from sadiq Khan was a truely horrendous sight today.

Typical point scoring !!!!!!!! from someone who I used to have some respect for.

I gather that few Labour MPs are loathed & mistrusted more by other Labour MPs than Sadiq Khan. Highly ambitious & treacherous as a rattlesnake, even compared to other MPs.

He was laying the groundwork for his bid for Labour leadership before the election. The only thing that's changed is the likely timeframe of that bid.