the snap general election thread

Moby

Rinoa wrote: »

There aren't enough of them prepared to lose their seat. If there were we wouldn't still be leaving the single market.

There are also a number of Labour Brexiteers who could vote with the govt.

We'll see. The number of tories who backed remain was over 180.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/to-survive-the-tories-must-compromise-with-remainers-and-corbynism/#

Moby

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/18/brexit-europe-eu-golden-decade-merkel-macron

The Franco-German engine is not focusing on Brexit but rather on consolidating the 60-year-old European project through further integration and cooperation. At the heart of this stands an emerging Macron-Merkel deal, intended to act as Europe’s new powerhouse. On 15 May, the French and German leaders met and spoke of a new “roadmap” for the EU. The thinking goes like this: in the next two to three years, as France carries out structural economic reforms to boost its credibility, Germany will step up much-needed European financial solidarity and investment mechanisms, and embrace a new role on foreign policy, security and defence.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

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

Jo - you have either not understood the points being made is simply want to twist it. It is hard to be wholly rational about something so awful. Your anger is therefore at the wrong thing.

No one wants any loss of life.

No one is saying the use of this cladding at all does not need careful and fast review.

No one is saying that the use of the cladding does not have serious consequences in a fire.

No one will hopefully attack findings of a balanced, independent public enquiry unless it fails to be that. The energy will be on future prevention / action.

Point 1 - The decision to use this cladding was likely not made on the basis of price or price alone. If it was - that would seem wrong. We don't really know yet. If the decision was for another reason - the true way forwards needs to understand that and learn from it.

Point 2 - the cost vs benefit of any money spent towards fire prevention or for example drugs used by the NHS should be assessed in the round. And as noted the cost of any measure whether it be seat belts in cars can be assessed against alternate measures to implement those that have the most impact.

We should spend our money to have the greatest impact. That may emerge as sprinklers or as a secondary external hardened for escape or to ensure that rubbish never gets put or builds up in stairwells (see Kings Cross or Bradford fires).

So given we don't ever have a bottomless pit of money (whoever is in power or taking any decisions) we spend what we have on maximum AND adequate prevention. And where a cost is marginal, we think hard about it.

antrobus

GreatApe wrote: »

..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....

For one thing, not every tower block in the UK is 1974 built social housing 'dumping ground' in desperate need of refurbishment. Some of them have been built quite recently, and are a little bit 'upmarket'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158

For another thing, £30 million is SFA in terms of UK public spending.

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

For one thing, not every tower block in the UK is 1974 built social housing 'dumping ground' in desperate need of refurbishment. Some of them have been built quite recently, and are a little bit 'upmarket'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158

For another thing, £30 million is SFA in terms of UK public spending.

This is just another arrogant point by greatApe, the majority of people know you can't mitigate risk completely but it's where you draw the line, as you say £30 million is a small about in terms of public spending.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

ukcarper wrote: »

This is just another arrogant point by greatApe, the majority of people know you can't mitigate risk completely but it's where you draw the line, as you say £30 million is a small about in terms of public spending.

Well I guess that might be a small sum - but if we don't focus that pound from everyone working well - we will be asking for another and another...

You need a coherent overall plan and a total cost - not an incremental cost along the way never knowing when it will stop.

More of an issue is you can't and maybe don't need to spend £6k on every tower block and fix it. They are either already clad OK or they are not clad or they are clad in this stuff so it has to be removed and ...

And that money doesn't fit a sprinter system to a single one...

Seems to me like you need a well-thought through totally costed and funded plan and that the project should rightly compete for funding with say road safety near schools , NHS life-saving drugs / care needs.

Unless anyone has a magic wand - investing to fix "years of neglect" won't be an overnight solution however much money you have.

And all the parties will have to add something to their next manifesto that spells out what they will commit to ongoing! Nothing in the last one's about this, so it is all extra.

Fella

ukcarper wrote: »

This is just another arrogant point by greatApe, the majority of people know you can't mitigate risk completely but it's where you draw the line, as you say £30 million is a small about in terms of public spending.

How is he being arrogant?

You're either failing to understand what Corbyn is doing, or choosing to ignore it. He's simply blaming every tragedy on cuts. Since there will always be tragedies he can do that every time.

People will say "£30 million is nothing" but that's a nonsensical argument because it's not the £30 million, that's just the cost of mitigating that particular threat. If there is terrorism tomorrow Corbyn will say it was because police were cut, or anti-terror funds were cut. If there's a flood he'll say it's because flood defences were cut. If it had been a freezing winter & people in non-clad tower blocks had died of cold he'd have said they should have been clad.

This is his approach. Oppose every cut then blame the Tories for everything bad.

Everyone except his rabid supporters recognize what childish nonsense this is. We have to live within our means. By that I don't mean must live within our means, I mean we WILL have to live within them at some point, either now, or later, even if it was Corbyn who was in charge for the next 100 years.

If we delay it any later the eventual cuts will be far worse than any of the so-called austerity since 2010. There will be more death, more misery, and much much less care.

His politics are the worst sort of class warfare with a healthy dose of nastiness on top. Now we know what he meant by "a new kind of politics".

kabayiri

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:

It's not the price so much.

It's the complete process in which a cheaper material is selected, all the way through to sign off from the fire department.

There could be multiple issues here, ranging from negligence and ignorance, through to greed and skimming off the top of contracts.

The headline figure of £2.6m for the external refit should have been enough for a proper and safe job IMO.

I'd really hope they publish all the specifications and project decisions relating to this work, in time.

Moby

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/18/pain-without-gain-the-truth-about-austerity-conservatives-productivity-prosperity-debt

The pressure on the deficit has only worsened since then. It has become clear to many of May’s advisers and close colleagues that the Tory party might not survive a second election this year without stealing some of Labour’s clothes.

There is the possibility she will sanction scrapping, or dramatically reducing tuition fees, to nullify one of Labour’s most popular pledges.

The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, hinted that the cap on nurses’ pay might be relaxed, while local authority spending may need to increase after the Grenfell Tower fire.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Moby wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/18/pain-without-gain-the-truth-about-austerity-conservatives-productivity-prosperity-debt


The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, hinted that the cap on nurses’ pay might be relaxed, while local authority spending may need to increase after the Grenfell Tower fire.

Any government or business or person with an ounce common sense reevaluates in the face of real world events and public opinion where they they got something wrong.

It is the job of the opposition to challenge and steer the governing agenda with a view to taking over a country in a better state.

I have never understood why it is so outlawed for a government to behave smartly or even take a great idea someone else had and implement it with the blessing of the creator.

The need to properly re-evaluate building regulations and fire safety for tower blocks and act is self-evident as is the independent Public Enquiry to get underneath how this came about at every level.