the snap general election thread

GreatApe

The public and much of the posters here simply do no appreciate that you can not make life risk free life is risky. You can only mitigate risks and you can only mitigate a finite number of risks given finite resources.

What this often means is you have to put a value on life and mitigate the risks that cost less than that and accept the risks that cost more than that.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

The public and much of the posters here simply do no appreciate that you can not make life risk free life is risky. You can only mitigate risks and you can only mitigate a finite number of risks given finite resources.

What this often means is you have to put a value on life and mitigate the risks that cost less than that and accept the risks that cost more than that.

completely agree. i dont know what is is but i think there is a correlation in doing highly analytical degrees at top unis and thinking how we think.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

completely agree. i dont know what is is but i think there is a correlation in doing highly analytical degrees at top unis and thinking how we think.

its fine for the public to not really understand this but journalists and politicians should take the time to understand it before they make dumb comments. Its sad that they are peddling myths of ultra cheap safety measures being forgone in the name of profits or money savings

Once more as I am sure many dont understand it.
A fire sprinkler system might cost £3,000 for a house
When you see a burnt down house you can not think, oh what fools it would only have cost £3,000 to save a house from a fire! That is incorrect, it takes about 10,000 fire sprinkler systems to save 1 house because over a period of 25 years 9,999 homes do not catch fire only 1 does. Hence to save 1 person using sprinklers does not cost £3,000 it costs £3 million per person saved. (for the avoidance of doubt I am not claiming these figures to be the actual figures for the uk only putting down how it needs to be views and calculated the methods used.)

kinger101

cogito wrote: »

What does that prove? Income tax is only one of many taxes applied by governments. The income tax rate in Estonia nay be only 19.8% but the Estonian government expenditure is more than the UK as a percentage of GDP. In fact the UK government expenditure is in line with most other European countries (or continental cousins as you choose to call it).

It proves you're good at looking at outliers. And the post above your reply shows UK expenditure in terms of GDP is vastly below the EU average.

What really !!!!es me off is the fairly well-off middle classes in London believing a lie that we can get a continental welfare state, rail, hospitals and a nice bun with icing on top just by taxing someone who earns more than them. It's extremely dishonest to not say almost everyone will pay for it.

To add, I personally think we'd be happier as a nation if we adopted this model. But no major political party is offering it. Corbyn isn't a socialist. His approach is simply to burden an unborn generation with even more debt.

kinger101

GreatApe wrote: »

Out shopping Just this minute I overhead a person angrily blame May and Phillip for this. Something along the lines of the Tories said to the councils its their business and wouldn't give the councils money for sprinklers etc etc.

This really is shameful
Even if you are a strong corbyn supporter working up the public like this is dangerous and stupid

I heard similar nonsense in a park today. It's really sad when people are so indoctrinated that they'll instantly try to explain things in terms of party X did this, when in reality, it was most likely a series of poor decisions by middle managers. I'm no fan of May. She's shown little empathy. But I'm more interested in what the outcome will be of any enquiry, and how soon recommendations will be acted upon.

Joe_Horner

Fella wrote: »

If you're going to "carelessly" (strange how you only "carelessly" make the Tories look bad) use expressions then expect it to be picked up on.

Probably best not to complain when that happens.
.

Who's complaining?

I cheerfully put my hand up to handing some of the more trite commentators on here an easy goal and they aimed for that to avoid tackling the real point.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Joe_Horner

GreatApe wrote: »

The public and much of the posters here simply do no appreciate that you can not make life risk free life is risky. You can only mitigate risks and you can only mitigate a finite number of risks given finite resources.

What this often means is you have to put a value on life and mitigate the risks that cost less than that and accept the risks that cost more than that.

Oh, I'm sure we're all well aware that life contains risks, and of cost / benefit calculations where those risks are concerned.

In this case, with at least 30 dead and 58 missing, and the additional cost of about £6000 to have used mineral core insulation, that places the value you speak of at £61.22 each.

Sound about right for council tenants to you? :mad:

GreatApe

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Oh, I'm sure we're all well aware that life contains risks, and of cost / benefit calculations where those risks are concerned.

In this case, with at least 30 dead and 58 missing, and the additional cost of about £6000 to have used mineral core insulation, that places the value you speak of at £61.22 each.

Sound about right for council tenants to you? :mad:

you have just clearly proven exactly my point that you simply do not at all understand this

The cost is not £6,000 to have used mineral core insulation, the cost is to have used mineral core insulation for every flat ever built so as to avoid this one event. So if there are 5,000 high rise buildings in the uk and it costs £6,000 for each one you get a figure of £30 million to have avoided this fire.

Also its extremely ignorant of you at this stage to claim various measures would or would not have prevented this tragedy. Also there will be various factors for instance how many would have survived if the building was evacuated asap rather than residents been told to wait it out in their own flats? There are also other factors like for instance what proportion of the 'blame' should go to the fridge that started the fire? and probably a hundred different factors.

To boil it down to £61.22 to save a life just clearly shows your infantile understanding of the topics we have discussed

Joe_Horner

GreatApe wrote: »

you have just clearly proven exactly my point that you simply do not at all understand this

Not at all.

I understand perfectly but, frankly, I'm a little bit annoyed* about the use of materials, banned from such tower blocks in many other countries for this very reason, being justified on cost grounds. Not to mention the justification of failing to update regulations on the same basis.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

GreatApe

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Not at all.

I understand perfectly but, frankly, I'm a little bit annoyed* about the use of materials, banned from such tower blocks in many other countries for this very reason, being justified on cost grounds. Not to mention the justification of failing to update regulations on the same basis

At this stage it makes no sense that you are annoyed by the materials chosen because you dont know anything for sure (nor do I). It might turn out that it had nothing to do with the 'chosen' material

For instance I dont think its likely that this particular cladding was chosen for its lack of fire resistance or price it might have been to do with its texture or its color or the method used to attach it to the building or its thermal properties or dozens of other variables or maybe this was the only one availible in stock in the quantity needed at the time it was needed. Very few items are chosen because they are the cheapest on a list. Who knows right now so to blame it on someone trying to cut £5k cost in a £10m project is jumping the gun.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)