Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Steven]

5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

So we need more influence not less?  I agree completely.

To follow your logic we allow them to fund terrorism in order to have more influence. To misquote Pyrrhus "If we have more influence over Saudi Arabia, we shall be utterly bathed in terrorist blood". 

 

The Saudis don't care; we should.

Edited 4 July 2017 by Steven

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

I'd really like to know what our resident Tories think about this.

Its good for the country and makes us strong and stable, then again we are Tories so we don't need to give an excuse.

 

52 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Some months back, I read an apparently credible article stating that, because of the fall in global oil prices, Saudi is set to be in very serious economic trouble within about 5 years.

 

I posted a link on here at the time, I think. 

 

It's good news if Saudi can no longer use OPEC to hold the global economy to ransom, but it could have some very adverse consequences - particularly given strong Saudi links to Islamist terrorism.

Saudi isn't a small oil-rich emirate like some of its neighbours. It is a highly repressive nation with a population of about 33 million, already with a lot of serious inequality and people in poverty - and a devout Sunni Islam nation.

Not a good place to end up as a failed state - and not one where pandering to rulers for short-term economic gain seems a good idea.

I read a article just last week pretty much saying the same, they said 2025 but the general point was the same. I'll be brief as I'm very bust today but on the subject.......

 

Being deadly serious the whole thing is rather worrying, it's clear Saudi Arabia has quite a few countries over a barrel and we appear to be towards the top of that list, the FC in the paper seemed to also have no issue in saying that if a country were to "block all ties" with Saudi they would have absolutely no issue whatsoever with giving up all information on potential terrorist activities and also making it then their business to work against us in the Middle East rather than being a supposed ally.

 

It's so easy to keep shouting to fob them off but the reality is obviously far different, for the immediate future it's almost imperative we keep some sort of influence there as the current crisis with Qatar could have wide ranging implications and only ISIS and Iran would be the winners if the Saudi's and Qatari's can't work together.

 

It looks like another minefield to negotiate in a World that's only going to get more and more unstable, a civil war in Saudi could make the Syrian one look almost inconsequential. It's not beyond reason now to say the alternative to this is more civil war, an eruption in the area and a global oil and gas supply crisis being the result. From what I gather the Saudi demands (along with the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt) are that Qatar curb diplomatic relations with Iran, cut ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and shut down Al Jazeera - we can laugh at them doing this but in reality it wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Qatar now seem to be holding out here almost in the expectation they can gain from the Arab Spring, this is a country that has ties to Hamas, has played host to Iran's RG and has has backed Al-Queda in Syria, to complicate it even further the US main base is in Qatar that they use for their current operation against IS. If this isn't sorted out Qatar will be expelled from the Gulf Council, possibly even the Arab league and that would drive them further into a coalition with Iran, that's the last thing anyone wants.

 

A report from our government is the last of our worries at the minute in terms of problems with Saudi Arabia. Yet again, we need to work out which side is the least best option to side with, it's a nightmare.

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, Steven said:

To follow your logic we allow them to fund terrorism in order to have more influence. To misquote Pyrrhus "If we have more influence over Saudi Arabia, we shall be utterly bathed in terrorist blood". 

 

The Saudis don't care; we should.

Not at all, of course we should be tackling them on this, however I don't believe that doing so publicly is the approach that will work.  Diplomatic channels yes, publishing a report such as this - assuming it confirms what we suspect - no.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

Not at all, of course we should be tackling them on this, however I don't believe that doing so publicly is the approach that will work.  Diplomatic channels yes, publishing a report such as this - assuming it confirms what we suspect - no.

Demanding this report is published is probably the most "First World Problem" in politics at the minute, it's so insignificent in the grand scheme of things given the events of the last couple of weeks.

[Captain...]

9 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I have no idea where you are getting these facts from.  I read that the saving was £300k for taking aluminium vs Zinc, and they both had the same fire resistance rating, although the Zinc was marketed as fire resistant.

Sorry, I misreported what I read, the tender from the original contractor was £11.3m (which I somehow rounded up to £12m). The successful tender was £8.7m from Rydon who are now being investigated.

 

Quote

The public spending squeeze has required local authorities to place price over quality. In the case of Grenfell Tower, Kensington and Chelsea Council rejected an £11.3m bid for the refurbishment from the original contractor, Leadbitter, in 2012 which said it couldn’t meet the council’s target price of £9.7m. Rydon, the successful contractor, offered to do the same work for £8.7m. Rydon’s work rapidly became controversial with tenants and is now the subject of police investigation. So the need to cut costs could be a key factor.

The cost difference of the cladding might only have been £300k but Rydon then found another £2m in savings on the bid from Leadbitter, you have to ask where and why and how are they doing it so much cheaper rather than just see the dollar signs and go with the cheaper option.

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Indeed,  So there are many reasons to keep them on side, not all of which are about oil.

 

6 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

So we need more influence not less?  I agree completely.

 

I don't disagree with that. It certainly wouldn't be good for diplomatic relations between Saudi and the UK or the West generally to break down.

 

I suppose the question is whether we are exerting enough influence or as much influence as we could. Realistically, only experts in Saudi-UK/Western relations will know the answer to that.

But the fact that Saudi citizens are credibly believed to provide ISIS and other terrorist organisations with massive amounts of financial support suggests we need to exert more influence than we are.

 

The wider issue of Saudi potentially becoming economically and politically unstable within a few years (if true) is probably better dealt with through broader multinational/global bodies (UN? IMF? OECD?). I hope that's happening.

[Jon the Hat]

Just now, Captain... said:

Sorry, I misreported what I read, the tender from the original contractor was £11.3m (which I somehow rounded up to £12m). The successful tender was £8.7m from Rydon who are now being investigated.

 

The cost difference of the cladding might only have been £300k but Rydon then found another £2m in savings on the bid from Leadbitter, you have to ask where and why and how are they doing it so much cheaper rather than just see the dollar signs and go with the cheaper option.

Yes indeed.  I am more inclined to blame the lack of accountability between the council and the TMO.  Who actually made the decision and on what basis?

[Buce]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

Its good for the country and makes us strong and stable, then again we are Tories so we don't need to give an excuse.

 

I read a article just last week pretty much saying the same, they said 2025 but the general point was the same. I'll be brief as I'm very bust today but on the subject.......

 

Being deadly serious the whole thing is rather worrying, it's clear Saudi Arabia has quite a few countries over a barrel and we appear to be towards the top of that list, the FC in the paper seemed to also have no issue in saying that if a country were to "block all ties" with Saudi they would have absolutely no issue whatsoever with giving up all information on potential terrorist activities and also making it then their business to work against us in the Middle East rather than being a supposed ally.

 

It's so easy to keep shouting to fob them off but the reality is obviously far different, for the immediate future it's almost imperative we keep some sort of influence there as the current crisis with Qatar could have wide ranging implications and only ISIS and Iran would be the winners if the Saudi's and Qatari's can't work together.

 

It looks like another minefield to negotiate in a World that's only going to get more and more unstable, a civil war in Saudi could make the Syrian one look almost inconsequential. It's not beyond reason now to say the alternative to this is more civil war, an eruption in the area and a global oil and gas supply crisis being the result. From what I gather the Saudi demands (along with the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt) are that Qatar curb diplomatic relations with Iran, cut ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and shut down Al Jazeera - we can laugh at them doing this but in reality it wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Qatar now seem to be holding out here almost in the expectation they can gain from the Arab Spring, this is a country that has ties to Hamas, has played host to Iran's RG and has has backed Al-Queda in Syria, to complicate it even further the US main base is in Qatar that they use for their current operation against IS. If this isn't sorted out Qatar will be expelled from the Gulf Council, possibly even the Arab league and that would drive them further into a coalition with Iran, that's the last thing anyone wants.

 

A report from our government is the last of our worries at the minute in terms of problems with Saudi Arabia. Yet again, we need to work out which side is the least best option to side with, it's a nightmare.

 

Just to complicate things further, Turkey has a mutual defence treaty with Qatar.

[Webbo]

23 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Sorry, I misreported what I read, the tender from the original contractor was £11.3m (which I somehow rounded up to £12m). The successful tender was £8.7m from Rydon who are now being investigated.

 

The cost difference of the cladding might only have been £300k but Rydon then found another £2m in savings on the bid from Leadbitter, you have to ask where and why and how are they doing it so much cheaper rather than just see the dollar signs and go with the cheaper option.

We all know how this works though. If the council had gone with the dearest option for no obvious benefit people would be saying that the tories were giving our money to their rich mates.

 

It's the council's job to spend our money as wisely as possible, we should be glad they were doing their job.

[Carl the Llama]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We all know how this works though. If the council had gone with the dearest option for no obvious benefit people would be saying that the tories were giving our money to their rich mates.

 

It's the council's job to spend our money as wisely as possible, we should be glad they were doing their job.

While I take your initial point that you'd expect people to take a glance at the quoted prices and accuse the govt of lining their mates' wallets, just think on that bit in bold for a second.  Yes wise spending is frequently about getting the lowest price possible but it's also about recognising when to pony up a bit more for a better equivalent product, is that really what's happened here or throughout the country?

[Captain...]

25 minutes ago, Webbo said:

we should be glad they were doing their job.

Really? I don't think anyone is glad about anything in this tragedy.

 

Their job is not to accept the lowest offer whatever the consequences, it is provide what is needed at the best price and not a potential death trap.

 

This is the problem with austerity it is a race to the bottom, the cheapest bid is rarely the best.

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Really? I don't think anyone is glad about anything in this tragedy.

 

Their job is not to accept the lowest offer whatever the consequences, it is provide what is needed at the best price and not a potential death trap.

 

This is the problem with austerity it is a race to the bottom, the cheapest bid is rarely the best.

This tragedy has **** all to do with austerity. The council responsible for that building was sitting on hundreds of millions of spare quids. They weren't poor, they weren't scrimping for spare change, can we please drop the political point scoring bullshit. It's pathetic. 

[katieakita]

34 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We all know how this works though. If the council had gone with the dearest option for no obvious benefit people would be saying that the tories were giving our money to their rich mates.

 

It's the council's job to spend our money as wisely as possible, we should be glad they were doing their job.

Clearly they did not though, neither spent wisely or the jobs being done correctly

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

While I take your initial point that you'd expect people to take a glance at the quoted prices and accuse the govt of lining their mates' wallets, just think on that bit in bold for a second.  Yes wise spending is frequently about getting the lowest price possible but it's also about recognising when to pony up a bit more for a better equivalent product, is that really what's happened here or throughout the country?

That depends if it was passed as safe by whoever did the testing, which I believe it was. It needs investigating how it passed such tests and if it has been changed in manufacturing since these tests.

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Really? I don't think anyone is glad about anything in this tragedy.

 

Their job is not to accept the lowest offer whatever the consequences, it is provide what is needed at the best price and not a potential death trap.

 

This is the problem with austerity it is a race to the bottom, the cheapest bid is rarely the best.

Again, where is the evidence this has been caused by austerity?

 

Cladding started going up in 2007.

[Webbo]

16 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

While I take your initial point that you'd expect people to take a glance at the quoted prices and accuse the govt of lining their mates' wallets, just think on that bit in bold for a second.  Yes wise spending is frequently about getting the lowest price possible but it's also about recognising when to pony up a bit more for a better equivalent product, is that really what's happened here or throughout the country?

But, if what I've read on here and other places is true, both types of cladding had the same fire rating. The councillors would have been relying on the advice of council officers who in turn would have been relying on building regs. We can all be wise after the event but if they had no reason to believe the cladding was dangerous, they weren't wrong to use it.

[Captain...]

12 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

This tragedy has **** all to do with austerity. The council responsible for that building was sitting on hundreds of millions of spare quids. They weren't poor, they weren't scrimping for spare change, can we please drop the political point scoring bullshit. It's pathetic. 

 

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Again, where is the evidence this has been caused by austerity?

 

Cladding started going up in 2007.

The evidence has already been put in this thread, it is not solely down to austerity, as I have said more than once this is a clusterfvck of incompetence going back to Thatcher's days. But one factor was saving money, a more expensive bid was rejected and due diligence on the cheaper bid was clearly not carried out.

 

To blame it solely on austerity is wrong, but so is to ignore it as a factor.

 

Edit: And, as I have said before,  austerity hasn't just meant taking the cheaper bid it has resulted in fewer inspectors and regulators fewer staff to act on the concerns of the residents of Grenfell, the  risks of flammable cladding have been flagged up since 1999, but if there isn't the staff to enforce regulations, inspect buildings and monitor and update regulations then you expose yourself to this sort  of risk.

Edited 4 July 2017 by Captain...

[Innovindil]

Just now, Captain... said:

 

The evidence has already been put in this thread, it is not solely down to austerity, as I have said more than once this is a clusterfvck of incompetence going back to Thatcher's days. But one factor was saving money, a more expensive bid was rejected and due diligence on the cheaper bid was clearly not carried out.

 

To blame it solely on austerity is wrong, but so is to ignore it as a factor.

Saving money is a factor, if I'm given the option between 2 things, I'm told the 2 things both have the same rating and hit the same regulations, I'm obviously going to go with the cheaper one. I'm not going to grab a sample of both and take them down to the lab to test them myself, that isn't what I get paid for is it. 

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Captain... said:

The evidence has already been put in this thread, it is not solely down to austerity, as I have said more than once this is a clusterfvck of incompetence going back to Thatcher's days. But one factor was saving money, a more expensive bid was rejected and due diligence on the cheaper bid was clearly not carried out.

 

To blame it solely on austerity is wrong, but so is to ignore it as a factor.

If they are presented with two options which are both said to be safe and achieve the same objective of course they are going to reject the more expensive bid.

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Captain... said:

 

The evidence has already been put in this thread, it is not solely down to austerity, as I have said more than once this is a clusterfvck of incompetence going back to Thatcher's days. But one factor was saving money, a more expensive bid was rejected and due diligence on the cheaper bid was clearly not carried out.

 

To blame it solely on austerity is wrong, but so is to ignore it as a factor.

Absolute nonsense, Austerity or not, the remit would always be to go with the cheapest quote that meets the requirements. The only way you could blame Austerity, is if the requirements/safety standards were adjusted to save money.

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

But, if what I've read on here and other places is true, both types of cladding had the same fire rating. The councillors would have been relying on the advice of council officers who in turn would have been relying on building regs. We can all be wise after the event but if they had no reason to believe the cladding was dangerous, they weren't wrong to use it.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/30/grenfell-cladding-was-changed-to-cheaper-version-reports-say

It's from the guardian so it's probably Marxist propaganda but this article claims what you've read on here and other places isn't true (links?).  Specifically:

Quote

 

In 2012, Studio E Architects proposed zinc cladding with a mineral-rich “fire-retardant polyethylene core”, a decision approved by residents, according to planning papers.

However, it was replaced in 2014 with cheaper aluminium cladding with a polyethylene core which has since proved combustible in government tests.

A tolerance was set for fire performance on the project and both products were within that range, the Guardian understands, but the aluminium panels were considered more combustible. Both products were certified according to the European fire resistance standard. The aluminium panels received a worse rating in terms of the amount of smoke they would emit.

 

So although the point that they were within rights to use regulation materials stands, the assertion that they didn't use materials they knew to be less effective in order to cut costs doesn't.  Let alone the sneakiness of going against the residents' approval.

 

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Saving money is a factor, if I'm given the option between 2 things, I'm told the 2 things both have the same rating and hit the same regulations, I'm obviously going to go with the cheaper one. I'm not going to grab a sample of both and take them down to the lab to test them myself, that isn't what I get paid for is it. 

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

If they are presented with two options which are both said to be safe and achieve the same objective of course they are going to reject the more expensive bid.

But that's not what's being reported in the article I just linked.

[davieG]

I'd have thought the main price difference was between Aluminium v Zinc as they're reported to have insulation fillings with the same fireproofing characteristics then it comes down to what does the zinc offer that is significantly better than the aluminium?

 

Which seems to me to be choosing between the finish, lifespan and cost.

 

Quote

 

Steel: This is usually supplied hot-dip galvanised (typically with zinc or a zinc-aluminium alloy) to provide a robust finish. It’s available in a huge range of colours and effects, from high-gloss reflective surfaces to pretty much any factory-painted hue.

Steel is probably the most affordable metal cladding in terms of up front costs and offers a good life expectancy of 35+ years, but it’s not quite as durable as the other metals.

Aluminium: Steel’s main rival is an extremely lightweight material, which can help to minimise loads on the building and potentially reduce your outlay on foundations. As aluminium’s surface oxidises it produces a hard, dense protective layer that prevents corrosion, giving this cladding a lifespan of 40 years or more. Coatings can be added to further enhance its natural qualities or to achieve the colour and finish you desire.

Zinc: Boasting a silvery aesthetic when freshly installed, which weathers to an attractive lead-like hue over time if left untreated, zinc is a highly durable surface. It can easily achieve well over 50 years of service thanks to the protective patina it cultivates. As well as its natural greyish hue, it’s also available in a pre-weathered black finish.

Copper: This elegant metal is prized for its ability to develop a self-protecting and virtually maintenance-free verdigris patina that ensures a long lifespan of 100 years or more. If left to age, copper will mellow from bright golden-bronze tones through dark browns to a characteristic blue-green finish. New products include mesh-style claddings with colour-preserving coatings that can create a highly individual look.

http://www.self-build.co.uk/metal-cladding-options-explained

 

 

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/30/grenfell-cladding-was-changed-to-cheaper-version-reports-say

It's from the guardian so it's probably Marxist propaganda but this article claims what you've read on here and other places isn't true (links?).  Specifically:

So although the point that they were within rights to use regulation materials stands, the assertion that they didn't use materials they knew to be less effective in order to cut costs doesn't.  Let alone the sneakiness of going against the residents' approval.

 

But that's not what's being reported in the article I just linked.

Quote

A tolerance was set for fire performance on the project and both products were within that range, the Guardian understands, but the aluminium panels were considered more combustible. Both products were certified according to the European fire resistance standard. The aluminium panels received a worse rating in terms of the amount of smoke they would emit.

So aluminium gives off more smoke but they are both classed the same according to European standards.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, davieG said:

I'd have thought the main price difference was between Aluminium v Zinc as they're reported to have insulation fillings with the same fireproofing characteristics then it comes down to what does the zinc offer that is significantly better than the aluminium?

 

Which seems to me to be choosing between the finish, lifespan and cost.

 

 

I'd appreciate it if you could link those reports because I've just provided a source saying otherwise.

[Captain...]

19 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Saving money is a factor, if I'm given the option between 2 things, I'm told the 2 things both have the same rating and hit the same regulations, I'm obviously going to go with the cheaper one. I'm not going to grab a sample of both and take them down to the lab to test them myself, that isn't what I get paid for is it. 

 

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

If they are presented with two options which are both said to be safe and achieve the same objective of course they are going to reject the more expensive bid.

They may have had the same fire rating (incorrectly it turns out) but one was marketed as fire retardant and one wasn't. That should surely raise some concerns.

 

Also see  my edit. Who inspects and regulates the bodies that award fire ratings?  Who oversees and manages all aspects of fire safety? Who deals with public complaints and concerns about fire safety? These are public services that are having their resources stretched by austerity at the cost of increasing the risk of such tragedies. This article talks of under resourced council building control teams and the impact of competition on fire safety.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2017/jul/01/grenfell-tower-exposed-confusion-who-is-responsible-for-fire-safety

 

I am not saying austerity is solely to blame, but to dismiss it as a factor is naive.

Edited 4 July 2017 by Captain...