London's Grenfell Tower, A Very Political Tragedy (1 Viewer)

[Fletch]

The tenents of grenfell tower tried and again to warn the owners of the building that it was a fire risk.

The company did not respond and did not act.

Why was this particular building a fire risk? Why were regulators not notified if it were so (just because a things is privatized does not mean it is free from state regulations)? And if the owners did something wrong, they must surely be facing criminal charges now, no?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Why was this particular building a fire risk? Why were regulators not notified if it were so (just because a things is privatized does not mean it is free from state regulations)? And if the owners did something wrong, they must surely be facing criminal charges now, no?

There were warnings that were ignored.

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com


And there had been warnings as far back as 2004.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/17/grenfell-tower-government-councils-fire-safety

 

[Chagos]

But none of that explains how this fire is the result of privatization. Maybe it is, I don't know. But I have not seen evidence that fires like this cant happen in state owned and operated buildings.

I don't really know what the beef is here. If one wants to favour one model over the other (at the expense of the other), both private management and state (council) ownership are culpable here or would have to be seen as such, were culpability to be established.

The Kensington (and Chelsea) Borough owns the building and the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) runs it. That the latter is being in turn run by a board of eight residents, four Council-appointed members and three independent members, is going to make the pending but unavoidable game of passing the buck as disgraceful as always in such cases. But I'll lay bets on it happening.

What appears to remain is that skimping on investment costs certainly helped the catastrophe along if it did indeed not cause it altogether in the final terrible outcome.

 

[Fletch]

I don't really know what the beef is here. If one wants to favour one model over the other (at the expense of the other), both private management and state (council) ownership are culpable here or would have to be seen as such, were culpability to be established.

The Kensington (and Chelsea) Borough owns the building and the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) runs it. That the latter is being in turn run by a board of eight residents, four Council-appointed members and three independent members, is going to make the pending but unavoidable game of passing the buck as disgraceful as always in such cases. But I'll lay bets on it happening.

What appears to remain is that skimping on investment costs certainly helped the catastrophe along if it did indeed not cause it altogether in the final terrible outcome.

Maybe we have different understanding of private ownership.

 

[Chagos]

Maybe we have different understanding of private ownership.

Looks like it but still pretty irrelevant in this particular case.

 

[Fletch]

Looks like it but still pretty irrelevant in this particular case.

It seems that a good deal of the blame for this fire lands on the idea that this building was privatized. By the descriptions I have heard it doesn't sound much like private ownership to me.

 

[Chagos]

It seems that a good deal of the blame for this fire lands on the idea that this building was privatized. By the descriptions I have heard it doesn't sound much like private ownership to me.

Grey line in that it was turned over to private management.

But as I said, wait for the blame game to start.

 

[Chagos]

It seems that a good deal of the blame for this fire lands on the idea that this building was privatized. By the descriptions I have heard it doesn't sound much like private ownership to me.

Grey line in that it was turned over to private management.

But as I said, wait for the blame game to start.

........but let me add some detail over what a TMO is.

A TMO allows tenants and leaseholders to take on responsibility for housing management. Resident members create an independent legal body and elect a committee to run the organisation, which is paid a management and maintenance allowance by the social landlord.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/sep/23/tenant-management-organisations-housing

Also, from above link

Earlier this year, two organisations in south London unsuccessfully took Lambeth council to court over budget cuts.

so I'd agree that "privatization" in the technical sense is not such an apt moniker here.

And KCTMO has been described by some as "an evil, unprincipled, mini-mafia" .

 

[Peter King]

Wow, just saw parts of an interview in which Theresa May was flattened by the reporter for her behavior after the fire. Just going to talk to emergency services and not talking to a single victim of the fire on her first visit to the site, has set a lot of bad bad blood.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Wow, just saw parts of an interview in which Theresa May was flattened by the reporter for her behavior after the fire. Just going to talk to emergency services and not talking to a single victim of the fire on her first visit to the site, has set a lot of bad bad blood.

Theresa May met survivors and helpers at Number 10 Downing street - I'm not defending her in her poor performance on the ground in Kensington where she twice ran away from protestors.

Also, Govt staff have been sent into the council to take over the response. The BBC headline says sent to fire the council but the actual page linked to doesn't make any such comment.

I've learned the hard way before that the BBC updates stories and headlines sometimes.

Further to the discussion: in 2012 the Govt set advice to all councils where such tower blocks existed that they should consider retrofitting sprinkler systems. So far, out of 4000 tower blocks, only 100 have been retrofitted. This includes Labour and Liberal Democrat run councils as well as Conservative councils.

Back to Kensington, the council apparently ran budget surpluses by underspending as have other councils (including Labour councils) and in Kensington's case this means they have a huge £270million surplus they release in part back to the public in election years. As do some other councils.

So when posters try and make this about Austerity, there is a real truth and narrative elsewhere. When posters try and blame Conservatives there is a real truth & narrative elsewhere.

One of the truths (as we see in the case of Theresa May desperately clinging to power) is that at the core, the real focus of political power among all politicians is to hang onto that power.

It is rare to find the Martin Bell type of politician to seeks power to do something positive with it and keeps that cause once he or she has that power. There are plenty of leaders and politicians who start that way but then cling to power and leadership when they have gained it.

What we need are more Martin Bells in all political parties.

 

[Peter King]

Theresa May met survivors and helpers at Number 10 Downing street - I'm not defending her in her poor performance on the ground in Kensington where she twice ran away from protestors.

Also, Govt staff have been sent into the council to take over the response. The BBC headline says sent to fire the council but the actual page linked to doesn't make any such comment.

I've learned the hard way before that the BBC updates stories and headlines sometimes.

Further to the discussion: in 2012 the Govt set advice to all councils where such tower blocks existed that they should consider retrofitting sprinkler systems. So far, out of 4000 tower blocks, only 100 have been retrofitted. This includes Labour and Liberal Democrat run councils as well as Conservative councils.

Back to Kensington, the council apparently ran budget surpluses by underspending as have other councils (including Labour councils) and in Kensington's case this means they have a huge £270million surplus they release in part back to the public in election years. As do some other councils.

So when posters try and make this about Austerity, there is a real truth and narrative elsewhere. When posters try and blame Conservatives there is a real truth & narrative elsewhere.

One of the truths (as we see in the case of Theresa May desperately clinging to power) is that at the core, the real focus of political power among all politicians is to hang onto that power.

It is rare to find the Martin Bell type of politician to seeks power to do something positive with it and keeps that cause once he or she has that power. There are plenty of leaders and politicians who start that way but then cling to power and leadership when they have gained it.

What we need are more Martin Bells in all political parties.

I am not giving any political opinion here, just reporting how May was attacked in the media and in the community, something that further weakened her position of power according to some commentaries.

 

[Andalublue]

So when posters try and make this about Austerity, there is a real truth and narrative elsewhere. When posters try and blame Conservatives there is a real truth & narrative elsewhere.

Austerity isn't just about a lack of cash, IC. It can also be about the narrative of a lack of cash as an excuse for cuts and a pretext to disguise the real ideological goal of reducing the size of government. Kensington and Chelsea had a surplus because they have used an austerity message to cut services and cut corners on infrastructure (like housing stock) in order to be able to bribe their wealthy residents with lower council tax bills. That's austerity all right.

See my Corbyn quote below.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Austerity isn't just about a lack of cash, IC. It can also be about the narrative of a lack of cash as an excuse for cuts and a pretext to disguise the real ideological goal of reducing the size of government. Kensington and Chelsea had a surplus because they have used an austerity message to cut services and cut corners on infrastructure (like housing stock) in order to be able to bribe their wealthy residents with lower council tax bills. That's austerity all right.

See my Corbyn quote below.

So please clarify whether you see Austerity (as described by you) as a Conservative or a Labour policy then? You see, I'm confused if you claim this is a Conservative thing and that the evil Conservatives caused the fire at Grenfell?

Philip Hammond has stated today that the cladding used on Grenfell is actually banned not just in the US and EU but also in the UK which potentially makes this a criminal case.

Also, as I stated before, Kensington Council is not the only council to have underspent their budgets and created huge surpluses. Eric Pickles in 2013 lambasted councils across the UK for doing this very thing and this included Labour / Lib Dem and Conservative councils. In Manchester alone, a stockpile across Manchester councils was around £40 million and they were going to cut 2,200 jobs which Eric Pickles was trying to prevent.

Salford Council itself had huge stockpiles and they are around 80-90% Labour councillors.

Whose austerity are you throwing at me Andy?

 

[Chagos]

So please clarify whether you see Austerity (as described by you) as a Conservative or a Labour policy then? ...................~

In the attempt to interject myself into this exchange as little as possible, not to mention my aversion towards getting into any party bashing game (us vs. them), can we at least agree that Kensington and Chelsea Council was conservative-controlled ever since 1964 (its coming into being)?

And that the austerity exercised there by default has to have been a conservative thing?

Note that I'm not discounting equal "faults" that occur in Labour led councils.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

~ agree that Kensington and Chelsea Council was conservative-controlled ever since 1964 (its coming into being)?

And that the austerity exercised there by default has to have been a conservative thing?

I'd prefer to call it underuse of budgets. As I stated earlier, they would return this partially pre election as a sweetener. I haven't looked yet whether Kensington Council were doing this before the term "austerity" came into being with the repercussions of the 2008 crunch.

~ Note that I'm not discounting equal "faults" that occur in Labour led councils.

That's the important thing Chagos. If it was the same policy (underuse of funds to stockpile large quantities) then why try the underhand tactic of making this party political - especially as the cladding which seems to be the cause may be illegal to use in high rise buildings.

Grenfell isn't austerity - it could be a criminal offence instead.

 

[Chagos]

I'd prefer to call it underuse of budgets. As I stated earlier, they would return this partially pre election as a sweetener. I haven't looked yet whether Kensington Council were doing this before the term "austerity" vape into being with the repercussions of the 2008 crunch.

They did the sweetener thing in 2014, calling it tax rebate.

That's the important thing Chagos. If it was the same policy (underuse of funds to stockpile large quantities) then why try the underhand tactic of making this party political - especially as the cladding which seems to be the cause may be illegal to use in high rise buildings.

I'm personally not engaged in the bolded above, greasing the ballot boxes isn't something anyone holds a monopoly on.

Grenfell isn't austerity - it could be a criminal offence instead.

The line is so blurred that one seemingly can't distinguish the one from the other.

I've seen cases on the continent where building regulations wrt cladding were adhered to but the law did not specifically state "the best". So guess what was used.

And even where council setups in most countries here are somewhat different to UK when it comes to housing management, holding a surplus so as to sweeten the voting hands of the constituents is at least frowned upon (not saying it doesn't happen). On the general understanding that those surpluses go into providing amenities for those that generate them in the first place.

And I'm not saying that this always happens over here either.

But K&C shows an example of taking from the poor and giving it to the rich, tired as that soundbite may appear.

Those with discounted bills or claiming council tax support didn't get a darn thing from the surplus. Not money, not sprinklers, not cladding conforming to the law.

 

[Andalublue]

So please clarify whether you see Austerity (as described by you) as a Conservative or a Labour policy then? You see, I'm confused if you claim this is a Conservative thing and that the evil Conservatives caused the fire at Grenfell?

You'reconflating a lot of things there, IC. Some of which are a part of my argument, some which seem to relate to other people's stated opinions.

Austerity is a term that has been around for a while but became most widely used in the aftermath of the 2008 stock market/banking crisis. It was applied primarily to Cameron/Merkel/Draghi et al's concentration,nay obsession, with reducing government deficit and repaying sovereign debt by cutting public services, reducing welfare and screwing down wages, rather than getting the global corporatists to recompense governments for the multitudinous and ruinous bail-outs they received. In other words, austerity was getting the poor to pay for the mistakes of the rich.

I have no doubt that had New Labour been in power during those years, they'd probably have done something similar. Obama did, after all. Of course now, in 2017, it's a Conservative policy. Labour reject it. The Tories reject the rationale they used for it, since they seem to have abandoned any idea of reducing deficit and repaying sovereign debt, but the methodology of cutting government spending on the poorest instead of on the richest remains. In that sense alone, it is a Tory thing.

I certainly haven't levelled any blame on anyone for the Grenfell House fire. Yet. Perhaps you're mistaking me for someone else. My only contrib on the topic has been to point to a few trolls who were using it to attack Sadiq Khan. They were attacking him, in the way Trump did post-Borough Market, because he's got a Muzzy name and dark skin. I pointed out that the responsibility for the block, i.e. its owners, are the Conservative-run Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council. (BTW, did you hear the cringe-making interview with KCBC leader on R4 this lunchtime?)

In the short term, Grenfell House will have done damage to the Tory Party only because of the inadequate response of PM and Council in the immediate aftermath. In the longer term, if it emerges that Council oversight was lacking, or corners were cut to save money with Council approval will it become arguable that the Conservatives in any sense 'caused' the disaster.

Philip Hammond has stated today that the cladding used on Grenfell is actually banned not just in the US and EU but also in the UK which potentially makes this a criminal case.

Then it will be a very pertinent question to ask whether KCBC knew anything about that. I feel sure that someone in Contract Compliance wouldn't be aware that the materials being used were not the materials being paid for.

Also, as I stated before, Kensington Council is not the only council to have underspent their budgets and created huge surpluses. Eric Pickles in 2013 lambasted councils across the UK for doing this very thing and this included Labour / Lib Dem and Conservative councils. In Manchester alone, a stockpile across Manchester councils was around £40 million and they were going to cut 2,200 jobs which Eric Pickles was trying to prevent.

Salford Council itself had huge stockpiles and they are around 80-90% Labour councillors.

Whose austerity are you throwing at me Andy?

Two points:

1. I suspect that stockpiling may have been applied to an extent in Labour-controlled councils, but can you name me one of those councils that gave those stockpiled funds away in cuts in council taxes to their wealthy residents? It's the biggest electoral bargaining chip those rich London boroughs have to play, and they play it every time in Wandsworth, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond etc.

2. You just linked to a story that takes Labour councils across Greater Manchester to task for stockpiling 40 million between them. That's 40 million across 10 boroughs in a city of 2.5 million. In KCBC we're looking at a stockpile of 227 million in one borough of 150,000. The scale of the issue makes your defence of KCBC look quite weak.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

You'reconflating a lot of things there, IC.

No, I made several points in a post to Peter King and you jumped in to deflect blame back onto Austerity for the cause of the fire as had been suggested by another poster. I repeat, there seems to have been a criminal act if plastic filled panels were used in the wrong way. That is the focus, not austerity.

~ Two points:

1. I suspect that stockpiling may have been applied to an extent in Labour-controlled councils, but can you name me one of those councils that gave those stockpiled funds away in cuts in council taxes to their wealthy residents? It's the biggest electoral bargaining chip those rich London boroughs have to play, and they play it every time in Wandsworth, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond etc.

2. You just linked to a story that takes Labour councils across Greater Manchester to task for stockpiling 40 million between them. That's 40 million across 10 boroughs in a city of 2.5 million. In KCBC we're looking at a stockpile of 227 million in one borough of 150,000. The scale of the issue makes your defence of KCBC look quite weak.

That's a strawman unworthy of response. If I look at simplistic politics, no Labour council will give tax cuts to wealthy residents. They might (and I'm too busy to go look) give away some form of benefit or giveaway to poorer residents. As Chagos puts it - greasing the ballot box.

Secondly, I'm not defending the council, if you look through my posts you will see that I am not blindly defending my political views or side. I am not the one making this party political.

 

[Jack Hays]

Government idiocy
[h=1]Did UK Government Climate Mania Contribute to the Grenfell Tower Disaster?[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall The flammable building cladding which helped turn Grenfell Tower into a blazing torch which killed at least 58 people on the 14th June this year may have been chosen in part due to its climate credentials. Grenfell Tower cladding that may have led to fire was chosen to improve appearance…

 

[polgara]

Government idiocy
[h=1]Did UK Government Climate Mania Contribute to the Grenfell Tower Disaster?[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall The flammable building cladding which helped turn Grenfell Tower into a blazing torch which killed at least 58 people on the 14th June this year may have been chosen in part due to its climate credentials. Grenfell Tower cladding that may have led to fire was chosen to improve appearance…

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

The author of the link in your article used the term "flammable building cladding." How is it possible that no one in authority knew this cladding was extremely flammable? All the people that died in that building, because they were not told their apartments were located in what appears to have become a huge roman candle, sounds not only extremely sad and frightening, but almost criminal to me. I suspect from the photos I've seen of this fire that many just didn't have time to escape - it happened too fast! How many other buildings might also have been "updated" by using the same cladding to improve their appearance? :thumbdown:

 

[Andalublue]

No, I made several points in a post to Peter King and you jumped in to deflect blame back onto Austerity for the cause of the fire as had been suggested by another poster. I repeat, there seems to have been a criminal act if plastic filled panels were used in the wrong way. That is the focus, not austerity.

You clearly stated that austerity was NOT the reason for the fire. I don't think anyone could misconstrue: "So when posters try and make this about Austerity, there is a real truth and narrative elsewhere." Nor: "Grenfell isn't austerity - it could be a criminal offence instead." Elsewhere means not here, not in austerity. "Grenfell isn't austerity". How can you be so certain? Not even May has been that unequivocal.

That's a strawman unworthy of response. If I look at simplistic politics, no Labour council will give tax cuts to wealthy residents. They might (and I'm too busy to go look) give away some form of benefit or giveaway to poorer residents. As Chagos puts it - greasing the ballot box.

Not a straw man at all. They gave council tax rebates across the board. The bigger your house, the bigger the rebate.

Secondly, I'm not defending the council, if you look through my posts you will see that I am not blindly defending my political views or side. I am not the one making this party political.

No, you were deflecting the criticism that many have had for the council stockpiling £270 million by using a tu quoque fallacy of Labour councils in Greater Manchester stockpiling £40 million i.e. £1700+ per resident versus £16 per resident. That's deflection to make it look as if KCBC's action is defensible. That reads like a defence to me.

 

[Andalublue]

Government idiocy
[h=1]Did UK Government Climate Mania Contribute to the Grenfell Tower Disaster?[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall The flammable building cladding which helped turn Grenfell Tower into a blazing torch which killed at least 58 people on the 14th June this year may have been chosen in part due to its climate credentials. Grenfell Tower cladding that may have led to fire was chosen to improve appearance…

Unsurprising, but sickening that climate change deniers would use a terrible tragedy to score political points.

 

[Carjosse]

Unsurprising, but sickening that climate change deniers would use a terrible tragedy to score political points.

That website has some quite spectacular mental gymnastics.

 

[Jack Hays]

Unsurprising, but sickening that climate change deniers would use a terrible tragedy to score political points.

Or that ideologues would use climate advocacy to deflect criticism.

Update (EW): Dr Jim Glockling, Technical Director of the Fire Protection Association, said the following in an interview about Grenfell;

…
“There has been an emerging body of evidence surrounding some of the materials being used and now we have an appalling demonstration of what can happen,” he said.
Alongside the cosmetic appeal of cladding, it is used as an insulation to make buildings more sustainable to meet green energy requirements.
​

“It could be that this is the quest for sustainability trumping other concerns,” Dr Glockling warned.

 

[Jack Hays]

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

The author of the link in your article used the term "flammable building cladding." How is it possible that no one in authority knew this cladding was extremely flammable? All the people that died in that building, because they were not told their apartments were located in what appears to have become a huge roman candle, sounds not only extremely sad and frightening, but almost criminal to me. I suspect from the photos I've seen of this fire that many just didn't have time to escape - it happened too fast! How many other buildings might also have been "updated" by using the same cladding to improve their appearance? :thumbdown:

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

All excellent questions and comments.:thumbs: