Why are the Tories keeping May? In their shock, they've gone soppy.
She won 42%, the highest voteshare the Tories have got since 1992, it was not as if she lost even if she did worse than expected. Plus even if there was a Tory leadership election she would still stay as PM
Doing a lot of damage by keeping her, but if you're sure.
Why are the Tories keeping May? In their shock, they've gone soppy.
She won 42%, the highest voteshare the Tories have got since 1992, it was not as if she lost even if she did worse than expected. Plus even if there was a Tory leadership election she would still stay as PM
She can be the pinata of bad public opinion for now as she won't stand in another GE, it's what the Tories do as succession planning which will be interesting. In twenty years time I will be buying some interesting books on this period in our democracy, right now things are just fucking confusing.
Why are the Tories keeping May? In their shock, they've gone soppy.
She won 42%, the highest voteshare the Tories have got since 1992, it was not as if she lost even if she did worse than expected. Plus even if there was a Tory leadership election she would still stay as PM
She can be the pinata of bad public opinion for now as she won't stand in another GE, it's what the Tories do as succession planning which will be interesting. In twenty years time I will be buying some interesting books on this period in our democracy, right now things are just fucking confusing.
If as I think increasingly likely there will not be another general election until 2022 then there is no need for the Tories to rush into a leadership election
Why are the Tories keeping May? In their shock, they've gone soppy.
She won 42%, the highest voteshare the Tories have got since 1992, it was not as if she lost even if she did worse than expected. Plus even if there was a Tory leadership election she would still stay as PM
Doing a lot of damage by keeping her, but if you're sure.
She will go well before the next election but it was the British people themselves who voted her as their PM by giving her the most votes of any party and that should be respected for now
In addition to my suggestion of bolloxing 5% of the greenbelt, maybe it's time for the govt to borrow a trillion quid at 0% and build 5 new Milton Keyneses over the next decade.
Spur them off hs 1/2, or something, subsidize season tickets, wire in terabit internet and give tax breaks for companies relocating staff from london.
They'll be soulless at first but economically successful over time.
Just do it.
Screw the NIMBYs.
2k/month for a flat in that tower block is insane. The housing market is dysfunctional and fuelling social unrest. It's a pressure cooker. Release the valve.
The Greenfell Tower shows the problems with such talk. We want housing that is:
*) Affordable *) Environmentally sound *) Safe *) High quality, e.g. on finish *) Roomy *) Quick to build
Many of these requirements are mutually exclusive, especially wrt cost. Frankly, if we want to build a many houses as some people say at an affordable cost, then something has to give. It cannot be safety, so will we be building small, boxy houses that aren't environmentally sound?
And that's just the houses themselves, without considering all the other infrastructure that should go with them.
Yet another tiresome rehearsal of the "the people want the moon on a stick" argument. They don't have trouble doing this stuff in Germany. Where is our national ambition? We're talking about houses here, not rocketships to Mars.
I'm sorry you find it tiresome. Do you actually care to address the points, or show where I'm wrong?
No, I don't care to address your points in detail. In essence, you are saying that the British are incapable of building housing that meets your extremely basic criteria. That cannot possibly be true because other similar countries do it as a matter of routine. We are not incapable.
Lets just imagine this tragedy was in a care home, occupied by white middle class brits? 1. Would the community arround them react in the same way? Probably yes 2. Would we be making a bigger issue about buildibg regs and fire protection? Yes, from some quaters 3. Would it produce a better response from the government? I dont know 4. Would JC be their talking to the survivors? Yse as would TM. 5. Would it change the political narrative in the way i think this is doing? Probanly no 6. Would anybody sek to gain political advantage from it? Probably no. 7. "..."....... Im afraid that many people see it as a problem so removed from them they can ignore it or blame sub letting and questioning the right of people who have died to be here in the first plce
Why are the Tories keeping May? In their shock, they've gone soppy.
She won 42%, the highest voteshare the Tories have got since 1992, it was not as if she lost even if she did worse than expected. Plus even if there was a Tory leadership election she would still stay as PM
She can be the pinata of bad public opinion for now as she won't stand in another GE, it's what the Tories do as succession planning which will be interesting. In twenty years time I will be buying some interesting books on this period in our democracy, right now things are just fucking confusing.
If as I think increasingly likely there will not be another general election until 2022 then there is no need for the Tories to rush into a leadership election
May will be replaced in 2019 in an attempt to expel the poison of the Brexit deal. It's obvious and you can get 12/1 on it.
In addition to my suggestion of bolloxing 5% of the greenbelt, maybe it's time for the govt to borrow a trillion quid at 0% and build 5 new Milton Keyneses over the next decade.
Spur them off hs 1/2, or something, subsidize season tickets, wire in terabit internet and give tax breaks for companies relocating staff from london.
They'll be soulless at first but economically successful over time.
Just do it.
Screw the NIMBYs.
2k/month for a flat in that tower block is insane. The housing market is dysfunctional and fuelling social unrest. It's a pressure cooker. Release the valve.
The Greenfell Tower shows the problems with such talk. We want housing that is:
*) Affordable *) Environmentally sound *) Safe *) High quality, e.g. on finish *) Roomy *) Quick to build
Many of these requirements are mutually exclusive, especially wrt cost. Frankly, if we want to build a many houses as some people say at an affordable cost, then something has to give. It cannot be safety, so will we be building small, boxy houses that aren't environmentally sound?
And that's just the houses themselves, without considering all the other infrastructure that should go with them.
Yet another tiresome rehearsal of the "the people want the moon on a stick" argument. They don't have trouble doing this stuff in Germany. Where is our national ambition? We're talking about houses here, not rocketships to Mars.
I'm sorry you find it tiresome. Do you actually care to address the points, or show where I'm wrong?
No, I don't care to address your points in detail. In essence, you are saying that the British are incapable of building housing that meets your extremely basic criteria. That cannot possibly be true because other similar countries do it as a matter of routine. We are not incapable.
We lack the will.
That's the point: the criteria are not *basic*. I can show you *basic* homes if you want: what we build is far, far, from basic. And so it should be.
The problem is one of cost. Building houses that meet the criteria at a price people can afford is very difficult. If you think differently, you can probably make an absolute killing as a builder as the market wants affordable, quality homes.
Now, if more people wanted to live in blocks of flats, it might well be possible. But that is not what many (most?) people in this country want. Nick Palmer thinks this view should change, and he may well be correct. But changing it is really difficult, and sadly will be much harder after yesterday's tragedy.
McDonnell does not believe change will be secured through Parliament. He believes it can only happen from the streets.
Why would they risk all they've achieved in the last couple of months? Like any sane person I'm horrified by the fire but encouraging some sort of insurrection is just going to confirm the worst fears of people wrt to Corbyn/McDonell. Particularly out of London.
McDonnell is really not that interested in Labour's seat count except to the extent it gives the far left control within Labour. He is the most extreme of the gang.
Ok thanks. Come back Cameron and rescue us from the lunatics and incompetents. Asap
Cameron was one of the incompetents. His arrogance never, for one minute, let him consider he might not have the support of the public.
You can say that till your blue in the face, and we know your views on him are jaundiced due to Europe, but at the moment he's looking like a political colossus in comparison to the morons scrapping it out.
That is no comparison. The fact that this bunch of incompetents are slightly more useless than the last bunch of incompetents really isn't a recommendation.
Of course it is a comparison. I'd imagine a sizable amout of the electorate would favour a return to the coalition years rather than having a Marxist scarecrow duelling with an apparently borderline autistic village fete volunteer in a race to the bottom.
It's a shame we'll never know how well a Tory government with a majority and a decent leader might have done, but hey, we've got Brexit. History will judge whether the ends justified the means. Currently it's looking like a Pyrrhic victory for the Tory Brexiteers at least.
Well Cameron certainly wouldn't have been that leader. A man with all the political nouse of a pickled gherkin - or as my Dad used to call them - a Wally
Why are the Tories keeping May? In their shock, they've gone soppy.
She won 42%, the highest voteshare the Tories have got since 1992, it was not as if she lost even if she did worse than expected. Plus even if there was a Tory leadership election she would still stay as PM
She can be the pinata of bad public opinion for now as she won't stand in another GE, it's what the Tories do as succession planning which will be interesting. In twenty years time I will be buying some interesting books on this period in our democracy, right now things are just fucking confusing.
If as I think increasingly likely there will not be another general election until 2022 then there is no need for the Tories to rush into a leadership election
May will be replaced in 2019 in an attempt to expel the poison of the Brexit deal. It's obvious and you can get 12/1 on it.
2019/20 is the most likely time for a changeover, yes
Lets just imagine this tragedy was in a care home, occupied by white middle class brits? 1. Would the community arround them react in the same way? Probably yes 2. Would we be making a bigger issue about buildibg regs and fire protection? Yes, from some quaters 3. Would it produce a better response from the government? I dont know 4. Would JC be their talking to the survivors? Yse as would TM. 5. Would it change the political narrative in the way i think this is doing? Probanly no 6. Would anybody sek to gain political advantage from it? Probably no. 7. "..."....... Im afraid that many people see it as a problem so removed from them they can ignore it or blame sub letting and questioning the right of people who have died to be here in the first plce
I think the vast majority of people are horrified at what's happened irrespective of who the victims are.
However, as with the London Bridge attack, what this has done is revealed what London is like now. Immigration gets talked about a lot. I often find myself wondering, where are all these people going? Well, it's places like Grenfell Tower.
I live in Woking with my parents. I work in central London and earn £35k a year. There's absolutely no chance that I'd ever be considered for social housing in London. So instead I have to cough up £3k a year to commute into the city. So yes, perhaps the lives of people like those living in Grenfell Tower are very removed from anything I know because I'll never be able to live that close to where I work.
That doesn't mean I don't care about what's happened.
In addition to my suggestion of bolloxing 5% of the greenbelt, maybe it's time for the govt to borrow a trillion quid at 0% and build 5 new Milton Keyneses over the next decade.
Spur them off hs 1/2, or something, subsidize season tickets, wire in terabit internet and give tax breaks for companies relocating staff from london.
They'll be soulless at first but economically successful over time.
Just do it.
Screw the NIMBYs.
2k/month for a flat in that tower block is insane. The housing market is dysfunctional and fuelling social unrest. It's a pressure cooker. Release the valve.
The Greenfell Tower shows the problems with such talk. We want housin
Many of these requirements are mutually exclusive, especially wrt cost. Frankly, if we want to build a many houses as some people say at an affordable cost, then something has to give. It cannot be safety, so will we be building small, boxy houses that aren't environmentally sound?
And that's just the houses themselves, without considering all the other infrastructure that should go with them.
Yet another tiresome rehearsal of the "the people want the moon on a stick" argument. They don't have trouble doing this stuff in Germany. Where is our national ambition? We're talking about houses here, not rocketships to Mars.
I'm sorry you find it tiresome. Do you actually care to address the points, or show where I'm wrong?
No, I don't care to address your points in detail. In essence, you are saying that the British are incapable of building housing that meets your extremely basic criteria. That cannot possibly be true because other similar countries do it as a matter of routine. We are not incapable.
We lack the will.
That's the point: the criteria are not *basic*. I can show you *basic* homes if you want: what we build is far, far, from basic. And so it should be.
The problem is one of cost. Building houses that meet the criteria at a price people can afford is very difficult. If you think differently, you can probably make an absolute killing as a builder as the market wants affordable, quality homes.
Now, if more people wanted to live in blocks of flats, it might well be possible. But that is not what many (most?) people in this country want. Nick Palmer thinks this view should change, and he may well be correct. But changing it is really difficult, and sadly will be much harder after yesterday's tragedy.
Prices are high only because the supply of land is artificially limited by the planning system. Building materials are actually pretty cheap.
Im afraid that many people see it as a problem so removed from them they can ignore it or blame sub letting and questioning the right of people who have died to be here in the first plce
I don't think anybody sees the problem as removed from them. It's blindingly obvious that something be it construction, design, planning, regulations, or the emergency response has gone badly wrong; but playing the blame game when we don't know why it happened is ridiculous.
Why are the Tories keeping May? In their shock, they've gone soppy.
She won 42%, the highest voteshare the Tories have got since 1992, it was not as if she lost even if she did worse than expected. Plus even if there was a Tory leadership election she would still stay as PM
She can be the pinata of bad public opinion for now as she won't stand in another GE, it's what the Tories do as succession planning which will be interesting. In twenty years time I will be buying some interesting books on this period in our democracy, right now things are just fucking confusing.
If as I think increasingly likely there will not be another general election until 2022 then there is no need for the Tories to rush into a leadership election
May will be replaced in 2019 in an attempt to expel the poison of the Brexit deal. It's obvious and you can get 12/1 on it.
It is far from obvious that she can survive that long.
Is it not more likely that she limps on to the summer recess, resigns the party leadership at that point, giving the Tories time to hold a leadership election in time for the party conference?
Thank F Corbyn didn't win. The economy would already be in death spiral.
If the Labour Party has any sensible people left in it, and there don't seem to be many willing to show their faces right now, they will still be plotting to get rid of Corbyn. They owe it to the country as much as anything else.
Don't you think people are sick and tired of plotting and stupid politicians who think it is in their very life blood, or should I say, in others spilt blood. For too long, far too long, our politicians have been sticking their oars into areas and policies that are detrimental to the populace of this and too many other countries. Please, kill each other if you must, but leave everyone else out of your games.
It's difficult for politicians to respond to this sort of disaster well - anything they do or don't do is open to criticism. I don't personally think May, Corbyn or Khan have done anything very wrong here, and the thread has too many people trying to squeeze a political argument out of it.
I've been appalled at the coverage of the tragedy. I've worked in building consultancy and the amount of airtime given to comment from people who have no technical knowledge has astounded me. We have some of the highest building standards in the world, and every council I have worked for has been insistent on the highest standards.
It's difficult for politicians to respond to this sort of disaster well - anything they do or don't do is open to criticism. I don't personally think May, Corbyn or Khan have done anything very wrong here, and the thread has too many people trying to squeeze a political argument out of it.
Im afraid that many people see it as a problem so removed from them they can ignore it or blame sub letting and questioning the right of people who have died to be here in the first plce
I don't think anybody sees the problem as removed from them. It's blindingly obvious that something be it construction, design, planning, regulations, or the emergency response has gone badly wrong; but playing the blame game when we don't know why it happened is ridiculous.
I didnt raise the issue of sub letting just trying to say that in relation to what has happend its irrelevant until proved otherwise.
I've been appalled at the coverage of the tragedy. I've worked in building consultancy and the amount of airtime given to comment from people who have no technical knowledge has astounded me. We have some of the highest building standards in the world, and every council I have worked for has been insistent on the highest standards.
Every political pundit or journalist, and anyone they speak to, is now an expert on fire safety, building regulations, and construction. Things that they previously haven't given a moments thought about they are now so expert in that the can deduce what has happened from some pictures on the TV.
The press coverage in particular has been nothing short of disgraceful across the board, huge amounts of speculation have drowned out the few facts we know.
Looks like Cable might take over as caretaker leader. At 74 hopefully he recognises he is too old for the job permanently but presumably could be economic spokesman eventually. Interesting no-one has said much about Ed Davey. Norman Lamb on QT tonight.
Im afraid that many people see it as a problem so removed from them they can ignore it or blame sub letting and questioning the right of people who have died to be here in the first plce
I don't think anybody sees the problem as removed from them. It's blindingly obvious that something be it construction, design, planning, regulations, or the emergency response has gone badly wrong; but playing the blame game when we don't know why it happened is ridiculous.
I didnt raise the issue of sub letting just trying to say that in relation to what has happend its irrelevant until proved otherwise.
It is irrelevant to the actual circumstance of the fire, but it could be the difference between 20 killed in tragic circumstances and 100.
My point earlier was not to disparage the people living in these conditions, but rather to point out that it will shine an ugly, national light on what has been an open secret in inner london, that people live in appalling, shanty town conditions, in a supposedly rich and prosperous nation.
There is a scandal in how these people died, but there is also another scandal in how they lived. We've ignored the 'ten to a room' pictures you see in the papers time and time again, how many of us will feel able to ignore pictures of charred mattresses and burnt bodies ten to a room, should they surface?
"In 2010, I spent six months working on a BBC investigation into concerns about fire safety in refurbished high rises. Our findings were conclusive. Fire chiefs and safety experts all agreed that the vogue for cladding old concrete blocks with plastic fascia, removing asbestos and replacing steel window frames with ones made of UPvC cancelled out all the fire prevention measures that had been built into the blocks."
Im afraid that many people see it as a problem so removed from them they can ignore it or blame sub letting and questioning the right of people who have died to be here in the first plce
I don't think anybody sees the problem as removed from them. It's blindingly obvious that something be it construction, design, planning, regulations, or the emergency response has gone badly wrong; but playing the blame game when we don't know why it happened is ridiculous.
I didnt raise the issue of sub letting just trying to say that in relation to what has happend its irrelevant until proved otherwise.
It is irrelevant to the actual circumstance of the fire, but it could be the difference between 20 killed in tragic circumstances and 100.
My point earlier was not to disparage the people living in these conditions, but rather to point out that it will shine an ugly, national light on what has been an open secret in inner london, that people live in appalling, shanty town conditions, in a supposedly rich and prosperous nation.
There is a scandal in how these people died, but there is also another scandal in how they lived. We've ignored the 'ten to a room' pictures you see in the papers time and time again, how many of us will feel able to ignore pictures of charred mattresses and burnt bodies ten to a room, should they surface?
It's difficult for politicians to respond to this sort of disaster well - anything they do or don't do is open to criticism. I don't personally think May, Corbyn or Khan have done anything very wrong here, and the thread has too many people trying to squeeze a political argument out of it.
It's difficult for politicians to respond to this sort of disaster well - anything they do or don't do is open to criticism. I don't personally think May, Corbyn or Khan have done anything very wrong here, and the thread has too many people trying to squeeze a political argument out of it.
Thank you Nick! We do not always agree, but you are spot on here!!
I didnt raise the issue of sub letting just trying to say that in relation to what has happend its irrelevant until proved otherwise.
I didn't mean to sound like I was criticising you. I'm annoyed by the wide-spread blame game and speculation occurring when so few facts are known. A few hours ago the building still had pockets of fire, so it's way too early for anyone to say what happened or why.
I've been appalled at the coverage of the tragedy. I've worked in building consultancy and the amount of airtime given to comment from people who have no technical knowledge has astounded me. We have some of the highest building standards in the world, and every council I have worked for has been insistent on the highest standards.
Now, if more people wanted to live in blocks of flats, it might well be possible. But that is not what many (most?) people in this country want. Nick Palmer thinks this view should change, and he may well be correct. But changing it is really difficult, and sadly will be much harder after yesterday's tragedy.
Yes, I agree. But ultimately if you offer people London rents to live in flats with decent construction, maintenance and fire protection at say £7-800/month, even if it means they don't get a house and garden and the skyline is ruined, they'll grab them. The problem is not really that people refuse to live in flats, it's that affordable flats are not being built in sufficient numbers.
I grew up in a flat on the 8th floor of this tower block in a pleasant residential area near the station of a Copenhagen suburb. Two lifts that almost never broke down, a full-time porter, two balconies with a pleasant breeze and sun all day on one side or the other, playground underneath, shops galore nearby as well as green spaces. Flats there currently start at around £120,000, or £500/month.
I didnt raise the issue of sub letting just trying to say that in relation to what has happend its irrelevant until proved otherwise.
I didn't mean to sound like I was criticising you. I'm annoyed by the wide-spread blame game and speculation occurring when so few facts are known. A few hours ago the building still had pockets of fire, so it's way too early for anyone to say what happened or why.
I just wish our government was in the forfront of solving the immediate issues and the longer term issues that it raises. If they are then they need to show us that they are. Having watched sky news for an hour they seem to have gone awol.
This is absolutely unreal, so apologies for the long quote, it's worth it imo:
"By the turn of the millennium, the post-war tower blocks that are scattered through Britain’s cities had become rundown and ugly. So in 2000, Tony Blair’s government launched the Decent Homes Programme, a huge scheme to update the social housing stock, making it more environmentally friendly, comfortable and pleasing to the eye. For high-rises there were two options – either refurbish them, or pull them down and build new low-rise housing in their place. The slightly cheaper option was to do them up.
Billions of pounds of public funds were handed out to contractors to carry out the upgrades – £820 million in London alone. In almost all cases, the drab concrete was wrapped in brightly coloured plastic. It may look far nicer, but the material used in most cases is also highly flammable, while the tiny space between the façade and the concrete acts as a chimney in the event of a fire, sucking the flames up the building in seconds."
So just to make the skyline look a bit nicer, they clothed the blocks in flammable material? Surely this can't be real?
This is absolutely unreal, so apologies for the long quote, it's worth it imo:
"By the turn of the millennium, the post-war tower blocks that are scattered through Britain’s cities had become rundown and ugly. So in 2000, Tony Blair’s government launched the Decent Homes Programme, a huge scheme to update the social housing stock, making it more environmentally friendly, comfortable and pleasing to the eye. For high-rises there were two options – either refurbish them, or pull them down and build new low-rise housing in their place. The slightly cheaper option was to do them up.
Billions of pounds of public funds were handed out to contractors to carry out the upgrades – £820 million in London alone. In almost all cases, the drab concrete was wrapped in brightly coloured plastic. It may look far nicer, but the material used in most cases is also highly flammable, while the tiny space between the façade and the concrete acts as a chimney in the event of a fire, sucking the flames up the building in seconds."
So just to make the skyline look a bit nicer, they clothed the blocks in flammable material? Surely this can't be real?
Now, if more people wanted to live in blocks of flats, it might well be possible. But that is not what many (most?) people in this country want. Nick Palmer thinks this view should change, and he may well be correct. But changing it is really difficult, and sadly will be much harder after yesterday's tragedy.
Yes, I agree. But ultimately if you offer people London rents to live in flats with decent construction, maintenance and fire protection at say £7-800/month, even if it means they don't get a house and garden and the skyline is ruined, they'll grab them. The problem is not really that people refuse to live in flats, it's that affordable flats are not being built in sufficient numbers.
I grew up in a flat on the 8th floor of this tower block in a pleasant residential area near the station of a Copenhagen suburb. Two lifts that almost never broke down, a full-time porter, two balconies with a pleasant breeze and sun all day on one side or the other, playground underneath, shops galore nearby as well as green spaces. Flats there currently start at around £120,000, or £500/month.
We have a ridiculous situaton in London at the moment where new builds are largely 'luxury' for investment rather than for ordinary people. The ordinary folk get shunted into substandard tower blocks or terraced houses subdivided and subdivided and subdivided again.
Your post is a very good reminder - it's not just about building more, it's about building the right kind of flats to meet the needs of the people who live and work here.
This is absolutely unreal, so apologies for the long quote, it's worth it imo:
"By the turn of the millennium, the post-war tower blocks that are scattered through Britain’s cities had become rundown and ugly. So in 2000, Tony Blair’s government launched the Decent Homes Programme, a huge scheme to update the social housing stock, making it more environmentally friendly, comfortable and pleasing to the eye. For high-rises there were two options – either refurbish them, or pull them down and build new low-rise housing in their place. The slightly cheaper option was to do them up.
Billions of pounds of public funds were handed out to contractors to carry out the upgrades – £820 million in London alone. In almost all cases, the drab concrete was wrapped in brightly coloured plastic. It may look far nicer, but the material used in most cases is also highly flammable, while the tiny space between the façade and the concrete acts as a chimney in the event of a fire, sucking the flames up the building in seconds."
So just to make the skyline look a bit nicer, they clothed the blocks in flammable material? Surely this can't be real?
That's absolutely damning. The government will need to spend the money and remove these fascias before something like this happens again. This is a moment of spending and doing whatever it takes and not sitting around waiting for a review to finish, we know the issue and it needs to be fixed ASAP.
This is absolutely unreal, so apologies for the long quote, it's worth it imo:
"By the turn of the millennium, the post-war tower blocks that are scattered through Britain’s cities had become rundown and ugly. So in 2000, Tony Blair’s government launched the Decent Homes Programme, a huge scheme to update the social housing stock, making it more environmentally friendly, comfortable and pleasing to the eye. For high-rises there were two options – either refurbish them, or pull them down and build new low-rise housing in their place. The slightly cheaper option was to do them up.
Billions of pounds of public funds were handed out to contractors to carry out the upgrades – £820 million in London alone. In almost all cases, the drab concrete was wrapped in brightly coloured plastic. It may look far nicer, but the material used in most cases is also highly flammable, while the tiny space between the façade and the concrete acts as a chimney in the event of a fire, sucking the flames up the building in seconds."
So just to make the skyline look a bit nicer, they clothed the blocks in flammable material? Surely this can't be real?
That's absolutely damning. The government will need to spend the money and remove these fascias before something like this happens again. This is a moment of spending and doing whatever it takes and not sitting around waiting for a review to finish, we know the issue and it needs to be fixed ASAP.
While we are all sat here chatting to each other and putting the world to rights.
How many of you have checked your smoke detectors in the last few weeks? Might be worth checking them right now (we will wait for you) and putting new batteries in (if they have batteries).
Let some tiny bit of good come from a terrible tragedy.
Now, if more people wanted to live in blocks of flats, it might well be possible. But that is not what many (most?) people in this country want. Nick Palmer thinks this view should change, and he may well be correct. But changing it is really difficult, and sadly will be much harder after yesterday's tragedy.
Yes, I agree. But ultimately if you offer people London rents to live in flats with decent construction, maintenance and fire protection at say £7-800/month, even if it means they don't get a house and garden and the skyline is ruined, they'll grab them. The problem is not really that people refuse to live in flats, it's that affordable flats are not being built in sufficient numbers.
I grew up in a flat on the 8th floor of this tower block in a pleasant residential area near the station of a Copenhagen suburb. Two lifts that almost never broke down, a full-time porter, two balconies with a pleasant breeze and sun all day on one side or the other, playground underneath, shops galore nearby as well as green spaces. Flats there currently start at around £120,000, or £500/month.
We have a ridiculous situaton in London at the moment where new builds are largely 'luxury' for investment rather than for ordinary people. The ordinary folk get shunted into substandard tower blocks or terraced houses subdivided and subdivided and subdivided again.
Your post is a very good reminder - it's not just about building more, it's about building the right kind of flats to meet the needs of the people who live and work here.
While we are all sat here chatting to each other and putting the world to rights.
How many of you have checked your smoke detectors in the last few weeks? Might be worth checking them right now (we will wait for you) and putting new batteries in (if they have batteries).
Let some tiny bit of good come from a terrible tragedy.
Carbon monoxide detectors as well. I have a friend who lived in a rented flat who was saved by one last year.
While we are all sat here chatting to each other and putting the world to rights.
How many of you have checked your smoke detectors in the last few weeks? Might be worth checking them right now (we will wait for you) and putting new batteries in (if they have batteries).
Let some tiny bit of good come from a terrible tragedy.
Carbon monoxide detectors as well. I have a friend who lived in a rented flat who was saved by one last year.
This is absolutely unreal, so apologies for the long quote, it's worth it imo:
"By the turn of the millennium, the post-war tower blocks that are scattered through Britain’s cities had become rundown and ugly. So in 2000, Tony Blair’s government launched the Decent Homes Programme, a huge scheme to update the social housing stock, making it more environmentally friendly, comfortable and pleasing to the eye. For high-rises there were two options – either refurbish them, or pull them down and build new low-rise housing in their place. The slightly cheaper option was to do them up.
Billions of pounds of public funds were handed out to contractors to carry out the upgrades – £820 million in London alone. In almost all cases, the drab concrete was wrapped in brightly coloured plastic. It may look far nicer, but the material used in most cases is also highly flammable, while the tiny space between the façade and the concrete acts as a chimney in the event of a fire, sucking the flames up the building in seconds."
So just to make the skyline look a bit nicer, they clothed the blocks in flammable material? Surely this can't be real?
That's absolutely damning. The government will need to spend the money and remove these fascias before something like this happens again. This is a moment of spending and doing whatever it takes and not sitting around waiting for a review to finish, we know the issue and it needs to be fixed ASAP.
While we are all sat here chatting to each other and putting the world to rights.
How many of you have checked your smoke detectors in the last few weeks? Might be worth checking them right now (we will wait for you) and putting new batteries in (if they have batteries).
Let some tiny bit of good come from a terrible tragedy.
I got paranoid a few months ago and found that our secondary smoke detector had flat out broken down and because of its age (it came with the house, the main one is newer) not let out any noise or a warning. I quickly replaced it and check them both and the carbon monoxide detector regularly.
Why are the Tories keeping May? In their shock, they've gone soppy.
She won 42%, the highest voteshare the Tories have got since 1992, it was not as if she lost even if she did worse than expected. Plus even if there was a Tory leadership election she would still stay as PM
She can be the pinata of bad public opinion for now as she won't stand in another GE, it's what the Tories do as succession planning which will be interesting. In twenty years time I will be buying some interesting books on this period in our democracy, right now things are just fucking confusing.
If as I think increasingly likely there will not be another general election until 2022 then there is no need for the Tories to rush into a leadership election
May will be replaced in 2019 in an attempt to expel the poison of the Brexit deal. It's obvious and you can get 12/1 on it.
We have a situation at the moment where the DUP are wary of doing a deal with the govt because associating with May is bad for their image. They're not so naive as to believe that they can't lose support to the UUP or the Alliance (or seats to Sinn Fein if DUP voters abstain) if the deal is embarrassing to them. They'd much rather she was replaced, but of course they want new elections even less. They must hope that May will start to rebuild her image. If May is still rated at -30 after the summer, the pressure on her to quit will be hard to resist.
While we are all sat here chatting to each other and putting the world to rights.
How many of you have checked your smoke detectors in the last few weeks? Might be worth checking them right now (we will wait for you) and putting new batteries in (if they have batteries).
Let some tiny bit of good come from a terrible tragedy.
Now, if more people wanted to live in blocks of flats, it might well be possible. But that is not what many (most?) people in this country want. Nick Palmer thinks this view should change, and he may well be correct. But changing it is really difficult, and sadly will be much harder after yesterday's tragedy.
Yes, I agree. But ultimately if you offer people London rents to live in flats with decent construction, maintenance and fire protection at say £7-800/month, even if it means they don't get a house and garden and the skyline is ruined, they'll grab them. The problem is not really that people refuse to live in flats, it's that affordable flats are not being built in sufficient numbers.
I grew up in a flat on the 8th floor of this tower block in a pleasant residential area near the station of a Copenhagen suburb. Two lifts that almost never broke down, a full-time porter, two balconies with a pleasant breeze and sun all day on one side or the other, playground underneath, shops galore nearby as well as green spaces. Flats there currently start at around £120,000, or £500/month.
We have a ridiculous situaton in London at the moment where new builds are largely 'luxury' for investment rather than for ordinary people. The ordinary folk get shunted into substandard tower blocks or terraced houses subdivided and subdivided and subdivided again.
Your post is a very good reminder - it's not just about building more, it's about building the right kind of flats to meet the needs of the people who live and work here.
I believe that property rights are inalienable, but you can easily see how this disaster becomes a scandal whose narrative is 'people lived and died ten to a bedroom in Grenfell Tower while 500 yards away, homes belonging to the mega rich lay empty, as investment vehicles for foreign buyers..."
In those circumstances, I can see a lot of people supporting a government that promises expropriation... trouble ahead.
This is absolutely unreal, so apologies for the long quote, it's worth it imo:
"By the turn of the millennium, the post-war tower blocks that are scattered through Britain’s cities had become rundown and ugly. So in 2000, Tony Blair’s government launched the Decent Homes Programme, a huge scheme to update the social housing stock, making it more environmentally friendly, comfortable and pleasing to the eye. For high-rises there were two options – either refurbish them, or pull them down and build new low-rise housing in their place. The slightly cheaper option was to do them up.
Billions of pounds of public funds were handed out to contractors to carry out the upgrades – £820 million in London alone. In almost all cases, the drab concrete was wrapped in brightly coloured plastic. It may look far nicer, but the material used in most cases is also highly flammable, while the tiny space between the façade and the concrete acts as a chimney in the event of a fire, sucking the flames up the building in seconds."
So just to make the skyline look a bit nicer, they clothed the blocks in flammable material? Surely this can't be real?
That's absolutely damning. The government will need to spend the money and remove these fascias before something like this happens again. This is a moment of spending and doing whatever it takes and not sitting around waiting for a review to finish, we know the issue and it needs to be fixed ASAP.
I have no idea why the building caught fire, but I am fairly sure that some thought would have been put in to fire prevention measures before they undertook this refurbishment. This dismissal of construction techniques is based on no expert opinion whatsoever, it is based on anecdotes from journalists.
While we are all sat here chatting to each other and putting the world to rights.
How many of you have checked your smoke detectors in the last few weeks? Might be worth checking them right now (we will wait for you) and putting new batteries in (if they have batteries).
Let some tiny bit of good come from a terrible tragedy.
Now, if more people wanted to live in blocks of flats, it might well be possible. But that is not what many (most?) people in this country want. Nick Palmer thinks this view should change, and he may well be correct. But changing it is really difficult, and sadly will be much harder after yesterday's tragedy.
Yes, I agree. But ultimately if you offer people London rents to live in flats with decent construction, maintenance and fire protection at say £7-800/month, even if it means they don't get a house and garden and the skyline is ruined, they'll grab them. The problem is not really that people refuse to live in flats, it's that affordable flats are not being built in sufficient numbers.
I grew up in a flat on the 8th floor of this tower block in a pleasant residential area near the station of a Copenhagen suburb. Two lifts that almost never broke down, a full-time porter, two balconies with a pleasant breeze and sun all day on one side or the other, playground underneath, shops galore nearby as well as green spaces. Flats there currently start at around £120,000, or £500/month.
We have a ridiculous situaton in London at the moment where new builds are largely 'luxury' for investment rather than for ordinary people. The ordinary folk get shunted into substandard tower blocks or terraced houses subdivided and subdivided and subdivided again.
Your post is a very good reminder - it's not just about building more, it's about building the right kind of flats to meet the needs of the people who live and work here.
I believe that property rights are inalienable, but you can easily see how this disaster becomes a scandal whose narrative is 'people lived and died ten to a bedroom in Grenfell Tower while 500 yards away, homes belonging to the mega rich lay empty, as investment vehicles for foreign buyers..."
In those circumstances, I can see a lot of people supporting a government that promises expropriation... trouble ahead.
I think it'll be called something different (for more than one reason) but it'll come down to a close approximation.
I believe that property rights are inalienable, but you can easily see how this disaster becomes a scandal whose narrative is 'people lived and died ten to a bedroom in Grenfell Tower while 500 yards away, homes belonging to the mega rich lay empty, as investment vehicles for foreign buyers..."
In those circumstances, I can see a lot of people supporting a government that promises expropriation... trouble ahead.
Governments have used compulsory purchase for all sorts of reasons - for roads, for military training areas, for reservoirs, for HS2 (soon?). And the owners of the properties compulsorily purchased have always been paid for their property.
Expropriation would be something else entirely. It would be seizing the property with no payment made to the owners. Far be it from me to dissuade posters to this site of engaging in hyperbole, but perhaps you could give some indication for the benefit of others?
While we are all sat here chatting to each other and putting the world to rights.
How many of you have checked your smoke detectors in the last few weeks? Might be worth checking them right now (we will wait for you) and putting new batteries in (if they have batteries).
Let some tiny bit of good come from a terrible tragedy.
Buy Nest Protect alarms. They talk to you. Way safer in an emergency than a non-directional shouty beep.
BTW, the YouGov poll from June 11-12 bears out Survation, in that it shows Labour ahead by 6 (48-42, based on the weighted numbers for the 3 parties), with much the same for the unweighted sample. Roughly a 4-point swing since the election.
Now, if more people wanted to live in blocks of flats, it might well be possible. But that is not what many (most?) people in this country want. Nick Palmer thinks this view should change, and he may well be correct. But changing it is really difficult, and sadly will be much harder after yesterday's tragedy.
Yes, I agree. But ultimately if you offer people London rents to live in flats with decent construction, maintenance and fire protection at say £7-800/month, even if it means they don't get a house and garden and the skyline is ruined, they'll grab them. The problem is not really that people refuse to live in flats, it's that affordable flats are not being built in sufficient numbers.
I grew up in a flat on the 8th floor of this tower block in a pleasant residential area near the station of a Copenhagen suburb. Two lifts that almost never broke down, a full-time porter, two balconies with a pleasant breeze and sun all day on one side or the other, playground underneath, shops galore nearby as well as green spaces. Flats there currently start at around £120,000, or £500/month.
That might have been the case in the 1960s or 1970s in Copenhagen, but a massive issue was the fact that many tower blocks in the UK during that period became synonymous with crime and poor living standards. Yet just a few years earlier people had been glad to move into them. If we move back to highrise living, we need to ensure the same does not happen again.
People remember this. Certainly, the few months I spent living in Skenfrith House off the Old Kent Road in the early 1990s were interesting. The flat was beautifully looked after; the communal areas - the lifts and lobbies - less so. As an example, the lift would have a rather unpleasant aroma each morning.
I also spent a year in a student tower bock in South Woodford. That was more pleasant, aside from the usual letting off of fire extinguishers, midnight fire alarms to see who was sleeping with whom, and of course the Phantom Shi**er of Old London Town ...
I believe that property rights are inalienable, but you can easily see how this disaster becomes a scandal whose narrative is 'people lived and died ten to a bedroom in Grenfell Tower while 500 yards away, homes belonging to the mega rich lay empty, as investment vehicles for foreign buyers..."
In those circumstances, I can see a lot of people supporting a government that promises expropriation... trouble ahead.
Governments have used compulsory purchase for all sorts of reasons - for roads, for military training areas, for reservoirs, for HS2 (soon?). And the owners of the properties compulsorily purchased have always been paid for their property.
Expropriation would be something else entirely. It would be seizing the property with no payment made to the owners. Far be it from me to dissuade posters to this site of engaging in hyperbole, but perhaps you could give some indication for the benefit of others?
This is absolutely unreal, so apologies for the long quote, it's worth it imo:
"By the turn of the millennium, the post-war tower blocks that are scattered through Britain’s cities had become rundown and ugly. So in 2000, Tony Blair’s government launched the Decent Homes Programme, a huge scheme to update the social housing stock, making it more environmentally friendly, comfortable and pleasing to the eye. For high-rises there were two options – either refurbish them, or pull them down and build new low-rise housing in their place. The slightly cheaper option was to do them up.
Billions of pounds of public funds were handed out to contractors to carry out the upgrades – £820 million in London alone. In almost all cases, the drab concrete was wrapped in brightly coloured plastic. It may look far nicer, but the material used in most cases is also highly flammable, while the tiny space between the façade and the concrete acts as a chimney in the event of a fire, sucking the flames up the building in seconds."
So just to make the skyline look a bit nicer, they clothed the blocks in flammable material? Surely this can't be real?
That's absolutely damning. The government will need to spend the money and remove these fascias before something like this happens again. This is a moment of spending and doing whatever it takes and not sitting around waiting for a review to finish, we know the issue and it needs to be fixed ASAP.
I have no idea why the building caught fire, but I am fairly sure that some thought would have been put in to fire prevention measures before they undertook this refurbishment. This dismissal of construction techniques is based on no expert opinion whatsoever, it is based on anecdotes from journalists.
I think that's going a bit too far. Several experts have been interviewed by newspaper and TV journalists and several of them have opined about the possible chimney effect of the cladding. And it's a fact that the material between the metal sheets in the Grenfell cladding was not non-flammable, it was the cheaper flame-resistant option.
They'll order the removal of the identical fascias immediately, I'm sure; there are another five buildings I think that were done under the same contract. As to the rest, they'll judge them on a case-by-case basis. As far as I'm aware it is possible to apply fascias without creating this chimney effect.
I believe that property rights are inalienable, but you can easily see how this disaster becomes a scandal whose narrative is 'people lived and died ten to a bedroom in Grenfell Tower while 500 yards away, homes belonging to the mega rich lay empty, as investment vehicles for foreign buyers..."
In those circumstances, I can see a lot of people supporting a government that promises expropriation... trouble ahead.
Governments have used compulsory purchase for all sorts of reasons - for roads, for military training areas, for reservoirs, for HS2 (soon?). And the owners of the properties compulsorily purchased have always been paid for their property.
Expropriation would be something else entirely. It would be seizing the property with no payment made to the owners. Far be it from me to dissuade posters to this site of engaging in hyperbole, but perhaps you could give some indication for the benefit of others?
I didn't say I was in favour of it.
I merely stated that on a day where the shadow chancellor has called for a million to march against a democratic result last week, and the leader of the opposition has called for homes in Kensington to be "requisitioned" albeit temporarily due to the tragedy, a lot of people would be in favour of it.
We are living in febrile times, even revolutionary times.
The fear of the last couple of years has been right wing populsim leading to fascism. It feels to me now that the shoe is on the other foot. Plenty of people on the left who prefer direct action to democracy, and they are feeling very emboldened right now.
BTW, the YouGov poll from June 11-12 bears out Survation, in that it shows Labour ahead by 6 (48-42, based on the weighted numbers for the 3 parties), with much the same for the unweighted sample. Roughly a 4-point swing since the election.
If it's any help, there are modern ones designed for the kitchen that detect heat, not smoke.
For others mentioning the standard alarm battery annoyances: you can get ones with lithium batteries that last 7-10 years.
(yep, I've been researching this today, like a lot of others probably .... and my alarm was out of date)
Building regulations mean that modern houses (?post 1995?) should have mains powered smoke alarms, with at least one on each floor, and with the alarms interlinked, so that when the alarm triggers on one floor it sounds on all the others. The batteries are a backup, but obviously should still be checked regularly as mains power might be one of the first things to go.
Now, if more people wanted to live in blocks of flats, it might well be possible. But that is not what many (most?) people in this country want. Nick Palmer thinks this view should change, and he may well be correct. But changing it is really difficult, and sadly will be much harder after yesterday's tragedy.
Yes, I agree. But ultimately if you offer people London rents to live in flats with decent construction, maintenance and fire protection at say £7-800/month, even if it means they don't get a house and garden and the skyline is ruined, they'll grab them. The problem is not really that people refuse to live in flats, it's that affordable flats are not being built in sufficient numbers.
I grew up in a flat on the 8th floor of this tower block in a pleasant residential area near the station of a Copenhagen suburb. Two lifts that almost never broke down, a full-time porter, two balconies with a pleasant breeze and sun all day on one side or the other, playground underneath, shops galore nearby as well as green spaces. Flats there currently start at around £120,000, or £500/month.
That might have been the case in the 1960s or 1970s in Copenhagen, but a massive issue was the fact that many tower blocks in the UK during that period became synonymous with crime and poor living standards. Yet just a few years earlier people had been glad to move into them. If we move back to highrise living, we need to ensure the same does not happen again.
People remember this. Certainly, the few months I spent living in Skenfrith House off the Old Kent Road in the early 1990s were interesting. The flat was beautifully looked after; the communal areas - the lifts and lobbies - less so. As an example, the lift would have a rather unpleasant aroma each morning.
I also spent a year in a student tower bock in South Woodford. That was more pleasant, aside from the usual letting off of fire extinguishers, midnight fire alarms to see who was sleeping with whom, and of course the Phantom Shi**er of Old London Town ...
I think they'd be a very hard sell now. The Planners Dream Goes Wrong by The Jam (1981) summed up high rise life
This is absolutely unreal, so apologies for the long quote, it's worth it imo:
"By the turn of the millennium, the post-war tower blocks that are scattered through Britain’s cities had become rundown and ugly. So in 2000, Tony Blair’s government launched the Decent Homes Programme, a huge scheme to update the social housing stock, making it more environmentally friendly, comfortable and pleasing to the eye. For high-rises there were two options – either refurbish them, or pull them down and build new low-rise housing in their place. The slightly cheaper option was to do them up.
Billions of pounds of public funds were handed out to contractors to carry out the upgrades – £820 million in London alone. In almost all cases, the drab concrete was wrapped in brightly coloured plastic. It may look far nicer, but the material used in most cases is also highly flammable, while the tiny space between the façade and the concrete acts as a chimney in the event of a fire, sucking the flames up the building in seconds."
So just to make the skyline look a bit nicer, they clothed the blocks in flammable material? Surely this can't be real?
That's absolutely damning. The government will need to spend the money and remove these fascias before something like this happens again. This is a moment of spending and doing whatever it takes and not sitting around waiting for a review to finish, we know the issue and it needs to be fixed ASAP.
I have no idea why the building caught fire, but I am fairly sure that some thought would have been put in to fire prevention measures before they undertook this refurbishment. This dismissal of construction techniques is based on no expert opinion whatsoever, it is based on anecdotes from journalists.
The biggest problem is the apparent lack of compartmentalisation. It's 'only' 8 years since six people died in a block in Southwark which had this issue.
The cladding is a further issue. It was fitted to insulate the walls of these blocks. Fireproof insulation is easily specified but it costs several £ more per square metre. It's been known for at least 8 years that combustible insulation with 'firebreaks' is ineffective because the flames tend to bypass the firebreaks.
Niklaus Pevsner: 'The English will spare no expense to get something on the cheap'.
While we are all sat here chatting to each other and putting the world to rights.
How many of you have checked your smoke detectors in the last few weeks? Might be worth checking them right now (we will wait for you) and putting new batteries in (if they have batteries).
Let some tiny bit of good come from a terrible tragedy.
Buy Nest Protect alarms. They talk to you. Way safer in an emergency than a non-directional shouty beep.
(This is not a sponsored post).
I'd be really, really wary about Internet-connected smoke and fire alarms. Sometimes simplest is best.
You don't have to spend pounds on a Gucci smoke detector, just get a good quality one from a diy or supermarket and test it once a week. Over the years I've fitted hundreds, and I've never been to a fatal or serious injury causing fire that had working detectors fitted, unless drink or drugs were involved. If you know any elderly or vulnerable people who may not have detectors fitted, do the decent thing and help them out, or contact your local fire station and they'll fit them for free.
Now, if more people wanted to live in blocks of flats, it might well be possible. But that is not what many (most?) people in this country want. Nick Palmer thinks this view should change, and he may well be correct. But changing it is really difficult, and sadly will be much harder after yesterday's tragedy.
Yes, I agree. But ultimately if you offer people London rents to live in flats with decent construction, maintenance and fire protection at say £7-800/month, even if it means they don't get a house and garden and the skyline is ruined, they'll grab them. The problem is not really that people refuse to live in flats, it's that affordable flats are not being built in sufficient numbers.
I grew up in a flat on the 8th floor of this tower block in a pleasant residential area near the station of a Copenhagen suburb. Two lifts that almost never broke down, a full-time porter, two balconies with a pleasant breeze and sun all day on one side or the other, playground underneath, shops galore nearby as well as green spaces. Flats there currently start at around £120,000, or £500/month.
We have a ridiculous situaton in London at the moment where new builds are largely 'luxury' for investment rather than for ordinary people. The ordinary folk get shunted into substandard tower blocks or terraced houses subdivided and subdivided and subdivided again.
Your post is a very good reminder - it's not just about building more, it's about building the right kind of flats to meet the needs of the people who live and work here.
You don't have to spend pounds on a Gucci smoke detector, just get a good quality one from a diy or supermarket and test it once a week. Over the years I've fitted hundreds, and I've never been to a fatal or serious injury causing fire that had working detectors fitted, unless drink or drugs were involved. If you know any elderly or vulnerable people who may not have detectors fitted, do the decent thing and help them out, or contact your local fire station and they'll fit them for free.
I see that I must become a lot more fire conscious. I ended up smashing my smoke alarm, because it went off whenever I was cooking.
Now, if more people wanted to live in blocks of flats, it might well be possible. But that is not what many (most?) people in this country want. Nick Palmer thinks this view should change, and he may well be correct. But changing it is really difficult, and sadly will be much harder after yesterday's tragedy.
Yes, I agree. But ultimately if you offer people London rents to live in flats with decent construction, maintenance and fire protection at say £7-800/month, even if it means they don't get a house and garden and the skyline is ruined, they'll grab them. The problem is not really that people refuse to live in flats, it's that affordable flats are not being built in sufficient numbers.
I grew up in a flat on the 8th floor of this tower block in a pleasant residential area near the station of a Copenhagen suburb. Two lifts that almost never broke down, a full-time porter, two balconies with a pleasant breeze and sun all day on one side or the other, playground underneath, shops galore nearby as well as green spaces. Flats there currently start at around £120,000, or £500/month.
We have a ridiculous situaton in London at the moment where new builds are largely 'luxury' for investment rather than for ordinary people. The ordinary folk get shunted into substandard tower blocks or terraced houses subdivided and subdivided and subdivided again.
Your post is a very good reminder - it's not just about building more, it's about building the right kind of flats to meet the needs of the people who live and work here.
I believe that property rights are inalienable, but you can easily see how this disaster becomes a scandal whose narrative is 'people lived and died ten to a bedroom in Grenfell Tower while 500 yards away, homes belonging to the mega rich lay empty, as investment vehicles for foreign buyers..."
In those circumstances, I can see a lot of people supporting a government that promises expropriation... trouble ahead.
Governments have used compulsory purchase for all sorts of reasons - for roads, for military training areas, for reservoirs, for HS2 (soon?). And the owners of the properties compulsorily purchased have always been paid for their property.
Expropriation would be something else entirely. It would be seizing the property with no payment made to the owners. Far be it from me to dissuade posters to this site of engaging in hyperbole, but perhaps you could give some indication for the benefit of others?
I didn't say I was in favour of it.
I merely stated that on a day where the shadow chancellor has called for a million to march against a democratic result last week, and the leader of the opposition has called for homes in Kensington to be "requisitioned" albeit temporarily due to the tragedy, a lot of people would be in favour of it.
We are living in febrile times, even revolutionary times.
The fear of the last couple of years has been right wing populsim leading to fascism. It feels to me now that the shoe is on the other foot. Plenty of people on the left who prefer direct action to democracy, and they are feeling very emboldened right now.
You don't have to spend pounds on a Gucci smoke detector, just get a good quality one from a diy or supermarket and test it once a week. Over the years I've fitted hundreds, and I've never been to a fatal or serious injury causing fire that had working detectors fitted, unless drink or drugs were involved. If you know any elderly or vulnerable people who may not have detectors fitted, do the decent thing and help them out, or contact your local fire station and they'll fit them for free.
I see that I must become a lot more fire conscious. I ended up smashing my smoke alarm, because it went off whenever I was cooking.
BTW, the YouGov poll from June 11-12 bears out Survation, in that it shows Labour ahead by 6 (48-42, based on the weighted numbers for the 3 parties), with much the same for the unweighted sample. Roughly a 4-point swing since the election.
Wouldn't it be amazing if the Lib Dems, shorn of Farron, agreed to a coalition government with a negotiated EEA/EFTA solution as the objective, put to a referendum in 2019?
BTW, the YouGov poll from June 11-12 bears out Survation, in that it shows Labour ahead by 6 (48-42, based on the weighted numbers for the 3 parties), with much the same for the unweighted sample. Roughly a 4-point swing since the election.
Wouldn't it be amazing if the Lib Dems, shorn of Farron, agreed to a coalition government with a negotiated EEA/EFTA solution as the objective, put to a referendum in 2019?
Isn't this now a possibility now Fishfinger's gone and some grown ups are now running the Dims? Cable, Swinson, Lamb, Davey - all of these guys could work with the Tories.
I was by the end a definite leaver, quite sure of my conclusion, but there have been a lot of times recently when I have wondered if it was worth the cost.
God I'm on the Westway now. First of all Grenfell Tower stands out eerily dark on its own. Second of all there are dozens of similar blocks of flats all around.
I was by the end a definite leaver, quite sure of my conclusion, but there have been a lot of times recently when I have wondered if it was worth the cost.
If only someone had warned you about this before the vote....
Lots of volatility in public sentiment between two poles for economic policy and two poles for Brexit that don't align. Lots at stake. Lots of mistakes to be made. To me it looks likely that Corbyn and Mcdonell will overplay their hand. It may not be permanent revolution but permanent campaigning and agitation will have diminishing returns and could quickly go negative. The Lib Dems should really start attacking Labour rather than following the Progressive Alliance myth.
BTW, the YouGov poll from June 11-12 bears out Survation, in that it shows Labour ahead by 6 (48-42, based on the weighted numbers for the 3 parties), with much the same for the unweighted sample. Roughly a 4-point swing since the election.
The figures are nearer Lab 45 Con 40 LD 8 before elimination of dont know/wont vote 36/32/7
A Corbyn led Labour party polling 45%. Unreal.
Scary, more like.
I reckon Corbyn would be a fairly ineffectual and quite likeable prime minister, and wouldn't be too damaging, IF - and it's a huge IF - he was surrounded by lots of nice sensible centrist Labour people.
But he isn't. He is surrounded by people like Milne, and McDonnell - active Stalinists and Trots, lovers-of-Hamas and snoggers-of-the-IRA, proper Marxists and commies, with a dash of Islamism.
It is incredible that the Labour party has been taken over by these fuckers, and incredible that they are so close to power. Well done Theresa, you stupid cow.
Chucking money at the old and young was going to gain votes, it's unsustainable once in power of course but they would worry about that when they came to it.
Wouldn't it be amazing if the Lib Dems, shorn of Farron, agreed to a coalition government with a negotiated EEA/EFTA solution as the objective, put to a referendum in 2019?
Isn't this now a possibility now Fishfinger's gone and some grown ups are now running the Dims? Cable, Swinson, Lamb, Davey - all of these guys could work with the Tories.
No we cant , only nutters like the DUP can consider working with the Conservatives
Wouldn't it be amazing if the Lib Dems, shorn of Farron, agreed to a coalition government with a negotiated EEA/EFTA solution as the objective, put to a referendum in 2019?
Isn't this now a possibility now Fishfinger's gone and some grown ups are now running the Dims? Cable, Swinson, Lamb, Davey - all of these guys could work with the Tories.
God I'm on the Westway now. First of all Grenfell Tower stands out eerily dark on its own. Second of all there are dozens of similar blocks of flats all around.
This is one thing which doesn't make sense to me.
We're told that cladding was installed so the millionaires in the posh houses would have their view enhanced.
But they haven't installed cladding on every tower block in the area surely ?
Comments
We lack the will.
1. Would the community arround them react in the same way? Probably yes
2. Would we be making a bigger issue about buildibg regs and fire protection? Yes, from some quaters
3. Would it produce a better response from the government? I dont know
4. Would JC be their talking to the survivors? Yse as would TM.
5. Would it change the political narrative in the way i think this is doing? Probanly no
6. Would anybody sek to gain political advantage from it? Probably no.
7. "...".......
Im afraid that many people see it as a problem so removed from them they can ignore it or blame sub letting and questioning the right of people who have died to be here in the first plce
The problem is one of cost. Building houses that meet the criteria at a price people can afford is very difficult. If you think differently, you can probably make an absolute killing as a builder as the market wants affordable, quality homes.
Now, if more people wanted to live in blocks of flats, it might well be possible. But that is not what many (most?) people in this country want. Nick Palmer thinks this view should change, and he may well be correct. But changing it is really difficult, and sadly will be much harder after yesterday's tragedy.
bis bald
However, as with the London Bridge attack, what this has done is revealed what London is like now. Immigration gets talked about a lot. I often find myself wondering, where are all these people going? Well, it's places like Grenfell Tower.
I live in Woking with my parents. I work in central London and earn £35k a year. There's absolutely no chance that I'd ever be considered for social housing in London. So instead I have to cough up £3k a year to commute into the city. So yes, perhaps the lives of people like those living in Grenfell Tower are very removed from anything I know because I'll never be able to live that close to where I work.
That doesn't mean I don't care about what's happened.
"There's a lot of separation between classes and people are telling me that it's down to social cleansing."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40291372?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=twitter
Is it not more likely that she limps on to the summer recess, resigns the party leadership at that point, giving the Tories time to hold a leadership election in time for the party conference?
I knew there was a wealth divide in Kensington and Chelsea but I didn't think it was as extreme as east London.
The press coverage in particular has been nothing short of disgraceful across the board, huge amounts of speculation have drowned out the few facts we know.
My point earlier was not to disparage the people living in these conditions, but rather to point out that it will shine an ugly, national light on what has been an open secret in inner london, that people live in appalling, shanty town conditions, in a supposedly rich and prosperous nation.
There is a scandal in how these people died, but there is also another scandal in how they lived. We've ignored the 'ten to a room' pictures you see in the papers time and time again, how many of us will feel able to ignore pictures of charred mattresses and burnt bodies ten to a room, should they surface?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/grenfell-tower-blaze-disaster-waiting-happen/
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/875435389359603712
....
I grew up in a flat on the 8th floor of this tower block in a pleasant residential area near the station of a Copenhagen suburb. Two lifts that almost never broke down, a full-time porter, two balconies with a pleasant breeze and sun all day on one side or the other, playground underneath, shops galore nearby as well as green spaces. Flats there currently start at around £120,000, or £500/month.
https://monera.dk/adresser/kgs-lyngby/lehwaldsvej/lehwaldsvej-3-5-e
Build some like that and attitudes will change.
"By the turn of the millennium, the post-war tower blocks that are scattered through Britain’s cities had become rundown and ugly. So in 2000, Tony Blair’s government launched the Decent Homes Programme, a huge scheme to update the social housing stock, making it more environmentally friendly, comfortable and pleasing to the eye. For high-rises there were two options – either refurbish them, or pull them down and build new low-rise housing in their place. The slightly cheaper option was to do them up.
Billions of pounds of public funds were handed out to contractors to carry out the upgrades – £820 million in London alone. In almost all cases, the drab concrete was wrapped in brightly coloured plastic. It may look far nicer, but the material used in most cases is also highly flammable, while the tiny space between the façade and the concrete acts as a chimney in the event of a fire, sucking the flames up the building in seconds."
So just to make the skyline look a bit nicer, they clothed the blocks in flammable material? Surely this can't be real?
We have a ridiculous situaton in London at the moment where new builds are largely 'luxury' for investment rather than for ordinary people. The ordinary folk get shunted into substandard tower blocks or terraced houses subdivided and subdivided and subdivided again.
Your post is a very good reminder - it's not just about building more, it's about building the right kind of flats to meet the needs of the people who live and work here.
While we are all sat here chatting to each other and putting the world to rights.
How many of you have checked your smoke detectors in the last few weeks? Might be worth checking them right now (we will wait for you) and putting new batteries in (if they have batteries).
Let some tiny bit of good come from a terrible tragedy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/number-empty-homes-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/
In those circumstances, I can see a lot of people supporting a government that promises expropriation... trouble ahead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)
For others mentioning the standard alarm battery annoyances: you can get ones with lithium batteries that last 7-10 years.
(yep, I've been researching this today, like a lot of others probably .... and my alarm was out of date)
hadnt realised you were back
good to see you
Expropriation would be something else entirely. It would be seizing the property with no payment made to the owners. Far be it from me to dissuade posters to this site of engaging in hyperbole, but perhaps you could give some indication for the benefit of others?
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/875444840405884930
(This is not a sponsored post).
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ovy5dhg86p/InternalResults_170612_Favourability_W.pdf
People remember this. Certainly, the few months I spent living in Skenfrith House off the Old Kent Road in the early 1990s were interesting. The flat was beautifully looked after; the communal areas - the lifts and lobbies - less so. As an example, the lift would have a rather unpleasant aroma each morning.
I also spent a year in a student tower bock in South Woodford. That was more pleasant, aside from the usual letting off of fire extinguishers, midnight fire alarms to see who was sleeping with whom, and of course the Phantom Shi**er of Old London Town ...
They'll order the removal of the identical fascias immediately, I'm sure; there are another five buildings I think that were done under the same contract. As to the rest, they'll judge them on a case-by-case basis. As far as I'm aware it is possible to apply fascias without creating this chimney effect.
I merely stated that on a day where the shadow chancellor has called for a million to march against a democratic result last week, and the leader of the opposition has called for homes in Kensington to be "requisitioned" albeit temporarily due to the tragedy, a lot of people would be in favour of it.
We are living in febrile times, even revolutionary times.
The fear of the last couple of years has been right wing populsim leading to fascism. It feels to me now that the shoe is on the other foot. Plenty of people on the left who prefer direct action to democracy, and they are feeling very emboldened right now.
http://lyrics.wikia.com/wiki/The_Jam:The_Planner's_Dream_Goes_Wrong
The cladding is a further issue. It was fitted to insulate the walls of these blocks. Fireproof insulation is easily specified but it costs several £ more per square metre. It's been known for at least 8 years that combustible insulation with 'firebreaks' is ineffective because the flames tend to bypass the firebreaks.
Niklaus Pevsner:
'The English will spare no expense to get something on the cheap'.
https://www.facebook.com/ngoyal/posts/10209716203558663?pnref=story
https://twitter.com/linkcalhoun/status/875070635935969281
Stops shouting at iPad
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/875450948188897280
We're told that cladding was installed so the millionaires in the posh houses would have their view enhanced.
But they haven't installed cladding on every tower block in the area surely ?