politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Damian Green – my 70/1 longshot to be next CON leader
Options
Comments
-
I think it's simple: people who are moderately successful and don't share isam's values are part of the 'elite'. I'm going to put together a small questionnaire so I can quickly adjudge whether people are secretly elite.TOPPING said:
Blimmin' heck if jetsetting hedge fund managers aren't part of the global elite who on earth does that leave?!?isam said:
If you don't know, you're not part of the elite!rcs1000 said:
I'm still struggling, isam. How do I identify fellow members of the elite when I'm on the street? Is there a secret handshake I haven't been taught yet?isam said:
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 reallyJosiasJessop said:
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.isam said:
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 resourcesJosiasJessop said:
That's far from the whole story, as you well know.isam said:
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!JosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said: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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
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
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.0 -
Balls isn't running either.Pulpstar said:0 -
Feck.Pulpstar said:0 -
Bloody Lamb! That wasn't well done.
So it's Cable. Or maybe Davey.
.....
*sighs*0 -
As someone who does a lot of work for Councils their project managers snag our work in an incredibly detailed fashion. If non specified panels were fitted then the Project manager would have spotted it.dyedwoolie said:
Council leader on Sky was very insistent and seemed genuine that they are taking legal advice but I guess we will see in time if a raft of suits are lodged.currystar said:
Camden do employ Project Managers and Building Control Officers. They should and would have checked what was being installed was correct. I have a feeling that Camden may be lying about this.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.0 -
So the 3 main parties are going to be run by Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn & Vince Cable O_O0
-
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!JosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.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?
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
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
Willing buyer, willing seller.0 -
I think that's why Ursula Le Guin's short story is so apt. The people who benefit from the migrants toil are unaware of how they must live to deliver it.TOPPING said:
Yes I understand those circumstances. I of course would like data but I'm not sure that's possible. I will have a dig around.isam said:
An example would be - A job that used to pay £10ph and enabled a family to live to a certain standard is now done for £6.50ph by people that live 16 to a semi. If they didn't live like that, they couldn't work for £6.50ph.TOPPING said:
laid at the door of any government policy.isam said:
Well I was talking about London!TOPPING said:
Fair enough. All in London, that said.isam said:TOPPING said:isam said:
neededJosiasJessop said:
GrenfelNot exactly fat cats?isam said:
Behind every great fortune is am/nu/omelas.pdfwilliamglenn said:
If peoe mark.isam said:As the slums in London that house 4 migranete?
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.
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
Also the minimum hourly wage is not enough to live on if you can only get 15-20 hours a week on a zero hours contract. The employment figures are so great because many former breadwinners are doing those hours
The former breadwinners on part time hours does have some data, I'll try to find it
Edit, here it is!
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2017/jan/13/low-paid-men-in-uk-four-times-more-likely-to-be-working-part-time-than-in-1990s0 -
Sir Vince.Pulpstar said:So the 3 main parties are going to be run by Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn & Vince Cable O_O
0 -
People have done stupid things for sums much smaller than a few thousand. It might not be the person specifying the product, but someone else further down the line. And false product substitution does happen in the industry, though I'd hope it would have been picked up later.Nemtynakht said:
I have in the past worked on large scale building projects. I have to say some of the comment is ridiculous. As if the person specifying products on a 10 million pound project would change the product to save a few thousand pounds. The key things depend on what was specified. You may have a traditional specification that describes the product in great detail, and where changes to materials may be discussed. If however there is a performance specification, it may only say that the cladding must meet British standard xxxx, or building regulations, must be available in 3 colours etc that would give greater leeway for contractor to source and secure best value material. The problem only comes when regulations need reviewing.JosiasJessop said:
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.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.
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 ...
The other thing is that the cladding could have had a minimum fire rating and then the client could be looking to achieve higher values on insulation. That would explain the situation to me. The client is trying to achieve the best possible u value and energy performance for the building as a whole. Two very similar products both meet the building regs but the slightly cheaper one has a better insulation value - It would be difficult to argue to use the fire rated product if both met the relevant fire safety standards.
But I agree it's unlikely.
Your second paragraph might be very pertinent.
As it happens, a few days ago I did say that it might be that it turns out that no-one did anything wrong according to regulations and laws. Which won't satisfy the baying mob.0 -
Attack of the oldies.Pulpstar said:So the 3 main parties are going to be run by Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn & Vince Cable O_O
0 -
Neither will Mrs Balls for at least the next god knows how many years.DecrepitJohnL said:
Balls isn't running either.Pulpstar said:0 -
If you want to fiddle a bit, Davey is 5 on Ladbrokes, Cable 1.64 on Betfair. Possible to back both, obviously higher stake on Cable, and be green(er) if either get it.
Reduced my Betfair red on Cable a smidge.0 -
My experience of working in the trade many moons ago, the common chain of sub-contractor of sub-contractor of sub-contractor, who despite the big name on the site turn up with 3 guys in a battered white van. By the time it gets down to the little guy saving a few £1000 is a big proportion of their job, even if it is peanuts of the overall scheme.JosiasJessop said:
People have done stupid things for sums much smaller than a few thousand. It might not be the person specifying the product, but someone else further down the line. And false product substitution does happen in the industry, though I'd hope it would have been picked up later.0 -
Slows the spread of fire within the building - hopefully enough to allow evacuation.JonathanD said:Nigelb said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
IMV the insulation panels behind the exterior cladding is still 'cladding'There need to be some deep, searching questions asked of many people, and perhaps even our entire planning/building/controls sector.Nigelb said:
Sounds like a *lot* of tower blocks have such cladding:JosiasJessop said:
IANAE, but I am unsure that the reaction of moving everyone out of blocks with this cladding on is necessary or sensible,...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?
Although what went wrong in Camden's case might be very different from Grenfell Tower.
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...
...
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.
(This is what happened in the recent similar fire in Australia.)
Some buildings have external sprinkler heads protecting the cladding itself.
Not having a combustible building exterior is ideal, but sealing with 600 plus tower blocks is going to take some time.
One thing which might well have contributed to the disaster is the combustibility of UPVC window frames.0 -
JosiasJessop said:
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.
Yep, this was one of my earliest thoughts on seeing the pics of the Grenfell cladding on fire.
The government has said ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Communities and Local Government said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”
Reynobond PE, understood to have been used on the Grenfell Tower, is made with a polyethylene core.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/experts-urge-ban-on-use-of-combustible-materials-in-tower-blocks0 -
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.rcs1000 said:
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!JosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.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?
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
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
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?0 -
All pensioners!Pulpstar said:So the 3 main parties are going to be run by Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn & Vince Cable O_O
"The Baby Boom Bites Back"0 -
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?Bobajob_PB said:
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.rcs1000 said:
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!JosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.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?
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
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
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?0 -
The truth is Lamb would never have won as the stance of too many members on the EU makes Norman Lamb look like @isam of this parish on the matter.
I'm hopeful that at least one other (Davey?) runs though so the Lib Dems can decide whether to be more Twickenham or Surbiton............0 -
Presumably Lamb doesn't agree with fighting on and arguing for soft Brexit or 2nd referendum?0
-
Because a) the consumer doesn't have perfect information and b) the state has some role in improving the health off its citizens and c) the state has some role in maintaining the welfare of animals.rcs1000 said:
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?Bobajob_PB said:
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.rcs1000 said:
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
SNIPJosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.isam said:SNIP
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
Under your thinking, shops would be able to sell dog shit waffle sandwiches and flavour them with chocolate as 'chocolate-style waffles'.0 -
I think it's probably a good thing for individual welfare that it's illegal to sell your kidney, for example.rcs1000 said:
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!JosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.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?
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
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
Willing buyer, willing seller.
Or would you argue for unrestricted organ trade ?
Willing buyer; willing seller is all very well, but given the potential for vast disparities in power between the two, such markets aren't always equitable. Which is one of the reasons a civilised society has a certain amount of regulation.
Where you draw the line is, as ever, the question.0 -
Because eating dodgy sandwiches to save a bit of money is likely to increase costs for the rest of us further down the line. If someone had spent 10 pence more on a sandwich that did not give them food poisoning they would not now be in that queue at the doctors or taking up that hospital bed or sitting at home unproductive instead of being at work.rcs1000 said:
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?Bobajob_PB said:
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.rcs1000 said:
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!JosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.isam said:As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of can't compete?
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
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
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
0 -
I am no expert but when seeing the appalling smoke given off in the blaze and the toxicity of the smoke I cannot see how sprinklers would have had an effect as the smoke and it's intensity would surely be the fatal aspect, not so much the fire.
However I am sure others have a better knowledge than me and I could of course be wrong0 -
Still, I have to go with sister rata who is currently a site project manager on a (clad) high rise build for a big corporate client - there is no way on earth that should have happened.Nemtynakht said:
I have in the past worked on large scale building projects. I have to say some of the comment is ridiculous. As if the person specifying products on a 10 million pound project would change the product to save a few thousand pounds. The key things depend on what was specified. You may have a traditional specification that describes the product in great detail, and where changes to materials may be discussed. If however there is a performance specification, it may only say that the cladding must meet British standard xxxx, or building regulations, must be available in 3 colours etc that would give greater leeway for contractor to source and secure best value material. The problem only comes when regulations need reviewing.JosiasJessop said:
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.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.
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 ...
The other thing is that the cladding could have had a minimum fire rating and then the client could be looking to achieve higher values on insulation. That would explain the situation to me. The client is trying to achieve the best possible u value and energy performance for the building as a whole. Two very similar products both meet the building regs but the slightly cheaper one has a better insulation value - It would be difficult to argue to use the fire rated product if both met the relevant fire safety standards.
I've not chatted with her in more detail, but as a starting point, it is hard to disagree, really.0 -
There was that idea some years ago, that to boost sales, supermarkets should put above their seafood section: "Mercury-free Fish".rcs1000 said:
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?Bobajob_PB said:
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.rcs1000 said:
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!JosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.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?
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
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
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?0 -
Also it's reasonable for the consumer to expect that, no matter how cheap his sandwich, he isn't going to get poisoned.SouthamObserver said:
Because eating dodgy sandwiches to save a bit of money is likely to increase costs for the rest of us further down the line. If someone had spent 10 pence more on a sandwich that did not give them food poisoning they would not now be in that queue at the doctors or taking up that hospital bed or sitting at home unproductive instead of being at work.rcs1000 said:
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?Bobajob_PB said:
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.rcs1000 said:
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!JosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.isam said:As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of can't compete?
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
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
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?0 -
Or gas barbecues on balconies. And plastic furniture and any manner of combustible materials.Nigelb said:
snipJonathanD said:Nigelb said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
IMV the insulation panels behind the exterior cladding is still 'cladding'There need to be some deep, searching questions asked of many people, and perhaps even our entire planning/building/controls sector.Nigelb said:
Sounds like a *lot* of tower blocks have such cladding:JosiasJessop said:
IANAE, but I am unsure that the reaction of moving everyone out of blocks with this cladding on is necessary or sensible,...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?
Although what went wrong in Camden's case might be very different from Grenfell Tower.
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...
...
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.
One thing which might well have contributed to the disaster is the combustibility of UPVC window frames.
Very few buildings could ever be totally fireproof. Design, materials and equipment merely buy time for evacuation or the arrival of fire fighters.0 -
He's the sort of Lib Dem that would get my vote, therefore he can't be the leader.rottenborough said:Presumably Lamb doesn't agree with fighting on and arguing for soft Brexit or 2nd referendum?
0 -
Mr. Song, we used to dream of having poison sandwiches. Would've been like a banquet to us.
We had to gnaw on the red hot rocks spewed out by the volcano next door.0 -
What amazes everyone is I think the speed with which the fire spread and its intensity.kurtjester said:
Or gas barbecues on balconies. And plastic furniture and any manner of combustible materials.Nigelb said:
snipJonathanD said:Nigelb said:
There are several companies claiming the coset assessed quickly.JosiasJessop said:
IMV the insulation perhaps even our entire planning/building/controls sector.Nigelb said:
Sounds like a *lot* of tower blocks have such cladding:JosiasJessop said:
IANAE, but I am unsure that the reaction of moving everyone out of blocks with this cladding on is necessary or sensible,...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?
Although what went wrong in Camden's case might be very different from Grenfell Tower.
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...
...
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.
One thing which might well have contributed to the disaster is the combustibility of UPVC window frames.
Very few buildings could ever be totally fireproof. Design, materials and equipment merely buy time for evacuation or the arrival of fire fighters.
Was it @TwistedFireStopper who said that if piping had been installed, perhaps it wasn't properly sealed in? Which accords with what some have said on here.
But then I am engaging in non-productive speculation which I dislike in others*.
*On such awful disasters, that is; I realise the entire premise of PB is non-productive speculation...0 -
-
Wasn't Norman Lamb one of only two Lib Dems who voted for A50glw said:
He's the sort of Lib Dem that would get my vote, therefore he can't be the leader.rottenborough said:Presumably Lamb doesn't agree with fighting on and arguing for soft Brexit or 2nd referendum?
0 -
Can we have him back in government somehow? Not because of his stance on Brexit, just because he is sensible chap who did a good job as a minister.rottenborough said:0 -
You're assuming perfect information on the part of the consumer.rcs1000 said:
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?Bobajob_PB said:
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.rcs1000 said:
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!JosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.isam said:
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
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
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
Oh, and its basic decency in an advanced society that we don't sell bad food to the public - if nothing else it costs lots of time off work for sick people!0 -
To be precise he abstained, he didn't vote for it. He's from the "respect the will of the electorate" wing of the party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Wasn't Norman Lamb one of only two Lib Dems who voted for A50glw said:
He's the sort of Lib Dem that would get my vote, therefore he can't be the leader.rottenborough said:Presumably Lamb doesn't agree with fighting on and arguing for soft Brexit or 2nd referendum?
0 -
He is also good on health and social careglw said:
I believe so, he's from the "respect the will of the electorate" wing of the party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Wasn't Norman Lamb one of only two Lib Dems who voted for A50glw said:
He's the sort of Lib Dem that would get my vote, therefore he can't be the leader.rottenborough said:Presumably Lamb doesn't agree with fighting on and arguing for soft Brexit or 2nd referendum?
0 -
You had hot rocks ?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Song, we used to dream of having poison sandwiches. Would've been like a banquet to us.
We had to gnaw on the red hot rocks spewed out by the volcano next door.
We had to chip cold hard granite, and grind it into a barely edible powder.
From a quarry half a days' walk up the mosquito infested valley.0 -
Mr. glw, so, a democrat, then?
Mr. Urquhart, I'd back that. Damned shame the likes of Laws, Alexander, Lamb and Webb aren't in government.
And Boris is the Foreign Secretary. *sighs*0 -
He doesn't have the offputting arrogant and entitled streak that ALOT of other politicians in the centre ground of British politics do too.Big_G_NorthWales said:
He is also good on health and social careglw said:
I believe so, he's from the "respect the will of the electorate" wing of the party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Wasn't Norman Lamb one of only two Lib Dems who voted for A50glw said:
He's the sort of Lib Dem that would get my vote, therefore he can't be the leader.rottenborough said:Presumably Lamb doesn't agree with fighting on and arguing for soft Brexit or 2nd referendum?
0 -
Interesting comments on tower blocks. I've just been having a detailed conversation with a colleague about how much information would be wise to publish on this incident given the obvious current climate.
I personally think we should be very careful to make sure authorities know more about the problems than ISIS-loving saddoes with matches.0 -
You've self identified as elite and proscribed me a view. Socialist!rcs1000 said:
I think it's simple: people who are moderately successful and don't share isam's values are part of the 'elite'. I'm going to put together a small questionnaire so I can quickly adjudge whether people are secretly elite.TOPPING said:
Blimmin' heck if jetsetting hedge fund managers aren't part of the global elite who on earth does that leave?!?isam said:
If you don't know, you're not part of the elite!rcs1000 said:
I'm still struggling, isam. How do I identify fellow members of the elite when I'm on the street? Is there a secret handshake I haven't been taught yet?isam said:
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 reallyJosiasJessop said:
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.isam said:
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 resourcesJosiasJessop said:
That's far from the whole story, as you well know.isam said:
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!JosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said: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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
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
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.
0 -
We can't have sensible chaps in government, this isn't the 80s or 90s, the public went men of action who will do things like "break the US blockade of Cuba".FrancisUrquhart said:
Can we have him back in government somehow? Not because of his stance on Brexit, just because he is sensible chap who did a good job as a minister.rottenborough said:0 -
It is not necessarily a case of being "better off", I simply lack the time to perform a full investigation of sandwich options at lunch. I have a life I need to live. You may get a kick from poring over the minutae of everyday things, but I would prefer to be able to buy ANY sandwich safe in the knowledge that the d*mn will not kill me or make me throw up on the following day.rcs1000 said:
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!JosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.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?
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
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
Willing buyer, willing seller.0 -
Ed Davey does need to run even though I have a small wager on Cable at 3/1 thanks to MD of this parish. Coronations are bad news.0
-
Even worse he's probably liberal as well.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. glw, so, a democrat, then?
0 -
Mr. B, aye, rocks so hot we ended up drinking our own molten teeth.
If we were lucky!
Cold granite powder? Luxury.0 -
A shame. Lamb running would have made this an interesting contest. I would have liked him as leader, he seems to be where the LD long term strategy should be aiming, although I can see the shorter term situation puts the LDs as a soft/no Brexit party principally looking to gain labour tactical votes and some Tory europhile remainers.
Cable will hopefully get the LDs more airtime and recognition, and prepping Swinson to take over at a later date. Shame that it looks like it will be a coronation for Cable though - it didn't exactly work out for the tories, I would have preferred to see Cable properly tested beforehand.
Would Ed Davey pose a real challenge?0 -
Me too, a genuine centrist liberal.glw said:
He's the sort of Lib Dem that would get my vote, therefore he can't be the leader.rottenborough said:Presumably Lamb doesn't agree with fighting on and arguing for soft Brexit or 2nd referendum?
If the LDs want to win back Conservative voters in any number they need to stop calling us evil and drop the undemocratic Brexit stance.0 -
I'm pretty uninformed too, but I think I can see what is happening here.Big_G_NorthWales said:I am no expert but when seeing the appalling smoke given off in the blaze and the toxicity of the smoke I cannot see how sprinklers would have had an effect as the smoke and it's intensity would surely be the fatal aspect, not so much the fire.
However I am sure others have a better knowledge than me and I could of course be wrong
Basically, there's a sprinkler lobby who filled the newsvoid in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. They probably have a point - in that sprinklers would have been effective in other (apparently similar) previous fires that cost/endangered lives.
It's not clear they would have made the blindest bit of difference in Grenfell though - the basic problem appears to be that the building was covered in fuel.0 -
Has a libertarian party ever won a national election anywhere?0
-
Mr. C, np.
Also, you can back Davey at 5 on Ladbrokes if you like. (Cable was 1.64 on Betfair, so you could back both to further engreenify one's book).0 -
You take someone doing ok ish in Eastern Europe, get them to work their bollocks off for minimum wage here, undercutting the people here who did the job previously. So a job that used to pay for a semi decent house and lifestyle now pays for a room share in a hostel. I guess you are giving the migrant a long term opportunity, but it needs a never ending flow to make it workrcs1000 said:
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!JosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.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?
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
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
Willing buyer, willing seller.0 -
That's the point at which Tom Brake steps up to ruin your fun xDMorris_Dancer said:Mr. C, np.
Also, you can back Davey at 5 on Ladbrokes if you like. (Cable was 1.64 on Betfair, so you could back both to further engreenify one's book).0 -
I know, its bloody scary. You can have weak and wobbley May, Team Twat and their loony band of marxists or a sensible liberal bloke...glw said:
We can't have sensible chaps in government, this isn't the 80s or 90s, the public went men of action who will do things like "break the US blockade of Cuba".FrancisUrquhart said:
Can we have him back in government somehow? Not because of his stance on Brexit, just because he is sensible chap who did a good job as a minister.rottenborough said:0 -
And to be fair that is why the enquiry is needed.Pong said:
I'm pretty uninformed too, but I think I can see what is happening here.Big_G_NorthWales said:I am no expert but when seeing the appalling smoke given off in the blaze and the toxicity of the smoke I cannot see how sprinklers would have had an effect as the smoke and it's intensity would surely be the fatal aspect, not so much the fire.
However I am sure others have a better knowledge than me and I could of course be wrong
Basically, there's a sprinkler lobby who filled the newsvoid in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. They probably have a point - in that sprinklers would have been effective in other, previous fires that cost/endangered lives.
It's not clear they would have made the blindest bit of difference in Grenfell - the building was covered in fuel.
Too many politicians are trying to weaponise this tragedy0 -
Mr. Pulpstar, if Brake stands, and announces it whilst I'm AFK, I'm blaming you.0
-
And, with that comment, you'd probably hit the nail on the head of Politics over the last 10 years.Pulpstar said:
He doesn't have the offputting arrogant and entitled streak that ALOT of other politicians in the centre ground of British politics do too.Big_G_NorthWales said:
He is also good on health and social careglw said:
I believe so, he's from the "respect the will of the electorate" wing of the party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Wasn't Norman Lamb one of only two Lib Dems who voted for A50glw said:
He's the sort of Lib Dem that would get my vote, therefore he can't be the leader.rottenborough said:Presumably Lamb doesn't agree with fighting on and arguing for soft Brexit or 2nd referendum?
0 -
Probably not. They are, IMO, a sandwich short of a picnic an E Coli outbreak.....rkrkrk said:Has a libertarian party ever won a national election anywhere?
0 -
I didn't think much of Davey at energy, though I'm far more in favour of renewables etc than I was then. Nevertheless I haven't heard his pitch for leader, and I'm prepared to have an open mind on both him and Vince at this point in time.Paristonda said:A shame. Lamb running would have made this an interesting contest. I would have liked him as leader, he seems to be where the LD long term strategy should be aiming, although I can see the shorter term situation puts the LDs as a soft/no Brexit party principally looking to gain labour tactical votes and some Tory europhile remainers.
Cable will hopefully get the LDs more airtime and recognition, and prepping Swinson to take over at a later date. Shame that it looks like it will be a coronation for Cable though - it didn't exactly work out for the tories, I would have preferred to see Cable properly tested beforehand.
Would Ed Davey pose a real challenge?
A coronation for Sir Vince would be a dreadful move. Ideas need a public hearing, and he needs a contest. Hopefully Davey will run now. Or Brake !0 -
Corbyn or someone like him is likely to win eventually.MarkHopkins said: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.
Best be prepared.0 -
The public don't vote for disunited parties, and libertarian parties are violently split on whether 90% or all of government should be abolished.Beverley_C said:
Probably not. They are, IMO, a sandwich short of a picnic an E Coli outbreak.....rkrkrk said:Has a libertarian party ever won a national election anywhere?
0 -
It's likely that the fire started and spread for multiple reasons; take away one and it may never have happened.TOPPING said:
What amazes everyone is I think the speed with which the fire spread and its intensity.kurtjester said:
Or gas barbecues on balconies. And plastic furniture and any manner of combustible materials.Nigelb said:
snipJonathanD said:Nigelb said:
snipJosiasJessop said:
IMV the insulation perhaps even our entire planning/building/controls sector.Nigelb said:
Sounds like a *lot* of tower blocks have such cladding:JosiasJessop said:
IANAE, but I am unsure that the reaction of moving everyone out of blocks with this cladding on is necessary or sensible,...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?
Although what went wrong in Camden's case might be very different from Grenfell Tower.
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...
...
One thing which might well have contributed to the disaster is the combustibility of UPVC window frames.
Very few buildings could ever be totally fireproof. Design, materials and equipment merely buy time for evacuation or the arrival of fire fighters.
Was it @TwistedFireStopper who said that if piping had been installed, perhaps it wasn't properly sealed in? Which accords with what some have said on here.
But then I am engaging in non-productive speculation which I dislike in others*.
*On such awful disasters, that is; I realise the entire premise of PB is non-productive speculation...
A National Trust property in Surrey was largely destroyed a couple of years ago, the conflagration taking hold in a matter of minutes. Traced to a fault in a fusebox that had existed since its manufacture sometime in the 20th century. It was pure chance that a disabled lift had been sited next to the faulty equipment, the flames being funnelled up the shaft towards the roof. And just coincidence that strong winds were blowing from such a direction that the fire was then forced from one end of the structure to the other. That day the holes in the cheese just happened to line up.0 -
Sadly you're right. I'm expecting to see police watchmen outside all the buildings that have been named today, some idiot (jihadist, drunk or high, makes no difference) is going to try something stupid.Lucian_Fletcher said:Interesting comments on tower blocks. I've just been having a detailed conversation with a colleague about how much information would be wise to publish on this incident given the obvious current climate.
I personally think we should be very careful to make sure authorities know more about the problems than ISIS-loving saddoes with matches.0 -
I had a libertarian friend who was extremely opposed to traffic lights.glw said:
The public don't vote for disunited parties, and libertarian parties are violently split on whether 90% or all of government should be abolished.Beverley_C said:
Probably not. They are, IMO, a sandwich short of a picnic an E Coli outbreak.....rkrkrk said:Has a libertarian party ever won a national election anywhere?
He felt they were a dangerous infringement on his civil liberties.0 -
David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.0 -
That seems to be a common view amongst cyclists in London.rkrkrk said:
I had a libertarian friend who was extremely opposed to traffic lights.glw said:
The public don't vote for disunited parties, and libertarian parties are violently split on whether 90% or all of government should be abolished.Beverley_C said:
Probably not. They are, IMO, a sandwich short of a picnic an E Coli outbreak.....rkrkrk said:Has a libertarian party ever won a national election anywhere?
He felt they were a dangerous infringement on his civil liberties.
Edit: Mind you, I've just noticed the tense of your first sentence.0 -
The existence and administration around nationality phased my closest libertarian acquaintance most. He found his passport most offensive. And the army, for that matter.rkrkrk said:
I had a libertarian friend who was extremely opposed to traffic lights.glw said:
The public don't vote for disunited parties, and libertarian parties are violently split on whether 90% or all of government should be abolished.Beverley_C said:
Probably not. They are, IMO, a sandwich short of a picnic an E Coli outbreak.....rkrkrk said:Has a libertarian party ever won a national election anywhere?
He felt they were a dangerous infringement on his civil liberties.
EDIT: think he must have been a 100%er.0 -
They probably do sell such things.Bobajob_PB said:
Because a) the consumer doesn't have perfect information and b) the state has some role in improving the health off its citizens and c) the state has some role in maintaining the welfare of animals.rcs1000 said:
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?Bobajob_PB said:
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.rcs1000 said:
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
SNIPJosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.isam said:SNIP
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
Under your thinking, shops would be able to sell dog shit waffle sandwiches and flavour them with chocolate as 'chocolate-style waffles'.
After all, shops sell weasel vomit and cat excrement as coffee.0 -
Mr. Meeks, sometimes matched odds are very peculiar. Ages ago, I had a lay set up on one gender or other to win Strictly at about 1.2, and it got matched. Last race, the hedge at evens (lay) for Raikkonen to get fastest lap was matched.
These things are quite odd.0 -
You'd hope they are people that have laid him shorter and are cashing in on the time value of money given the next contest is likely years away.AlastairMeeks said:David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.
Though they probably are not.0 -
There is probably another libertarian out there somewhere who feels that cyclists are an infringement on his driving and should be knocked off as you go past.rkrkrk said:
I had a libertarian friend who was extremely opposed to traffic lights.glw said:
The public don't vote for disunited parties, and libertarian parties are violently split on whether 90% or all of government should be abolished.Beverley_C said:
Probably not. They are, IMO, a sandwich short of a picnic an E Coli outbreak.....rkrkrk said:Has a libertarian party ever won a national election anywhere?
He felt they were a dangerous infringement on his civil liberties.
Personal responsibility is all well and good, but the standards are rather variable....0 -
However united, I couldn't see a libertarian party having more than a niche appeal.glw said:
The public don't vote for disunited parties, and libertarian parties are violently split on whether 90% or all of government should be abolished.Beverley_C said:
Probably not. They are, IMO, a sandwich short of a picnic an E Coli outbreak.....rkrkrk said:Has a libertarian party ever won a national election anywhere?
0 -
Sean_F said:
They probably do sell such things.Bobajob_PB said:
Because a) the consumer doesn't have perfect information and b) the state has some role in improving the health off its citizens and c) the state has some role in maintaining the welfare of animals.rcs1000 said:
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?Bobajob_PB said:
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.rcs1000 said:
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
SNIPJosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.isam said:SNIP
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
Under your thinking, shops would be able to sell dog shit waffle sandwiches and flavour them with chocolate as 'chocolate-style waffles'.
After all, shops sell weasel vomit and cat excrement as coffee.
0 -
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.AlastairMeeks said:David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.0 -
Rubio sub even backers xDSandpit said:
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.AlastairMeeks said:David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.0 -
Wonder how that student is doing who had £10K on Jezza being PM after GE.Sandpit said:
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.AlastairMeeks said:David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.0 -
Surely you'd just identify a few other runners and riders that you'd lay instead to reduce your Miliband (D) exposure indirectly? I'd hate to be putting money on David Miliband at a price that I was morally certain was ridiculous.Pulpstar said:
You'd hope they are people that have laid him shorter and are cashing in on the time value of money given the next contest is likely years away.AlastairMeeks said:David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.
Though they probably are not.0 -
Shush.Sandpit said:
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.AlastairMeeks said:David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.0 -
Easily fixed. When he next boards an international flight or ship, tell to throw away that pesky passport and liberate himself from the shackles of authoritarianism. He might even find something worth being offended about as he attempts foreign passport controlPro_Rata said:
The existence and administration around nationality phased my closest libertarian acquaintance most. He found his passport most offensive. And the army, for that matter.rkrkrk said:
I had a libertarian friend who was extremely opposed to traffic lights.glw said:
The public don't vote for disunited parties, and libertarian parties are violently split on whether 90% or all of government should be abolished.Beverley_C said:
Probably not. They are, IMO, a sandwich short of a picnic an E Coli outbreak.....rkrkrk said:Has a libertarian party ever won a national election anywhere?
He felt they were a dangerous infringement on his civil liberties.
EDIT: think he must have been a 100%er.
0 -
Looking for a summer job picking strawberries as a guess.rottenborough said:
Wonder how that student is doing who had £10K on Jezza being PM after GE.Sandpit said:
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.AlastairMeeks said:David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.
0 -
You can have Lembit as LD leader at 500/1 on Ladbrokes. He was last heard of doing the occasional stand-in slot on the morning phone-in show on Radio Kent.Sandpit said:
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.AlastairMeeks said:David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.0 -
Only after Glastonbury...At which point they have all been filled by eastern European s.Sandpit said:
Looking for a summer job picking strawberries as a guess.rottenborough said:
Wonder how that student is doing who had £10K on Jezza being PM after GE.Sandpit said:
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.AlastairMeeks said:David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.0 -
Shadsy's not silly.RobC said:
You can have Lembit as LD leader at 500/1 on Ladbrokes. He was last heard of doing the occasional stand-in slot on the morning phone-in show on Radio Kent.Sandpit said:
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.AlastairMeeks said:David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.0 -
Ruth's still layable at 19, for anyone who thinks there will be a contest in the coming months.AlastairMeeks said:
Shush.Sandpit said:
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.AlastairMeeks said:David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.
I just had a week off from politics, but seem to recall George Osborne being well in the single figures in the aftermath of the election too. Don't they know that Con, Lab and LD parties all select their leaders from the House of Commons?0 -
if you have backed Lamb with Bet365 they do let you cash out your bets on this market. he's still 10/3 so depending on the price you took you might get out ok.0
-
When I was flying, it was told to me that, based on aviation accident analysis, you could manage two things going wrong in-flight at once, but if a third thing went wrong then you were in real trouble / dead.kurtjester said:It's likely that the fire started and spread for multiple reasons; take away one and it may never have happened.
A National Trust property in Surrey was largely destroyed a couple of years ago, the conflagration taking hold in a matter of minutes. Traced to a fault in a fusebox that had existed since its manufacture sometime in the 20th century. It was pure chance that a disabled lift had been sited next to the faulty equipment, the flames being funnelled up the shaft towards the roof. And just coincidence that strong winds were blowing from such a direction that the fire was then forced from one end of the structure to the other. That day the holes in the cheese just happened to line up.
That seems to hold true in other areas of life too.0 -
Close:Sean_F said:
They probably do sell such things.Bobajob_PB said:
Because a) the consumer doesn't have perfect information and b) the state has some role in improving the health off its citizens and c) the state has some role in maintaining the welfare of animals.rcs1000 said:
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?Bobajob_PB said:
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.rcs1000 said:
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
SNIPJosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.isam said:SNIP
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
Under your thinking, shops would be able to sell dog shit waffle sandwiches and flavour them with chocolate as 'chocolate-style waffles'.
After all, shops sell weasel vomit and cat excrement as coffee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak0 -
As in when the flight attendants run out of whisky, gin and vodka.Beverley_C said:
When I was flying, it was told to me that, based on aviation accident analysis, you could manage two things going wrong in-flight at once, but if a third thing went wrong then you were in real trouble / dead.kurtjester said:It's likely that the fire started and spread for multiple reasons; take away one and it may never have happened.
A National Trust property in Surrey was largely destroyed a couple of years ago, the conflagration taking hold in a matter of minutes. Traced to a fault in a fusebox that had existed since its manufacture sometime in the 20th century. It was pure chance that a disabled lift had been sited next to the faulty equipment, the flames being funnelled up the shaft towards the roof. And just coincidence that strong winds were blowing from such a direction that the fire was then forced from one end of the structure to the other. That day the holes in the cheese just happened to line up.
That seems to hold true in other areas of life too.0 -
I have a theory.Pulpstar said:
Rubio sub even backers xDSandpit said:
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.AlastairMeeks said:David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.
The whole logic of the non-trump GOP candidate campaigns and the betting markets was that the party decides.
Trump - and his team - were the only ones (well, and PB) who didn't read the exciting new "this is how to become the GOP candidate" instruction manual.0 -
The Swiss Cheese model of aviation accidents, as I recallBeverley_C said:
When I was flying, it was told to me that, based on aviation accident analysis, you could manage two things going wrong in-flight at once, but if a third thing went wrong then you were in real trouble / dead.kurtjester said:It's likely that the fire started and spread for multiple reasons; take away one and it may never have happened.
A National Trust property in Surrey was largely destroyed a couple of years ago, the conflagration taking hold in a matter of minutes. Traced to a fault in a fusebox that had existed since its manufacture sometime in the 20th century. It was pure chance that a disabled lift had been sited next to the faulty equipment, the flames being funnelled up the shaft towards the roof. And just coincidence that strong winds were blowing from such a direction that the fire was then forced from one end of the structure to the other. That day the holes in the cheese just happened to line up.
That seems to hold true in other areas of life too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model0 -
BF often has oddities. I mean, Greg Clarke is on 2 to be Tory leader at the moment.Sandpit said:
Ruth's still layable at 19, for anyone who thinks there will be a contest in the coming months.AlastairMeeks said:
Shush.Sandpit said:
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.AlastairMeeks said:David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.
I just had a week off from politics, but seem to recall George Osborne being well in the single figures in the aftermath of the election too. Don't they know that Con, Lab and LD parties all select their leaders from the House of Commons?0 -
Plus the fact that it gives you the chance to moan and complain when things don't turn out the way you wanted them. It is funny that those who want to give up as much freedom and choice as they can to authority are then the first to complain when authority takes them at their word and does stuff they don't like.Beverley_C said:
It is not necessarily a case of being "better off", I simply lack the time to perform a full investigation of sandwich options at lunch. I have a life I need to live. You may get a kick from poring over the minutae of everyday things, but I would prefer to be able to buy ANY sandwich safe in the knowledge that the d*mn will not kill me or make me throw up on the following day.rcs1000 said:
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.isam said:
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.rcs1000 said:
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.isam said:
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!JosiasJessop said:
Grenfell tower was owned and operated by an ALMO called KCTMO:isam said:
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegalswilliamglenn said:
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.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?
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_TMO
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
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
Willing buyer, willing seller.
0 -
Strong and ̶S̶t̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ Cable0
-
As @kurtjester mentioned upthread.Sandpit said:
The Swiss Cheese model of aviation accidents, as I recallBeverley_C said:
When I was flying, it was told to me that, based on aviation accident analysis, you could manage two things going wrong in-flight at once, but if a third thing went wrong then you were in real trouble / dead.kurtjester said:It's likely that the fire started and spread for multiple reasons; take away one and it may never have happened.
A National Trust property in Surrey was largely destroyed a couple of years ago, the conflagration taking hold in a matter of minutes. Traced to a fault in a fusebox that had existed since its manufacture sometime in the 20th century. It was pure chance that a disabled lift had been sited next to the faulty equipment, the flames being funnelled up the shaft towards the roof. And just coincidence that strong winds were blowing from such a direction that the fire was then forced from one end of the structure to the other. That day the holes in the cheese just happened to line up.
That seems to hold true in other areas of life too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model0
This discussion has been closed.