Nick Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 6 minutes ago, Webbo said: How did a tower block full of people die because of budget cuts? They died because the council spent £10 million putting cladding and insulation on the outside of their homes. If they hadn't spent that money then this wouldn't have happened. Yes Webbo they were just trying to help them by making their homes look nicer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 Just now, Swan Lesta said: Yes Webbo they were just trying to help them by making their homes look nicer. a) The money was spent, not cut. That's a fact. b)I think it was a European directive on insulation/energy saving. c) Why wouldn't the people want to live in a nicer looking place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 I think some people on here are too intense with their views. It's fine having views and principles but you're extremely unlikely to change any one else's fundamental principles on here so maybe easing off a bit would make the topic enjoyable as well as interesting. Certainly I'm feeling reluctant to even open the topic as the tension is too much. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 Just now, Webbo said: a) The money was spent, not cut. That's a fact. b)I think it was a European directive on insulation/energy saving. c) Why wouldn't the people want to live in a nicer looking place? If you believe some reports it was the wealthier elements of the borough that didn't want to look at an eyesore that insisted the council do something. As for the cuts being responsible, as with most things, the answer is not clear cut. This summarises the factors: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/28/grenfell-tower-fire-was-tory-austerity-to-blame-or-do-problems-date-back-to-blair?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other Where it is responsible is in reducing the number of building inspectors and fire chiefs, the council after agreeing to the cladding accepted the lower bid using this more flammable material. But there are a number of other factors that caused this tragedy going back to Blair and even Thatcher and her crusade on red tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 29 minutes ago, Captain... said: http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce A little late, but just thought I would put this link up that shows the Brexiteers including Farage stating the benefits of the Norway model and staying in the single market. We were fed so much crap in the "debate" and the reality of the situation bears no relation to the Brexit Utopia we were promised. A very youthful looking Nigel Farage I must say Anyway the video you mentioned there has already been completely debunked by Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics, well worth a watch. As he says at the end, how on earth did they think they were going to get away with it? 26 minutes ago, toddybad said: I've come to the conclusion that I'm coming off here for a bit - this thread. I keep getting into wars of words after which neither side have moved an inch. I fundamentally disagree not just with policy but what the tories actually stand for and the far right (not that kind of far right) tories on here have views i find frankly disturbing. I suspect we all realise in reality that a middle ground needs to be reached but none of us appears willing to search for it. I just can't waste any more time trying to explain that budget surplusses are devices used to stop a growing economy overheating rather than a device which can be used to repay debt. Tories on here had probably never mentioned the deficit in their lives until osborne talked about it yet now it's more important than making sure our kids get educations and our hospitals have nurses. I find this politics based on misinterpretation of economics abominable. There is a group of people on here that can watch a tower block full of peoole die because of budget cuts but still think we should cut even further. There is a reason the tory party are known as the nasty party. It's time for change. So still no explanation of the path you would take, what a surprise. I have no idea where to start with this to be honest but as you are taking a break I'll keep it brief. 1 - Cladding starting going up on these buildings in 2007, when we were running a budget surplus, the financial crisis hadnt even hit yet and Labour were in power. 2 - Many on here were talking about deficit and debt after the crash, it was impossible not to. 3 - There is no evidence whatsoever that the Grenfell tower crisis has been caused by cuts and using it to political point score is a bit sick. There is literally nothing you won't try and pin on the Tories is there. It's you who has views that are disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 3 minutes ago, Captain... said: If you believe some reports it was the wealthier elements of the borough that didn't want to look at an eyesore that insisted the council do something. As for the cuts being responsible, as with most things, the answer is not clear cut. This summarises the factors: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/28/grenfell-tower-fire-was-tory-austerity-to-blame-or-do-problems-date-back-to-blair?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other Where it is responsible is in reducing the number of building inspectors and fire chiefs, the council after agreeing to the cladding accepted the lower bid using this more flammable material. But there are a number of other factors that caused this tragedy going back to Blair and even Thatcher and her crusade on red tape. Even if it was the wealthier elements that demanded it, and that sounds like bollox to me, £10 million pounds were spent on the building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: Even if it was the wealthier elements that demanded it, and that sounds like bollox to me, £10 million pounds were spent on the building. £10 million was spent on sub-standard insulation, at a time that the council was running a surplus - they preferred to give Council Tax rebates to the rich half of the borough instead of paying the extra for fireproof materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 4 minutes ago, Buce said: £10 million was spent on sub-standard insulation, at a time that the council was running a surplus - they preferred to give Council Tax rebates to the rich half of the borough instead of paying the extra for fireproof materials. If the cladding/insulation passed building regs then you can't blame people for using it. If the council or the contractors broke the building regs then they are liable for prosecution. Seeing as we don't know the facts yet scatter gun accusations against people just because you don't like them is just gutter politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Buce said: £10 million was spent on sub-standard insulation, at a time that the council was running a surplus - they preferred to give Council Tax rebates to the rich half of the borough instead of paying the extra for fireproof materials. What were the reasons the Labour councils (some of whom were also running a surplus) put it up? Edited 3 July 2017 by MattP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 23 minutes ago, davieG said: I think some people on here are too intense with their views. It's fine having views and principles but you're extremely unlikely to change any one else's fundamental principles on here so maybe easing off a bit would make the topic enjoyable as well as interesting. Certainly I'm feeling reluctant to even open the topic as the tension is too much. Politics should always be robust and passionate. The fact it's getting more and more tense though is probably to do with the current climate, as many have said we are now a very divided society and have vastly different opinions on all sorts of things on how to shape the future of the country, I'd imagine it's only going to get worse as the move away from the center/middle ground increases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 2 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: But money itself and the need for it? Not a priority for a 12 year old is it. It's not a 12 year olds responsibility to feed the family though is it? Also if money doesn't matter when you are poor, why do you lads get all upset when the conservatives reduce benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 9 minutes ago, MattP said: Politics should always be robust and passionate. The fact it's getting more and more tense though is probably to do with the current climate, as many have said we are now a very divided society and have vastly different opinions on all sorts of things on how to shape the future of the country, I'd imagine it's only going to get worse as the move away from the center/middle ground increases. Oh I agree I just don't see the point in being too much that way on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 5 hours ago, Buce said: How much is enough, mate? A modest surplus beyond your bills and necessities I would say, obviously that figure will be different for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 30 minutes ago, MattP said: Anyway the video you mentioned there has already been completely debunked by Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics, well worth a watch. As he says at the end, how on earth did they think they were going to get away with it? Fair enough, I seem to remember the Norway model and the EFTA being very much a part of the leave debate, but that might have been opinion pieces rather than from the politicians. There was a piece from Norwegian and Icelandic economists encouraging us to join them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 23 minutes ago, Webbo said: If the cladding/insulation passed building regs then you can't blame people for using it. If the council or the contractors broke the building regs then they are liable for prosecution. Seeing as we don't know the facts yet scatter gun accusations against people just because you don't like them is just gutter politics. The cladding has been shown to be against regulations, but the proper cladding would have cost £12m so the cheaper option was chosen. I don't know the decision making process and whether they were aware that the cladding used was dangerous, or just saw the bottom line and went with that tender without due diligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 10 minutes ago, Captain... said: The cladding has been shown to be against regulations, but the proper cladding would have cost £12m so the cheaper option was chosen. I don't know the decision making process and whether they were aware that the cladding used was dangerous, or just saw the bottom line and went with that tender without due diligence. It seems we aren't the only country that cuts put the poor and vulnerable at risk. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-city-grenfell-tower-fire-cladding-evacuate-11-storey-building-wuppertal-exterior-insulation-a7810891.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kopfkino Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 41 minutes ago, MattP said: So still no explanation of the path you would take, what a surprise. I have no idea where to start with this to be honest but as you are taking a break I'll keep it brief. 1 - Cladding starting going up on these buildings in 2007, when we were running a budget surplus, the financial crisis hadnt even hit yet and Labour were in power. 2 - Many on here were talking about deficit and debt after the crash, it was impossible not to. 3 - There is no evidence whatsoever that the Grenfell tower crisis has been caused by cuts and using it to political point score is a bit sick. There is literally nothing you won't try and pin on the Tories is there. It's you who has views that are disturbing. I'm not sure why you persist in trying to get any answer. He doesn't actually answer any point you make to him, he just throws a guardian article into the thread, blames the Conservatives for everything but the weather and recites Keynes' General Theory of Money as absolute despite the arguments against the multiplier effect etc. As @leicsmac (I was meaning to reply but I haven't had enough time to do so optimally) has said, econ is not a wholly hard science. I'm all for engaging in debate with differing viewpoints but some people obviously would rather wave a baton around rather than engaging. I notice the leftists have picked up on the fact the cladding was done to appease wealthier neighbours. The same people that think the solution to everything is state intervention are now criticising the intervention of the state and will most likely see the solution as further state intervention. It's the problem with the power of the state, it has to make trade offs between various interest groups to satisfy their office seeking nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 1 minute ago, Strokes said: It seems we aren't the only country that cuts put the poor and vulnerable at risk. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-city-grenfell-tower-fire-cladding-evacuate-11-storey-building-wuppertal-exterior-insulation-a7810891.html Does that make it ok then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katieakita Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 24 minutes ago, MattP said: What were the reasons the Labour councils (some of whom were also running a surplus) put it up? Because like so many they do not get held to account and nobody takes responsibility there will always be someone else to blame. Maybe a big reason Corbyn has done so well is he has tapped into the fact politics has been the same old same old for years and people are fed up and he has come up with ideas that people can relate to. A Corbyn led government will be very, very different to a Blair or Brown one. This week for my sins I will sit with someone and their Tory MP and list failings in the Post Office. Corruption, incompetence you name it they have done it wrong. I will update them on a GLO against the government owned Post Office which if the taxpayer is lucky will only cost them hundreds of millions to remedy. I can quote leading Tory experts on the Post Office who will all condone their shameful conduct yet rather than deal with the Post Office as promised by the last Prime Minster they will sit and wait for a huge class action that will be covered by the tax payer. Something is very wrong when a government refuses to take responsibility for a company they own and happily let them run up millions of pounds in legal fees defending their wrongdoings and it has taken a number of disgruntled Tory MP's to get financial support from their party supporting contacts in the City to underwrite a multi million pound lawsuit against their own government. We might have a loony left but this is equally madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guvnor Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 1 minute ago, Captain... said: The cladding has been shown to be against regulations, but the proper cladding would have cost £12m so the cheaper option was chosen. I don't know the decision making process and whether they were aware that the cladding used was dangerous, or just saw the bottom line and went with that tender without due diligence. I'm not sure of the full facts however my understanding was the initial cladding was going to be a thermal layer sandwiched between two zinc panels, there was a cheaper alternative of approx. £900,000, Aluminium sandwich panels. I am sure I recall them both having a 0 rating with regards fire safety class rating, ratings are from 0-3, 0 being the best rating ie the least flammable, the panels were apparently fitted with a 50mm ventilation cavity. It now looks like the panels used have failed all tests of flammability. I think it is unwise at the moment to be suggesting the council deliberately fitted panels they knew were dangerous, they clearly didn't, the question is surely how did these panels get such a safety rating. To post on here that some FT posters were accepting in anyway of this hideous fire by association as they are in favour of austerity is quite frankly disturbing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 Just now, Buce said: Does that make it ok then? No of course not but politicising it whereby, the tories are bad and labour are good. Which was and is toddybads point, is incorrect as mistakes were made nationwide and now looking like it might be a few on the continent. The mistake almost certainly was the body that deemed this cladding safe for use, and we don't know who that was yet, and I don't doubt that there were conservatives who have made catastrophic errors in this that have contributed. They should be exposed and dealt with in the harshest terms. Do I think this came about because of austerity and that I and others who have voted for it be blamed, absolutely not and it's pretty insulting that is what is being suggested and applauded by normally well rounded people! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, The Guvnor said: To post on here that some FT posters were accepting in anyway of this hideous fire by association as they are in favour of austerity is quite frankly disturbing. 25 minutes ago, Strokes said: Do I think this came about because of austerity and that I and others who have voted for it be blamed, absolutely not and it's pretty insulting that is what is being suggested and applauded by normally well rounded people! I read this yesterday - "The Labour party is now so drunk on pathological righteousness that it feels justified in trying to propel itself into power on the shoulders of the mob, while trampling over the bodies of the Grenfell Tower dead" Some of the posts on last page and an half of this thread habe been the perfect example of some of their supporters being totally drunk on it as well. We're probably a week away from not just politicians, but also Tory voters being blamed for some absurd things. Edited 3 July 2017 by MattP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 17 minutes ago, The Guvnor said: I'm not sure of the full facts however my understanding was the initial cladding was going to be a thermal layer sandwiched between two zinc panels, there was a cheaper alternative of approx. £900,000, Aluminium sandwich panels. I am sure I recall them both having a 0 rating with regards fire safety class rating, ratings are from 0-3, 0 being the best rating ie the least flammable, the panels were apparently fitted with a 50mm ventilation cavity. It now looks like the panels used have failed all tests of flammability. I think it is unwise at the moment to be suggesting the council deliberately fitted panels they knew were dangerous, they clearly didn't, the question is surely how did these panels get such a safety rating. To post on here that some FT posters were accepting in anyway of this hideous fire by association as they are in favour of austerity is quite frankly disturbing. I'm not saying they knew, I'm saying I don't know what they knew, whether they were purely looking at the cost or they were aware it was inferior product and posed a greater risk, maybe they thought it an acceptable risk as it had been used on many other tower blocks and the regulations were thought of more as guidelines. ( As stated in the article I linked to, which also spread the blame across successive governments since Thatcher) To be in favour of austerity doesn't mean you are accepting of this tragic fire and the associated clusterfvck of incompetence stretching back decades, but you have to accept that by continuing with austerity you are putting more lives at risk by making cuts to crucial services, be it short term by reducing the numbers of emergency personnel, regulatory bodies and inspectors or long term by cutting funding to education and making working in the public sector so undesirable that the only people who will go into it are the ones who can't find any work in the private sector. The austerity measures were supposed to be a short term pain to get the deficit under control, that failed so now we are increasing the pressure on the public sector. When £1bn has been sent to NI after the millions spent on an unnecessary election and god knows how much Brexit will cost us short term it just seems fundamentally wrong to continue handicapping the public services, the people on the frontline dealing with terrorist attacks, tradgedies like Grenfell and the day to day job of keeping us safe and alive. There is a time for austerity but it is not now and not the ineffective attempt at austerity we have made over the last 7 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 47 minutes ago, Strokes said: No of course not but politicising it whereby, the tories are bad and labour are good. Which was and is toddybads point, is incorrect as mistakes were made nationwide and now looking like it might be a few on the continent. The mistake almost certainly was the body that deemed this cladding safe for use, and we don't know who that was yet, and I don't doubt that there were conservatives who have made catastrophic errors in this that have contributed. They should be exposed and dealt with in the harshest terms. Do I think this came about because of austerity and that I and others who have voted for it be blamed, absolutely not and it's pretty insulting that is what is being suggested and applauded by normally well rounded people! Yeah, I concede your point. However, unless the scope of the inquiry is widened, these questions will not be answered, and it will continue to smell like a cover up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 3 July 2017 Share Posted 3 July 2017 1 minute ago, Buce said: Yeah, I concede your point. However, unless the scope of the inquiry is widened, these questions will not be answered, and it will continue to smell like a cover up. I agree and I think Corbyn call for a second more wide spreading enquiry to be ran at the same time, would be the right call. We can then look for the how's and the why's separately. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts