politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Damian Green – my 70/1 longshot to be next CON leader

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see that Leavers' preferred solution to the problem of finding agricultural workers is still self-picking fruit.

That's called innovation, you appear to be against it

I'm all in favour of it. But I'd prefer Leavers to concentrate on anti-gravity boots and time machines first, if they're going to pursue fantastical dreams.

Pulpstar said:

kurtjester said:

Bobajob_PB said:

kurtjester said:

Bobajob_PB said:

British Rail hasn't existed in any form since 1997. That was two decades ago. And yes, a few chunks of the franchised system have – kicking and screaming – Oysterised. But it took them ages and they are still in a tiny minority.

Many of British Rail's public sector values still run deep within the railway industry. BT is another classic example of entrenched views clinging on.

LOL. Only an arch privatiser could excuse the failures of the franchising shambles on a public body that ceased to exist 20 years ago. Your argument is undermined somewhat by the fact that the nationalised TfL is integrated, ticketless and cashless – including the buses. Only tourists buy a ticket despite being implored not to by endless PA announcements. The franchises are backward.

Oh for the heady days of British Rail. Filthy, dangerous and ancient rolling stock, dwindling passenger numbers and multiple fatalities.

As a non regular rail user my main objection to nationalisation is that it may well long term cost me more.
But East Coast Mainline, the tubes and the fact alot of our rail is effectively owned by foreign governments in some form or another (Deutsche Bahn) put paid to the idea it would go back to the "bad old days of British Rail" in my mind.
I think it would work, and work well for rail users - wouldn't trust Corbyn to implement it though treble pay rises all round for the unions. Mind you with Southern seems that may well happen in the private sector...

Changes in culture take time and effort. That goes for nationalising as much as privatising. London Underground does in many ways do a very good job (though I haven't used it in ages, not having an Oyster card), but it's still prone to strikes and it's clear that union power remains excessive. Would that change if you privatised it? Perhaps, perhaps not. The fundamental economics wouldn't change: it'd still be a near-monopoly giving customers little option, so the power that a union could exert by a strike would still be significant, and the political pressure would be little different - the mayor and co would still be expected to 'sort things out' by the public; he'd just have less power to do so.

The issue with Southern does highlight one issue with franchising (and it's one that affects services well beyond rail): changing the management is not necessarily sufficient if the workforce is obstreperous and the service perceived as vital, as the workers know that they can't be got rid of because of the public outcry it'd cause. Ideally, good management could resolve that by improving the working culture and developing a positive environment. Easier said than done though.

Beverley_C said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Beverley_C said:

Scott_P said:

twitter.com/lindayueh/status/877865467905323008

It is nice that there remains a way out. I wonder what the fee would be?

Schengen and euro membership...

They would be wiser to ditch Schengen for the UK and just push for Euro integration.

Greece ith 65 million people, it would kill them

williamglenn said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Beverley_C said:

Scott_P said:

twitter.com/lindayueh/status/877865467905323008

It is nice that there remains a way out. I wonder what the fee would be?

Schengen and euro membership...

Federalists should send a thank you note to all the people who voted for Brexit for making that outcome possible.

There is no way the EU would over complicate the Euro by trying to force the UK to join it.

Making Schengen as a condition likewise seems more hassle than its worth. They're probably quite happy at being able to prevent our jihadis from travelling onto the continent.

I imagine the EU would be quite happy to have us reverse Article 50 on the status quo.

Worst case is that we would have a little less leverage in future negotiations.

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see that Leavers' preferred solution to the problem of finding agricultural workers is still self-picking fruit.

That's called innovation, you appear to be against it

I'm all in favour of it. But I'd prefer Leavers to concentrate on anti-gravity boots and time machines first, if they're going to pursue fantastical dreams.

I suspect as has been pointed out fruit picking machines will take over PDQ

which will of course increase poductivity

Ah, two examples of the Leaver's "will".

I long ago learned to translate that into English as "might conceivably if we're really lucky".

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Harley has a nice promotional video detailing all their 'projects' which can be double checked

http://www.harleyfacades.co.uk/page/feature-video

Chalcot Estate Camdem Building No 9 and by far the largest value.

I feel sorry for the minions there, the company will probably go to the wall over this.

If any company involved turns out to have screwed up or cut corners, they'll be praying they have enough public liability insurance for the corporate manslaughter charge.

Cutting corners may negate pl insurance

Indeed it might.

I wonder what audit/recordkeeping requirements there are for this sort of advanced building work? I'm more familiar with aviation regulation, where quite literally every nut and bolt comes with a certificate of provenance from the manufacturer and a thorough system of inspection and recall procedures are in place.

Overheads, depreciation, wages calced in the normal way to the financial statements.

The main difference will be that project estimates for a total job will be drawn up pre-contract and then profit calculated by costs in against budget (+profit) rather than sales invoices essentially.

Though best of luck getting final completion costs if any of the current contracts are "underbilled" right now (Sales invoices less than current costs). You try to run companies with this sort of project basis on a slightly 'overbilled' basis so that cashflow remains positive.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see that Leavers' preferred solution to the problem of finding agricultural workers is still self-picking fruit.

That joke might not be quite as funny in 10 years time once AI fully takes off, though.

Like everything about Brexit, the supposed benefits are 10 years or so away without any clear route to those benefits and with lots of obvious major drawbacks first.

The NPV of a benefit that is 10 years away at near-zero interest rates will be reasonable. As rates rise, which they seem to be about to be, the benefit decreases dramatically.

I'm not sure why anyone is contemplating that we might stay in the EU when even Ken Clarke has now faced up to the reality that we're heading out.

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see that Leavers' preferred solution to the problem of finding agricultural workers is still self-picking fruit.

That's called innovation, you appear to be against it

I'm all in favour of it. But I'd prefer Leavers to concentrate on anti-gravity boots and time machines first, if they're going to pursue fantastical dreams.

I suspect as has been pointed out fruit picking machines will take over PDQ

which will of course increase poductivity

Ah, two examples of the Leaver's "will".

I long ago learned to translate that into English as "might conceivably if we're really lucky".

funnily enough I apply the same translation when lawyers say they "will" have a piece of work ready for signing

however I disticntly remember when I was younger we seemed to have locally picked fruit in shops prior to EU freedom of movement, Im sure we'll get by

Roger said:

It just gets funnier. Sorry if already posted

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/owen-jones-gleefully-brands-daily-mail-an-open-sewer_uk_594b7656e4b01cdedf0058cc

Given that last week he was trying to organise a protest against the election result, why should we listen to anything he says?

isam said:

As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?

If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

For the government two things work in their favour:

1. If this is an endemic problem then it won't have materialised in 2010 and hence all governments can be found responsible.

2. Notwithstanding Pt.1, having withstood an onslaught of legitimate and less legitimate attacks over the past two weeks, I'm not sure anything can bring the govt down and any new news will be put into the existing pot.

That said, they need to do something pretty bold and inspired now and I'm not sure that included buying luxury blocks of flats for those people up and down the country.

@JosiasJessop any ideas?

IANAE, but I am unsure that the reaction of moving everyone out of blocks with this cladding on is necessary or sensible, and in fact might miss other problems. I'm writing out some of my (inexpert) thoughts elsewhere.

One thing to note: a top guy in Camden Council was on R4 at 13.00, and he said that some of their tower blocks had such cladding. He also said that it was not as commissioned.

If he is right in this, then what went wrong (at least in Camden's case) becomes more focused. Why was the material not as commissioned (a slightly odd phrase to use), and why did the council's inspectors not pick up on it?

Although what went wrong in Camden's case might be very different from Grenfell Tower.

Sounds like a *lot* of tower blocks have such cladding:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40366646

(Also what about the insulation panels behind the cladding in many cases ?)

The quickest risk mitigation measure might be retrofitting sprinkler systems, but I suspect there will be industry capacity issues with both this and replacing cladding...

Alice_Aforethought said:

not_on_fire said:

currystar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

dyedwoolie said:

The point is that this is how it will be perceived. It's a natural leap from where we are and how things have been. It's a disgrace, there can't really be any other conclusion.
And I make no bones about stating what I think will be the reaction, it's something the country needs to be ready for and address.

It would be helpful if the opposition didn't try exploit the issue to to stir up hatred based on misrepresentation. Fat chance, I know.

I do find it grmily amusing though that the argument is that refurbishing a building at public expense to make it warmer as well as visually more attractive is somehow an evil plot against the proletariat by wicked Tory capitalists. The implication is that the Left think that the proletariat should properly be left shivering in ugly concrete monstrosities.

This point is exactly what has annoyed me about the "lack of investment" claims regarding Grenfell Towers. The simple fact is if the building had not been modernised then the fire would have been confined to one flat.

But the cladding was botched due to a lack of adequate time and money spent on ensuring it was safe. Some of the "red tape" so despised on the right would have been handy here.

Surely the point is that the red tape was completely ineffective, not that it existed.

Indeed, the tick-box culture has in many areas replaced common sense and professional responsibility.

Doesn't matter that all the boxes got ticked, if the building still ended up covered in crap cladding.

david_herdson said:

London Underground does in many ways do a very good job (though I haven't used it in ages, not having an Oyster card),

You do not need an Oyster card -- ordinary credit and debit cards will do as well on tubes and buses. The trick is always to use the same card to benefit from fare capping.

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

For the government two things work in their favour:

1. If this is an endemic problem then it won't have materialised in 2010 and hence all governments can be found responsible.

2. Notwithstanding Pt.1, having withstood an onslaught of legitimate and less legitimate attacks over the past two weeks, I'm not sure anything can bring the govt down and any new news will be put into the existing pot.

That said, they need to do something pretty bold and inspired now and I'm not sure that included buying luxury blocks of flats for those people up and down the country.

@JosiasJessop any ideas?

IANAE, but I am unsure that the reaction of moving everyone out of blocks with this cladding on is necessary or sensible, and in fact might miss other problems. I'm writing out some of my (inexpert) thoughts elsewhere.

One thing to note: a top guy in Camden Council was on R4 at 13.00, and he said that some of their tower blocks had such cladding. He also said that it was not as commissioned.

If he is right in this, then what went wrong (at least in Camden's case) becomes more focused. Why was the material not as commissioned (a slightly odd phrase to use), and why did the council's inspectors not pick up on it?

Although what went wrong in Camden's case might be very different from Grenfell Tower.

Sounds like a *lot* of tower blocks have such cladding:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40366646

(Also what about the insulation panels behind the cladding in many cases ?)

The quickest risk mitigation measure might be retrofitting sprinkler systems, but I suspect there will be industry capacity issues with both this and replacing cladding...

IMV the insulation panels behind the exterior cladding is still 'cladding': it is part of the cladding system that was retrofitted to the building, and the two need to be seen as a whole as well as separate components.

Fitting sprinklers might be insanely difficult in some cases, and even harder to make reliable, which is probably why the requirement to have them was grandfathered off.

But we should not obsess about the cladding. That might well have been the primary causal factor, but other things went wrong that night as well. For instance, if (and it is an *if*) building control failed in their duty to ensure the right cladding materials were used, then you have to question what other things they failed in.

There need to be some deep, searching questions asked of many people, and perhaps even our entire planning/building/controls sector.

Yet the people trying to make political capital out of this will prevent that from happening. After all, Hammond set the fire, the EU filled the flats with immigrants, and May clad the building herself. Why do we need an inquiry to tell us what is so bleeding obvious?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40367686

Public opinion definitely on the governments side with the benefits cap...

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

williamglenn said:

isam said:

As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?

If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.

Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals

https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf

Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO

Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?

I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!

I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.

Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed

Good afternoon, everyone.

Ms. Sarissa, I'd guess it's easier to start fires low down than high up, but perhaps we shouldn't discuss that any further.

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

williamglenn said:

isam said:

As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?

If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.

Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals

https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf

Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO

Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?

I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!

I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.

Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed

Did Grenfell tower qualify as a slum? If you are not talking about there, then where does qualify as a slum?

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

For the government two things work in their favour:

1. If this is an endemic problem then it won't have materialised in 2010 and hence all governments can be found responsible.

snip.

@JosiasJessop any ideas?

IANAE, but I am unsure that the reaction of moving everyone out of blocks with this cladding on is necessary or sensible,...

Although what went wrong in Camden's case might be very different from Grenfell Tower.

Sounds like a *lot* of tower blocks have such cladding:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40366646

(Also what about the insulation panels behind the cladding in many cases ?)

The quickest risk mitigation measure might be retrofitting sprinkler systems, but I suspect there will be industry capacity issues with both this and replacing cladding...

IMV the insulation panels behind the exterior cladding is still 'cladding': it is part of the cladding system that was retrofitted to the building, and the two need to be seen as a whole as well as separate components.

Fitting sprinklers might be insanely difficult in some cases, and even harder to make reliable, which is probably why the requirement to have them was grandfathered off.

But we should not obsess about the cladding. That might well have been the primary causal factor, but other things went wrong that night as well. For instance, if (and it is an *if*) building control failed in their duty to ensure the right cladding materials were used, then you have to question what other things they failed in.

There need to be some deep, searching questions asked of many people, and perhaps even our entire planning/building/controls sector.
...

There are several companies claiming the costs of retrofitting sprinkler systems is not prohibitive (admittedly they are talking their own book, but even so this is maybe an order of magnitude less than replacing cladding). The difficulty of this, and the likely efficacy are clearly things government is in the best position to get assessed quickly.

I agree about the cladding - it's just that the vast majority of discussion and commentary has been about the exterior aluminium sandwich panels. 'Other things' might well have gone wrong, but it's very difficult to see that the rate the fire propagated up the building could be blamed on anything instead of the exterior cladding (& this has been documented in several other instances).

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Pong said:

Roger said:

It just gets funnier. Sorry if already posted

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/owen-jones-gleefully-brands-daily-mail-an-open-sewer_uk_594b7656e4b01cdedf0058cc

Top notch ding dong.

"“Earlier this week, a Guardian writer attacked the Daily Mail for carrying comments by the controversialist Katie Hopkins. That was a lie. The Guardian and its writer know that Ms Hopkins has nothing to do with the Daily Mail, but works for Mail Online - a totally separate entity that has its own publisher, its own readership, different content and a very different world view."

..... and which uses this web address, which clearly has nothing to do with the Daily Mail:

www.dailymail.co.uk/

What more proof do you need that they have a very different world view to the real Daily Mail? I mean, a 'web address'...?

So will Corbyn & Co condemn all those Labour Councils who have allowed this cladding to be fitted to their residential tower blocks?

TOPPING said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

williamglenn said:

isam said:

As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?

If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.

Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals

https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf

Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO

Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?

I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!

I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.

Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed

Did Grenfell tower qualify as a slum? If you are not talking about there, then where does qualify as a slum?

Kilburn http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/fined-slum-landlord-who-crammed-24-people-into-wembley-house-licensed-for-seven-tenants-1-4660332

Manor Park http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3522580/Missing-ceilings-exposed-wires-no-hot-water-kitchen-Slum-landlord-rented-dangerous-dive-young-family-700-month-faces-prosecution.html

Southwark, Newham https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/25/london-property-squeeze-affordable-housing

Barking https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/rogue-landlord-fined-thousands-for-renting-flats-compared-to-rio-de-janeiro-slums-a3518576.html?amp

Kensington https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.standard.co.uk/news/london/landlord-fined-150000-after-18-people-found-crammed-into-gradeii-listed-kensington-slum-a3374126.html?am

Hounslow https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/huge-fine-slum-landlord-who-7409328.amp

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

williamglenn said:

isam said:

As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?

If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.

Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals

https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf

Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO

Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?

I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!

I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.

Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed

That's far from the whole story, as you well know.

The story is that the elite play divide and rule with the poor by injecting masses of unskilled labour into the areas that can least cope with it, then watch from afar as the friction between the working classes is ratcheted up by competition for housing, jobs and resources

williamglenn said:

currystar said:

So will Corbyn & Co condemn all those Labour Councils who have allowed this cladding to be fitted to their residential tower blocks?

I think you'll find that any councils that have transgressed are 'New' Labour councils that have paid the price for getting too close to the private sector. Corbyn & Co will be first in line to denounce them.

Well there is a block in Haringey that was built two years ago that is covered with this cladding. Is Haringey a New Labour council?

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

williamglenn said:

isam said:

As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?

If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.

Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals

https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf

Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO

Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?

Well, thereby hang many of my questions. The 8 residents out of 14 on the board - who had the power in that setup: residents, councillor representatives, well paid chief exec of TMO (150k - is that a big hoick on what the council would have paid, a common problem for these local quangos)?? What financials did they have with and from the council - did the arm's length make cutting back easier? Did the board as a whole have the training and expertise necessary to make these decisions (e.g. Ofsted frequently pull schools up on governers' knowledge around child protection).

To me, a resident representative is just as much a representative as a councillor and the idea that such a structure of itself should prevent things from going wrong is demonstrable rubbish.

A lefty friend expressed disbelief that publicly run mines could have had such failings as to result in Aberfan. Likewise, the Co-op Bank's ethics and the hubris around them directly contributed to their current state ("your pig dog capitalist credit crisis cannot harm us, our ethical wings are like a shield of steel!").

The profit motive is only one of a large menu of things that can lead organisations of all types seriously awry.

Pro_Rata said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

williamglenn said:

isam said:

As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?

If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.

Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals

https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf

Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO

Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?

Well, thereby hang many of my questions. The 8 residents out of 14 on the board - who had the power in that setup: residents, councillor representatives, well paid chief exec of TMO (150k - is that a big hoick on what the council would have paid, a common problem for these local quangos)?? What financials did they have with and from the council - did the arm's length make cutting back easier? Did the board as a whole have the training and expertise necessary to make these decisions (e.g. Ofsted frequently pull schools up on governers' knowledge around child protection).

To me, a resident representative is just as much a representative as a councillor and the idea that such a structure of itself should prevent things from going wrong is demonstrable rubbish.

A lefty friend expressed disbelief that publicly run mines could have had such failings as to result in Aberrant. Likewise, the Co-op Bank's ethics and hubris around them directly contributed to their current state ("your pig dog capitalist credit crisis cannot harm us, our ethical so he are like a shield of steel!").

The profit motive is only one of a large menu of things that can lead organisations of all types seriously awry.

Yep, pretty much agree with that.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/peteapps/status/877848337076105216

Interesting that they say "standard" and not "material " or "product". AFAIK, the PE (polyethylene) and FR (fire resisting) cladding panels both meet the same standard for surface spread of flame i.e. ASTM E84 – Passed Class A.

I would be surprised if they specified other than on performance data.

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

For the government two things work in their favour:

1. If this is an endemic problem then it won't have materialised in 2010 and hence all governments can be found responsible.

snip.

@JosiasJessop any ideas?

IANAE, but I am unsure that the reaction of moving everyone out of blocks with this cladding on is necessary or sensible,...

Although what went wrong in Camden's case might be very different from Grenfell Tower.

Sounds like a *lot* of tower blocks have such cladding:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40366646

(Also what about the insulation panels behind the cladding in many cases ?)

The quickest risk mitigation measure might be retrofitting sprinkler systems, but I suspect there will be industry capacity issues with both this and replacing cladding...

IMV the insulation panels behind the exterior cladding is still 'cladding': it is part of the cladding system that was retrofitted to the building, and the two need to be seen as a whole as well as separate components.

Fitting sprinklers might be insanely difficult in some cases, and even harder to make reliable, which is probably why the requirement to have them was grandfathered off.

But we should not obsess about the cladding. That might well have been the primary causal factor, but other things went wrong that night as well. For instance, if (and it is an *if*) building control failed in their duty to ensure the right cladding materials were used, then you have to question what other things they failed in.

There need to be some deep, searching questions asked of many people, and perhaps even our entire planning/building/controls sector.
...

There are several companies claiming the costs of retrofitting sprinkler systems is not prohibitive (admittedly they are talking their own book, but even so this is maybe an order of magnitude less than replacing cladding). The difficulty of this, and the likely efficacy are clearly things government is in the best position to get assessed quickly.

I agree about the cladding - it's just that the vast majority of discussion and commentary has been about the exterior aluminium sandwich panels. 'Other things' might well have gone wrong, but it's very difficult to see that the rate the fire propagated up the building could be blamed on anything instead of the exterior cladding (& this has been documented in several other instances).

How would internal sprinklers be of benefit when it is the exterior cladding that is on fire?

I suspect the best low cost option, if cladding replacement isn't possible, is to have proper alarm and evacuation procedures.

Pong said:

Paristonda said:

Scott_P said:

@KateProctorES: Cladding to be removed five Camden tower blocks: Dorney, Bray, Burnham, Taplow, Blashford. Residents will stay while material removed.

This seems very risky. Bluntly, if you were Isis would you not see this news and think that those named tower blocks could be an easy terror attack target?

You raise an interesting question on the moral framework of isis and isis-inspired individuals.

It's easy to assume they're death-cult scum who want to kill as many people as possible whenever the opportunity presents itself, but I don't think that's necessarily a given.

In several instances, pop-up terrorists have passed on the opportunity to kill lots more people, because, presumably, the symbolism/target was more important to them than the blunt death-count.

cf; Lee Rigby

I'd love someone to confirm this, but I listened to a podcast a few months ago that stated one of the big differences between Al Qaeda and ISIS are the choice of targets.

bin Laden had a philosophy that money mattered to his enemy: he had seen how the cost of the Afghan war had caused Russia to lose (and to some extent the same for the US in Vietnam), and wanted to do the same. He's alleged to have said that for every one dollar we spend in commissioning attacks, our enemies spend one thousand in trying to prevent us. (*) This may make sense given his monied background.

Hence the choice of many targets: military (USS Cole, hotel bombings targeting military personnel, the Pentagon) or economic: the Twin Towers.

Whereas ISIS-inspired terrorism appears much more random.

(*) Edit: the actual quote was: "every dollar of al-Qaeda defeated a million dollars."

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

isam said:

I can see why Corbyn and McDonnell are resonating with the poor. The exploitation of workers, forcing them to live in appalling conditions or else, sets up a clash between the employer and employee that fits the Marxist dialectic explanation of progress to a tee (I think)

I see your point, but since Corbyn wants Brexit AND complete FoM, he would make things many times worse.

1. If this is an endemic problem then it won't have materialised in 2010 and hence all governments can be found responsible.

snip.

@JosiasJessop any ideas?

IANAE, but I am unsure that the reaction of moving everyone out of blocks with this cladding on is necessary or sensible,...

Although what went wrong in Camden's case might be very different from Grenfell Tower.

Sounds like a *lot* of tower blocks have such cladding:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40366646

(Also what about the insulation panels behind the cladding in many cases ?)

The quickest risk mitigation measure might be retrofitting sprinkler systems, but I suspect there will be industry capacity issues with both this and replacing cladding...

IMV the insulation panels behind the exterior cladding is still 'cladding': it is part of the cladding system that was retrofitted to the building, and the two need to be seen as a whole as well as separate components.

Fitting sprinklers might be insanely difficult in some cases, and even harder to make reliable, which is probably why the requirement to have them was grandfathered off.

But we should not obsess about the cladding. That might well have been the primary causal factor, but other things went wrong that night as well. For instance, if (and it is an *if*) building control failed in their duty to ensure the right cladding materials were used, then you have to question what other things they failed in.

There need to be some deep, searching questions asked of many people, and perhaps even our entire planning/building/controls sector.
...

There are several companies claiming the costs of retrofitting sprinkler systems is not prohibitive (admittedly they are talking their own book, but even so this is maybe an order of magnitude less than replacing cladding). The difficulty of this, and the likely efficacy are clearly things government is in the best position to get assessed quickly.

I agree about the cladding - it's just that the vast majority of discussion and commentary has been about the exterior aluminium sandwich panels. 'Other things' might well have gone wrong, but it's very difficult to see that the rate the fire propagated up the building could be blamed on anything instead of the exterior cladding (& this has been documented in several other instances).


How would internal sprinklers be of benefit when it is the exterior cladding that is on fire?

I suspect the best low cost option, if cladding replacement isn't possible, is to have proper alarm and evacuation procedures.

They stop a fire which starts inside, they would probably have to change all the glass as well because when the cold water hit hot glass it would shatter making the fire worse

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

williamglenn said:

isam said:

As the slums in London that house 4 migranete?

If peoe mark.

Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals

https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf

GrenfelNot exactly fat cats?

needed

Kilburn http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/fined-slum-landlord-who-crammed-24-people-into-wembley-house-licensed-for-seven-tenants-1-4660332

Manor Park http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3522580/Missing-ceilings-exposed-wires-no-hot-water-kitchen-Slum-landlord-rented-dangerous-dive-young-family-700-month-faces-prosecution.html

Southwark, Newham https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/25/london-property-squeeze-affordable-housing

Barking https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/rogue-landlord-fined-thousands-for-renting-flats-compared-to-rio-de-janeiro-slums-a3518576.html?amp

Kensington https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.standard.co.uk/news/london/landlord-fined-150000-after-18-people-found-crammed-into-gradeii-listed-kensington-slum-a3374126.html?am

Hounslow https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/huge-fine-slum-landlord-who-7409328.amp

Fair enough. All in London, that said.

Are the people in abject poverty the migrants themselves, or the people whose jobs they are taking? Employment in London is at its highest for 25 years (https://data.london.gov.uk/apps_and_analysis/london-labour-market-update-for-london-january-2017/).

Add that to the various minimum and living wages, I'm not sure your point "abject poverty" is well proven. I accept absolutely that the instances you pasted are very very far from acceptable for a large number of reasons.

Well I was talking about London!

The migrants are living in abject poverty. It's the only way they can afford to undercut the people who's jobs they take. I don't blame them & never have, the blame is entirely on the profit makers. You can't have a free market that requires people to live below a certain standard, without being morally bankrupt

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

williamglenn said:

isam said:

As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?

If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.

Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals

https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf

Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO

Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?

I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!

I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.

Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed

Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.

Willing buyer, willing seller.

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

williamglenn said:

isam said:

As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?

If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.

Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals

https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf

Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO

Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?

I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!

I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.

Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed

That's far from the whole story, as you well know.

The story is that the elite play divide and rule with the poor by injecting masses of unskilled labour into the areas that can least cope with it, then watch from afar as the friction between the working classes is ratcheted up by competition for housing, jobs and resources

I think you're attributing deliberate, scheming malice where little, or none, exists. That doesn't mean the 'elite' are blameless: just that consequences are hard to judge before the event, and easier afterwards.

The 'elite' are not sitting around boardroom tables stroking white cats. They're just as incompetent as you or I. Which is part of the problem.

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

williamglenn said:

isam said:

As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?

If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.

Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals

https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf

Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO

Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?

I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!

I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.

Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed

That's far from the whole story, as you well know.

The story is that the elite play divide and rule with the poor by injecting masses of unskilled labour into the areas that can least cope with it, then watch from afar as the friction between the working classes is ratcheted up by competition for housing, jobs and resources

I think you're attributing deliberate, scheming malice where little, or none, exists. That doesn't mean the 'elite' are blameless: just that consequences are hard to judge before the event, and easier afterwards.

The 'elite' are not sitting around boardroom tables stroking white cats. They're just as incompetent as you or I. Which is part of the problem.

Never attribute to malice, that which might be otherwise explained by incompetence.

murali_s said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/lindayueh/status/877865467905323008

LOL, it's finally dawning on them all that we are actually leaving, and will leave a huge budgetary hole in our wake...

Wrong my right wing friend! They are actually throwing us a lifeline.

They're not trying to throw us a lifeline, they're trying to put us in handcuffs.

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

williamglenn said:

isam said:

As the slums in London that house 4 migranete?

If peoe mark.

Behind every great fortune is am/nu/omelas.pdf

GrenfelNot exactly fat cats?

needed

Kilburn http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/fiticle-3522580/Missing-ceilings-exposed-wires-no-hot-water-kitchen-Slum-landlord-rented-dangerous-dive-young-family-700-month-faces-prosecution.html

Southwark, Newham https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/25/london-property-squeeze-affordable-housing

Barking https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/rogue-landlord-fined-thousands-for-renting-flats-compared-to-rio-de-janeiro-slums-a3518576.html?amp

Kensington https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.standard.co.uk/news/london/landlord-fined-150000-after-18-people-found-crammed-into-gradeii-listed-kensington-slum-a3374126.html?am

Hounslow https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/huge-fine-slum-landlord-who-7409328.amp

Fair enough. All in London, that said.

Are the people in abject poverty the migrants themselves, or the people whose jobs they are taking? Employment in London is at its highest for 25 years (https://data.london.gov.uk/apps_and_analysis/london-labour-market-update-for-london-january-2017/).

Add that to the various minimum and living wages, I'm not sure your point "abject poverty" is well proven. I accept absolutely that the instances you pasted are very very far from acceptable for a large number of reasons.

Well I was talking about London!

The migrants are living in abject poverty. It's the only way they can afford to undercut the people who's jobs they take. I don't blame them & never have, the blame is entirely on the profit makers. You can't have a free market that requires people to live below a certain standard, without being morally bankrupt

But what about the minimum wage? London Living wage? The first mandatory, the latter recommended? Again I appreciate there must be many instances of people not being paid that, and of having or choosing to live in filthy conditions, but that is against the law, perhaps they are here illegally also, and therefore that is not something I think is fair to say can be laid at the door of any government policy.

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/877891231711461376

JosiasJessop said:

dyedwoolie said:

Camden council removing cladding from some blocks and appointing fire wardens and seeking legal advice as cladding 'not what was ordered'
Big trouble brewing in builder land.

Or suppliers. It is not unknown in the building industry for materials supplied not to be the ones ordered. Sometimes this is mistakes, other times out-and-out fraud. Consumers are not the only people who can fall for fakers.

It may also depend on the documentation. There might be a certain amount of backside-covering going on. This is why documentation should have been secured on day one.

If someone did substitute materials just to save a few thousands (and for no other reasons), then they should face some severe jail time IMO.

Deviances need to be considered: where the builders/installers came across an issue ("We can't get the cladding in time') and the architect signs off a deviance from the original plans without telling the client ...

All sounds messy, confusing and litigious as well as time consuming.
Biggest risk for the government is time. If blocks are concluded not safe or partially unsafe can they afford to leave them there resident? If there's another fire then oh boy, but there is equally the possibility of over cautious reaction leading to upheaval, discontent and massive cost.
Who'd be a PM?

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

williamglenn said:

isam said:

As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?

If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.

Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals

https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf

Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO

Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?

I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!

I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.

Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed

Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.

Willing buyer, willing seller.

A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.

Mr. Pulpstar, me too.

Vote Lamb for minty fresh policies.

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

williamglenn said:

isam said:

As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?

If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.

Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals

https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf

Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO

Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?

I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!

I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.

Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed

That's far from the whole story, as you well know.

The story is that the elite play divide and rule with the poor by injecting masses of unskilled labour into the areas that can least cope with it, then watch from afar as the friction between the working classes is ratcheted up by competition for housing, jobs and resources

I think you're attributing deliberate, scheming malice where little, or none, exists. That doesn't mean the 'elite' are blameless: just that consequences are hard to judge before the event, and easier afterwards.

The 'elite' are not sitting around boardroom tables stroking white cats. They're just as incompetent as you or I. Which is part of the problem.

Hmm well it's not for us to guess their intentions, but they should have been more cautious if they weren't sure. It wasn't that hard to predict really

Yeah, right. It's not that simple. As another example, I reckon the intermediate consequences of Brexit won't have been accurately predicted by 'experts' on either the Leave or Remain sides.

It's good to see that you are in favour of caution: we'll make a small-c 'conservative' of you yet!

https://twitter.com/flashboy/status/877897203116847104

@BBCNormanS: Lib Dem leadership: @normanlamb won't run.

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: Lib Dem leadership: @normanlamb won't run.

He's been nobbled.

Lamb shanked.

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: Lib Dem leadership: @normanlamb won't run.

Oh balls

dyedwoolie said:

JosiasJessop said:

dyedwoolie said:

Camden council removing cladding from some blocks and appointing fire wardens and seeking legal advice as cladding 'not what was ordered'
Big trouble brewing in builder land.

Or suppliers. It is not unknown in the building industry for materials supplied not to be the ones ordered. Sometimes this is mistakes, other times out-and-out fraud. Consumers are not the only people who can fall for fakers.

It may also depend on the documentation. There might be a certain amount of backside-covering going on. This is why documentation should have been secured on day one.

If someone did substitute materials just to save a few thousands (and for no other reasons), then they should face some severe jail time IMO.

Deviances need to be considered: where the builders/installers came across an issue ("We can't get the cladding in time') and the architect signs off a deviance from the original plans without telling the client ...

All sounds messy, confusing and litigious as well as time consuming.
Biggest risk for the government is time. If blocks are concluded not safe or partially unsafe can they afford to leave them there resident? If there's another fire then oh boy, but there is equally the possibility of over cautious reaction leading to upheaval, discontent and massive cost.
Who'd be a PM?

A problem is that we don't have many facts (at least we don't) to judge whether a building is 'safe'. As an example the problem isn't just that the cladding spread the fire, but the fact the fire got back inside other apartments. It might not just be a case of risk-assessing the cladding, but (say) the windows or sewage pipes, which may have allowed flames in. Or if the replacement cladding acted as a chimney, as some have claimed.

It might even be possible that the cladding system is altered, but a similar fire occurs because of other problems.

A major factor in this still be the design of the renovation as well as the materials.

As you say, messy. Which is why competent people should be allowed to get to the bottom of it without people automatically apportioning blame, especially for political reasons.

(Edit: I hope in my posts I'm giving options, rather than apportioning blame).