Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

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

Terrible reading proficiency there Webs.  Combustibility was also mentioned and it only says that they both met the EU fire resistance standard (clearly another facet of the EU that needs looking at but let's not go back to last year's silly season of arbitrarily blaming the EU for our decisions) which just tells us that they both achieved a minimum standard but tells us nothing about how far above that minimum either reached and therefore nothing about how equally fire resistant they are.

Edited 4 July 2017 by Carl the Llama

[davieG]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

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

 

 

I don't keep a track of links it's just what I've read but then there appears to conflicting information on this. I think we should probably all stop debating this until the results of the official review have been published.

 

I think my main problem is people referring to the difference as Aluminium v Zinc when it seems to me the metal used is irrelevant, but we'll see. 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Terrible reading proficiency there Webs.  Combustibility was also mentioned and it only says that they both met the EU fire resistance standard (clearly another facet of the EU that needs looking at but let's not go back to last year's silly season of arbitrarily blaming the EU for our decisions) which just tells us that they both achieved a minimum standard but tells us nothing about how far above that minimum either reached.

The panels were passed as safe, according to European Standards, not tory austerity standards. There was no reason to suspect they were dangerous.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

The panels were passed as safe, according to European Standards.

But apparently there was enough information to know that one option represented more risk than the other, how are you not understanding that?

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

 

 

I don't keep a track of links it's just what I've read but then there appears to conflicting information on this. I think we should probably all stop debating this until the results of the official review have been published.

 

I think my main problem is people referring to the difference as Aluminium v Zinc when it seems to me the metal used is irrelevant, but we'll see. 

There certainly appears to be going off what people have been saying on here but until I see a reputable source claiming that at the time the decision was made both claddings were considered identical options from a fire safety point of view I have to disagree that there actually is conflicting information and not just hearsay.

Edited 4 July 2017 by Carl the Llama

[Webbo]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

But apparently there was enough information to know that one option represented more risk than the other, how are you not understanding that?

When you buy something, anything and it passes safety standards, you assume that those standards are correct. How are you not understanding that?

[Innovindil]

Here I was thinking these regulations were in place to ensure something was fit for purpose. 

[Jon the Hat]

Clearly nonsense to blame austerity when there are 170+ buildings clad in this stuff going back at least a decade.  Stop the politics until we have the facts.

[Captain...]

25 minutes ago, 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.

 

 

Even ignoring the fire safety aspects of it, the fact zinc lasts 10 years longer than aluminium would be reason enough to use that, an extra £300,000 for 10 years extra life span is clearly value for money, lasts 25% longer at 3% additional cost, seems like a bargain to me. 

 

I wonder which factor they had in mind when they went for the cheaper, inferior, less aesthetically pleasing, less durable option?

Edited 4 July 2017 by Captain...

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

When you buy something, anything and it passes safety standards, you assume that those standards are correct. How are you not understanding that?

You do but you also shop around to see if you can get a better quality of product that also meets those standards within your budget, which this other option was. 

 

But to complete your analogy let us also not forget that in this scenario you've decided to put the product that the people you're shopping on behalf of asked for back on the shelf in favour of a product that you have enough information to know is of a lesser quality to what was requested.  Then you go on to be told by those people at length that your decision has put them at risk and you ignore their requests to fix the problem.

[Webbo]

One thing about zinc is, is that it's hard to paint. It's so smooth paint won't stick to it unless you use an etch primer, which is basically an acid, that roughs up the surface, or you wait until it's weathered a few years. I don't know it that's at all relevant but I thought I'd share that knowledge.

[Captain...]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

One thing about zinc is, is that it's hard to paint. It's so smooth paint won't stick to it unless you use an etch primer, which is basically an acid, that roughs up the surface, or you wait until it's weathered a few years. I don't know it that's at all relevant but I thought I'd share that knowledge.

Your best contribution to this debate

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Even ignoring the fire safety aspects of it, the fact zinc lasts 10 years longer than aluminium would be reason enough to use that, an extra £300,000 for 10 years extra life span is clearly value for money, lasts 25% longer at 3% additional cost, seems like a bargain to me. 

 

I wonder what factor they had in mind when they went for the cheaper inferior less durable option?

Maybe they had plans to demolish the building before that time, making unnecessary.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

One thing about zinc is, is that it's hard to paint. It's so smooth paint won't stick to it unless you use an etch primer, which is basically an acid, that roughs up the surface, or you wait until it's weathered a few years. I don't know it that's at all relevant but I thought I'd share that knowledge.

I'd imagine it would come pre powder coated tbh.

[Captain...]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Maybe they had plans to demolish the building before that time, making unnecessary.

I would accept that as justification, but that would look very suspicious if that was true...

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

I'd imagine it would come pre powder coated tbh.

They do that to aluminium, not sure they do with zinc.

 

 

 

 

Also when they say zinc, I assume they're talking about galvanised steel, which would be heavier than aluminium. That might have been a consideration as well.

[Captain...]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

They do that to aluminium, not sure they do with zinc.

 

 

 

 

Also when they say zinc, I assume they're talking about galvanised steel, which would be heavier than aluminium. That might have been a consideration as well.

Seeing as it was already agreed upon to use the zinc cladding, then they switched to aluminium I wouldn't think the weight would have been a factor.

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

They do that to aluminium, not sure they do with zinc.

 

 

 

 

Also when they say zinc, I assume they're talking about galvanised steel, which would be heavier than aluminium. That might have been a consideration as well.

Yeah you can powder coat galv steel, either electrolyte or hot dipped.

[Guest MattP]

Approval ratings of senior Tories from the membership.

 

If it goes to a vote of them for a new leader it's Davis or Davidson, surprised how low Boris has gone.

 

I advised Brokenshire at 100/1 - wouldn't be out of it.

 

Edited 4 July 2017 by MattP

[Sharpe's Fox]

Would of thought Davis would win a contest unless someone comes out of nowhere. Davidson may be relatively popular in Scotland but she is in no way a conservative in any sense down here.

[Bobby Hundreds]

I'd be interested to see who swing voters could stomach as next Tory leader, guessing it wouldn't be any of the top 3 in England.

Edited 4 July 2017 by Bobby Hundreds

[Nick]

Great to see the Party of doing another U turn on providing free school meals to some infants.

 

Its like they are suddenly pretending they are no longer arseholes.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40496770

[Innovindil]

14 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

I'd be interested to see who swing voters could stomach as next Tory leader, guessing it wouldn't be any of the top 3 in England.

Priti Patel so we have someone nice to look at. 

[Bobby Hundreds]

Also it's good to see the Tory membership think Jeremy *unt is a toxic piece of detritus too.  

[Webbo]

28 minutes ago, MattP said:

Approval ratings of senior Tories from the membership.

 

If it goes to a vote of them for a new leader it's Davis or Davidson, surprised how low Boris has gone.

 

I advised Brokenshire at 100/1 - wouldn't be out of it.

 

Davidson's not an MP so not sure how that'll work. I'm a big fan of David Davis but he'll probably be at least 70 by the next election, maybe even 73. If he wins he could be 78 by the end of his first term. Not sure the numbers work for him.