Grenfell Tower fire - has it gone political?

A Dub in Glasgo

Grenfell Tower: Tory minister declined to include sprinklers in fire safety rules as it could discourage house building

'We believe that it is the responsibility of the fire industry, rather than the Government'

Graham

oscarBravo wrote: »

True - but that's just an exercise in framing. If you zoom out to the bigger picture, you start to see political parties who make a virtue out of eliminating regulations.

You see political parties who claim that red tape - you know, the sort of red tape that makes the cheaper cladding illegal in Germany - is invariably a bad thing, because it forces businesses to spend £5k more on a £10m project for elfnsafetygonemad, which apparently is stifling the economy.

How you frame it tends to depend on what you want to see, I guess.

The 'business' in question appears to be the business setup for (and largely run by) the Kensington and Chelsea Tenants when the tenants invoked their rights to manage the local authority housing.

I guess if you frame it as 'business profits' regular punters envision fat-cats smoking cubans rather than the reality. Great for the pitch fork brigade I suppose.

oscarBravo

Graham wrote: »

The 'business' in question appears to be the business setup for (and largely run by) the Kensington and Chelsea Tenants when the tenants invoked their rights to manage the local authority housing.

...aaaand, we've carefully reframed the situation again.

My point is that a government that's hostile to the sort of building regulations that could have prevented this tragedy has questions to answer. Whatever validity your argments may have doesn't in any way answer mine; your arguments are basically just changing the subject.

Arguing that we shouldn't politicise the tragedy is an argument for not discussing a political culture hostile to regulations that are designed to prevent tragedies. On that basis alone, I find the cries of "stop politicising this" to be, at best, disingenuous.

Graham

oscarBravo wrote: »

Arguing that we shouldn't politicise the tragedy is an argument for not discussing a political culture hostile to regulations that are designed to prevent tragedies. On that basis alone, I find the cries of "stop politicising this" to be, at best, disingenuous.

Absolutely no need to politicise this and nothing to be served by trying unless someone is out for cheap political point scoring.

Argue that legislation should be introduced to reduce the chances of this type of tragedy reoccurring.

laugh

Graham wrote: »

Absolutely no need to politicise this and nothing to be served by trying unless someone is out for cheap political point scoring.

Argue that legislation should be introduced to reduce the chances of this type of tragedy reoccurring.

Unless legislation has been actively blocked in the past?

ligerdub

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, the Tories have cut back funding for local councils that have caused the lack of resources that gave rise to this tragedy. Cladding the building in a flammable panelling is the responsibility of the commissioning body - the local Tory council - Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.

T May as Home secretary cut back the number of Police by 20,000.

B Johnson as Tory Mayor of London cut back the fire service in London.

The housing in London for those needing social housing is non-existant, and it was said it will take four years to find proper housing for the victims.

The Tories have been very generous to their friends, cutting Corporation Tax and income tax for high earners. They have also been less than generous to those on 'benefits' - cutting them everywhere they can.

OK fair enough, the party have responsibility. I think the treatment of May though is largely opportunism. I really don't think there's much to suggest that she herself can shoulder much of the responsibility here. If she is the one who shoulders the blame as the leader of the Party that implements such decisions then fair enough (even if they weren't made with her as leader), but to me the criticism seems to be very personal in nature.

A Dub in Glasgo

Taken from the After Hours thread, have a look at this video of the resident explaining what went on

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103830808&postcount=774

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWH2w3bJRoQ

Itssoeasy

The thread title asks "has it gone political ?" I'd ask was there any way this wouldn't have gone political ? I think something as tragic as this was always going to be political.

I also think that Theresa May has not handled this well at all. I don't whether it's a personality trait of hers where she isn't comfortable with these situations or she is being told to do it this way but she is coming off badly. It's feeding into a narrative following on from the election that she is ineffective and can't lead.

BadBannana

Well a lot of Tory MP's are landlords themselves. In fact, a good deal of them voted against the kind of fire regulations that would have prevented this from happening in the first place

dixiefly

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Taken from the After Hours thread, have a look at this video of the resident explaining what went on

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103830808&postcount=774

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWH2w3bJRoQ

Thanks for sharing that video.

Anyone else think that the Queen and royal family going ahead with the trooping of the colour celebrating the queen's birthday was totally inappropriate considering tragedy and the fact that there are many bodies still in the tower?

Memnoch

ligerdub wrote: »

OK fair enough, the party have responsibility. I think the treatment of May though is largely opportunism. I really don't think there's much to suggest that she herself can shoulder much of the responsibility here. If she is the one who shoulders the blame as the leader of the Party that implements such decisions then fair enough (even if they weren't made with her as leader), but to me the criticism seems to be very personal in nature.

May is coming under criticism because of her failures as a leader. She brought this on herself by conducting a fake stage managed visit to avoid speaking directly to the grieving people of the block.

But it is much more deeply fundamental than that. She is the CURRENT spearhead in the UK of a trifecta agenda of austerity, privitisation and deregulation, whose sole purpose is to concentrate wealth and resources in fewer and fewer hands, which has resulted in tragedies like this.

In fact it SUITS the conservatives for May to take the personal blame hence even the daily mail are piling on. Because she is already finished politically so they want to laden her with all the toxicity they can before they cut the rope.

The reality is that it is their ideology that is utterly reprehensible. And they all share the blame. She is just the figurehead so it's quite natural (and perhaps intentional) that the public anger ends up focusing on her. But lets not pretend like she is some innocent in all of this.

She has personally made a lot of money from propping up this murderous ideology. And so no amount of scorn is too much for her and her ilk as far as I'm concerned.

Memnoch

Graham wrote: »

Absolutely no need to politicise this and nothing to be served by trying unless someone is out for cheap political point scoring.

Argue that legislation should be introduced to reduce the chances of this type of tragedy reoccurring.

Ridiculous. This is the same nonsense trotted out time after time so that those in power avoid any accountability for their avarice, negligence, and downright malice.

Tragedies like this occur BECAUSE of political decisions and ideology.

Repeated warnings have been ignored. Legislation has been blocked and watered down in order to boost landlord profits. Safety reports that were commissioned have been effectively buried.

The poisonous ideology behind this needs to be exposed because this is what happens when greed drives everything.

Sam Russell

Who described the Tory Party as the Nasty Party?

Theresa May in her 2002 Conservative Party speech.

oscarBravo

Graham wrote: »

Absolutely no need to politicise this...

Argue that legislation should be introduced...

Okay then.

markodaly

Memnoch wrote: »

The reality is that it is their ideology that is utterly reprehensible.

She has personally made a lot of money from propping up this murderous ideology. And so no amount of scorn is too much for her and her ilk as far as I'm concerned.

Memnoch wrote: »

The poisonous ideology behind this needs to be exposed because this is what happens when greed drives everything.

I am surprised nobody has challenged these extreme assertions. Are we to take this poster seriously when they use such evocative language. Calling the brand of politics the Tories follow murderous? I suppose it is fashionable today to call everyone a Nazi but come on. Murder has to show intent. Is there any proof that the Tories intended for people to die by any policy they advocate? Any?

None, OK

Memnoch wrote: »

Tragedies like this occur BECAUSE of political decisions and ideology.

This is an interesting comment. Can you show me a ideology that is free from these kinds of tragedies?

In 2001 a train caught fire in Kaprun, Austria which claimed the lives of 155 people.

In 2013 a fire broke out in a night club in Santa Maria, Brazil, which claimed the lives of 242 people.

In 2016 a fire broke out in a warehouse in Oakland, California which claimed the lives of 36 people

In 2008 a fire broke out in a night club in Shenzhen, China which claimed the lives of 43 people.

There was no underlying ideology underpinning all these tragedies. So, in essence you are playing a peculiar blame game here, pointing a finger at an ideology you do not like at trying to rally some support against it. Basically using dead smouldering corpses as martyrs to push your own politics. I would personally find that shameful.

I presume that because you are so vocal in condemnation against the Tories that you must be on the extreme wing of the Labour party, therefore think yourself as a Socialist. As, if the UK was more Socialist these tragedies would be avoided. Some leap in logic, it must be said.

Some history so. On the 26th of April 1986 the worst nuclear and environmental accident in the history of the world occurred. It happened not under the ideology of the Tories or Capitalism or whatever you are having yourself today sir. It occurred under the Unions of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Looks like they cheaped out on the cladding. From The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/manufacturer-of-cladding-on-grenfell-tower-identified-as-omnis-exteriors



Looks like they only saved £5,000.

AFAIK the cladding was cosmetic and not insulating.

So it was never of benefit to the residents.

ArmaniJeanss

markodaly wrote: »

I am surprised nobody has challenged these extreme assertions. Are we to take this poster seriously when they use such evocative language. Calling the brand of politics the Tories follow murderous? I suppose it is fashionable today to call everyone a Nazi but come on. Murder has to show intent. Is there any proof that the Tories intended for people to die by any policy they advocate? Any?

None, OK

'Murder' by our UK/IRE definition is a bit of an extreme wording by poster memnoch alright - though the American concept of 'fourth degree murder' which we call 'manslaughter' doesn't seem too far away.
There does appear to have been a general Tory policy that health&safety rules are an inconvenience to business, that doing the bare minimum on the cheap is best practice and needs no meddling oversight.
Even if they aren't directly responsible, it seems fairly clearcut that they actively facilitated a situation that made Grenfell possible.

Memnoch

markodaly wrote: »

I am surprised nobody has challenged these extreme assertions. Are we to take this poster seriously when they use such evocative language. Calling the brand of politics the Tories follow murderous? I suppose it is fashionable today to call everyone a Nazi but come on. Murder has to show intent. Is there any proof that the Tories intended for people to die by any policy they advocate? Any?

They see people dying as a result of their policies and double down deeper on those. They promised more cuts in the recent election.

Tory cuts have killed more people in the UK than all terrorist attacks thus far.

The fact that they have deliberately blocked safety legislation and repeatedly ignored safety guidelines to go as far as saying that marketing sprinklers should be the responsibility of the fire department and not government regulation is negligence so extreme in the pursuit of profit that it is no different to murder. They play with peoples lives knowing full well what they are doing. I use the word murder quite deliberately because that is the correct word to describe the evil nature of their actions and ideology.

This is an interesting comment. Can you show me a ideology that is free from these kinds of tragedies?

In 2001 a train caught fire in Kaprun, Austria which claimed the lives of 155 people.

In 2013 a fire broke out in a night club in Santa Maria, Brazil, which claimed the lives of 242 people.

In 2016 a fire broke out in a warehouse in Oakland, California which claimed the lives of 36 people

In 2008 a fire broke out in a night club in Shenzhen, China which claimed the lives of 43 people.

I don't know quite how to describe the strangeness of bringing up other fires and acting like there is some comparison to be made to this specific instance and what is going on in the UK today. Probably some of the most tenuous strawmanning I've come across in a long time. It's fascetious, disingenuous and typical of the kind of perverse dishonest logic commonly employed by defenders of murderous neoliberal doctrine.

There was no underlying ideology underpinning all these tragedies. So, in essence you are playing a peculiar blame game here, pointing a finger at an ideology you do not like at trying to rally some support against it. Basically using dead smouldering corpses as martyrs to push your own politics. I would personally find that shameful.

Because in this instance there have been specific acts. Blocking of fire safety regulation. Repeatedly ignoring warnings about use of cladding which is illegal in many western countries. Deliberately cutting funding to emergency services and local councils. So there is a clear chain of cause and effect. That you want to pretend this is not so speaks to your own disingenuous motives.

You should find your attempts to deflect responsibility for the completely unnecessary deaths of innocent people as a result of gross, willful negligence in order to pursue greed and profit so that these ideologies can continue to be implemented and continue to cause further suffering utterly shameful and disgusting.

I presume that because you are so vocal in condemnation against the Tories that you must be on the extreme wing of the Labour party, therefore think yourself as a Socialist. As, if the UK was more Socialist these tragedies would be avoided. Some leap in logic, it must be said.

Not all tragedies can be avoided, of course not, and I have never said that. For you to imply that I have is a straw man. In this cause there is clear cause and effect.

markodaly

Memnoch wrote: »

Tory cuts have killed more people in the UK than all terrorist attacks thus far.

Quite a claim, one I would like so see substantiated with some actual independent evidence. Now, I am sure you are going to go off and google some statistics about suicides or car accidents to ram the round peg of yours into a square hole.
So, to nib that in the bud I present the life expectancy index for the UK, which has increased every year the Tories have been in power and is at its highest it has ever been.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-expectancy-at-older-ages-is-the-highest-its-ever-been

The fact that they have deliberately blocked safety legislation and repeatedly ignored safety guidelines to go as far as saying that marketing sprinklers should be the responsibility of the fire department and not government regulation is negligence so extreme in the pursuit of profit that it is no different to murder. They play with peoples lives knowing full well what they are doing. I use the word murder quite deliberately because that is the correct word to describe the evil nature of their actions and ideology.

Murder has to show clear intent. If you can show us that the Tories intended for people to die then share this evidence with us or at least share it with the London Met. Otherwise, big strong passionate talk aside, that is all it is, talk, empty talk.

I don't know quite how to describe the strangeness of bringing up other fires and acting like there is some comparison to be made to this specific instance and what is going on in the UK today.

It shows correctly that tragic fires like this occurs across all nations and continents. If I can show that fires like this are not isolated to only certain states, then it is reasonable to assume that there most be another underlying cause and common denominator then some ideology you like to label as murderous.

Probably some of the most tenuous strawmanning I've come across in a long time. It's fascetious, disingenuous and typical of the kind of perverse dishonest logic commonly employed by defenders of murderous neoliberal doctrine.

You are out doing yourself. Calling my response perverse and dishonest when you are calling others defenders of neo-liberal murderers.

Because in this instance there have been specific acts.

Were there not these similar acts in the other cases I have mentioned? You examined them all, and decided that this single tragic fire that happened in London this week was completely unique in those respects. These others fires were acts of god, while this fire in London was 100% totally the fault of those murderous Tories. :cool:

Not all tragedies can be avoided, of course not, and I have never said that.

But you sure as hell want to make the 'murdering' Tories pay for this one because you have skin in the game. As, I said, I would find that motive quite shameful if it were me. Exploiting dead people for political gain.

FTA69

Nobody is saying the Tories went out and lit the fire; they're saying that the economic and housing policies implemented by the Tories primarily has led this to occur. Under their position of implementing austerity, councils have had their funding slashed leading to outsourcing and cost-cutting. The cladding (constructed only as a facade for wealthy people nearby) was an inferior sort - this is the type of thing that happens when profit motive is introduced into public services.

Likewise the Tories have also presided over the continued destruction of our social housing stock, leading to these tenants being ignored and their concerns dismissed when they raised these problems previously. Grenfell is indicative of many problems we have in the UK today. Gentrification, rising rents, the running down of social housing stock, the marginalisation of remaining council tenants, privatisation in the public sector and the gutting of local government - all things eagerly perpetuated by the policies of the Conservative Party.

You accuse Memnoch of using bodies for person gain, I'd accuse you of shamelessly ignoring the reasons why these people died and are instead weaselling and trying to brush them under the carpet. "Nothing to see here, could have happened anywhere like."

Having been down to Grenfell and met some of the people there, I can definitely say that the locals themselves most certainly don't follow your line of thinking.

Chester Copperpot

markodaly wrote: »

Quite a claim, one I would like so see substantiated with some actual independent evidence. Now, I am sure you are going to go off and google some statistics about suicides or car accidents to ram the round peg of yours into a square hole.
So, to nib that in the bud I present the life expectancy index for the UK, which has increased every year the Tories have been in power and is at its highest it has ever been.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-expectancy-at-older-ages-is-the-highest-its-ever-been



Murder has to show clear intent. If you can show us that the Tories intended for people to die then share this evidence with us or at least share it with the London Met. Otherwise, big strong passionate talk aside, that is all it is, talk, empty talk.





It shows correctly that tragic fires like this occurs across all nations and continents. If I can show that fires like this are not isolated to only certain states, then it is reasonable to assume that there most be another underlying cause and common denominator then some ideology you like to label as murderous.



You are out doing yourself. Calling my response perverse and dishonest when you are calling others defenders of neo-liberal murderers.





Were there not these similar acts in the other cases I have mentioned? You examined them all, and decided that this single tragic fire that happened in London this week was completely unique in those respects. These others fires were acts of god, while this fire in London was 100% totally the fault of those murderous Tories. :cool:






But you sure as hell want to make the 'murdering' Tories pay for this one because you have skin in the game. As, I said, I would find that motive quite shameful if it were me. Exploiting dead people for political gain.

Murder is quite a strong descriptor but would certainly fall within the area of corporate manslaughter

volchitsa

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

'Murder' by our UK/IRE definition is a bit of an extreme wording by poster memnoch alright - though the American concept of 'fourth degree murder' which we call 'manslaughter' doesn't seem too far away.
There does appear to have been a general Tory policy that health&safety rules are an inconvenience to business, that doing the bare minimum on the cheap is best practice and needs no meddling oversight.
Even if they aren't directly responsible, it seems fairly clearcut that they actively facilitated a situation that made Grenfell possible.

Surely it's lot stronger than does appear to have been?

The claim that most health and safety legislation is akin to "PC gone made" is at the very basis of Conservative industrial policy and has been for years now, possibly decades.

IMO that became the received wisdom during the miners' conflicts, where anything the miners wanted was systematically portrayed in the right wing media as just another excuse from the unions to gain/regain political control.

The laisser-faire approach existed long before that, of course (as the Aberfan disaster shows), but Health and Safety only became a target for the Tories and their media fans in the 70s.

ancapailldorcha

Memnoch wrote: »

You should find your attempts to deflect responsibility for the completely unnecessary deaths of innocent people as a result of gross, willful negligence in order to pursue greed and profit so that these ideologies can continue to be implemented and continue to cause further suffering utterly shameful and disgusting.

markodaly wrote: »

You are out doing yourself. Calling my response perverse and dishonest when you are calling others defenders of neo-liberal murderers.

Please refrain from using any more of this sort of language.

Victor

Sam Russell wrote: »

There are 120 apartments, with 200 bedrooms - even I can do the sums. Locals say 600 lived there - but with two per room would put 400 in the building, but add children into the numbers and I can see why it could be 600.

Many of the flats were 4-bed, Which would have a capacity of 5-6. Assuming no vacant properties, a reasonable estimate would be 400-600 residents.

Sam Russell

Victor wrote: »

Many of the flats were 4-bed, Which would have a capacity of 5-6. Assuming no vacant properties, a reasonable estimate would be 400-600 residents.

I am only going on information on the web, so it is not reliable but is the best there is.

I understand that each floor had six apartments with the corner flats (apartments are posh - council only provide flats) being 2 bed while the centre two flats are one bed. So there are no four bed flats.

Remember, the occupants are asylum seekers and refugees. as far as one can tell. Now there are some long term residents, but it would appear to be the poorest that were housed there.

Much credit should go to he young men who were returning from the prayers at the mosque because it is Ramadam at the moment. They alerted many residents and caused them to be rescued.

Also, it appears that the fire engines, while they got there in four minutes, they could not get close to the building because there was no roadway for them and what access that could be used was blocked by parked cars.

Why did the PM not call the COBRA committee together to organise a response?

A Dub in Glasgo

Sam Russell wrote: »

I understand that each floor had six apartments with the corner flats (apartments are posh - council only provide flats) being 2 bed while the centre two flats are one bed. So there are no four bed flats.

I also seen a graphic which showed the corner ones to be 2 bed flats and the centre ones to be 1 bed. There were flats on 20 floors so that would make

20 x 4 two bedroom = 80
20 x 2 one bedroom = 40
Total = 120 flats

Sam Russell

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I also seen a graphic which showed the corner ones to be 2 bed flats and the centre ones to be 1 bed. There were flats on 20 floors so that would make

20 x 4 two bedroom = 80
20 x 2 one bedroom = 40
Total = 120 flats

Or put another way:

20 x 4 two bedroom = 80 = 160 beds
20 x 2 one bedroom = 40 = 40 beds

So a total of 200 beds, so probably 360 to 500 occupants.

I assume the higher figure as many children would be accommodated in bunk beds in single rooms, and given the demographic, there would be a lot of young children. Locals have given a figure of 600 occupants. Also, given the shortage of housing, there could be a large number of couch surfers, and unofficial residents.

kildarejohn

The "political" aspect of this tragedy have been portrayed in different ways by different posters -
1. The occupiers of these apartments were poorer people and it is argued that the standards applied to the refurbishment of these apartments were inferior because they were poor people, and current UK government favours rich people.
2. The standards applied to the refurbishment of these apartments were poor because of poor regulation/enforcement, and this poor regulation/enforcement is the fault of a government which favours allowing rich people like property developers to make more money.

Argument 1 above is flawed, because nobody has produced any evidence that the standards in the Grenfell House block was lower than applies in "upper class" apartment blocks in London.
Argument 2 is flawed because no evidence has been produced as to who, if anyone, made profit as a result of using cheaper cladding. In fact, plain metal (non combustible) cladding would probably have been cheaper than the fancy looking, aesthetically coloured (but combustible) stuff that was used.

Sam Russell

kildarejohn wrote: »

The "political" aspect of this tragedy have been portrayed in different ways by different posters -
1. The occupiers of these apartments were poorer people and it is argued that the standards applied to the refurbishment of these apartments were inferior because they were poor people, and current UK government favours rich people.
2. The standards applied to the refurbishment of these apartments were poor because of poor regulation/enforcement, and this poor regulation/enforcement is the fault of a government which favours allowing rich people like property developers to make more money.

Argument 1 above is flawed, because nobody has produced any evidence that the standards in the Grenfell House block was lower than applies in "upper class" apartment blocks in London.
Argument 2 is flawed because no evidence has been produced as to who, if anyone, made profit as a result of using cheaper cladding. In fact, plain metal (non combustible) cladding would probably have been cheaper than the fancy looking, aesthetically coloured (but combustible) stuff that was used.

There is evidence that the the Grenfell residents had an action group that was set up to highlight the very issues involved in this tragedy were ignored. They would not have been ignored if they represented wealthy people. Councilor Blakeman was raising the issues and was attacked by the council who wanted her silenced.

The company that did the 'upgrade' reported profits of over £1 million last year, so yes, someone made money from the cheap cladding. Someone specified the cheaper material to save £5,000, and therefore someone profited.

The fact that regulations were relaxed does affect the poorer people more than the richer ones because poor people have to accept what is on offer while the more affluent can choose to upgrade as they have the funds. So mandatory standards affect poorer people, but options are not available to them.

Of course, corner cutting is more likely in jobs like the Grenfell flats upgrade as it s dne by a private company and not by the council itself. I wonder how the bui,lding control dept at Kensington and Chelsea Borough will come out of this.

Looking back at the Ronan Point case (Google it), when the building was taken apart in 1986, having been strengthened following its collapse in 1968, it was found that fundamental mistakes were made that compromised the safety of the building such that it could have collapsed in the 1987 storm.

I think all builders are prone to cut corners, either by mistake or otherwise. That is why there are building control inspectors.

Capt'n Midnight

Memnoch wrote: »

Tory cuts have killed more people in the UK than all terrorist attacks thus far.

According to the Royal Society of Medicine 30,000 excess deaths in 2015 due to NHS cuts.

After ruling out data errors, cold weather and flu as main causes for the spike, the researchers found that NHS performance data revealed clear evidence of health system failures. Almost all targets were missed including ambulance call-out times and A&E waiting times, despite unexceptional A&E attendances compared to the same month in previous years. Staff absence rates rose and more posts remained empty as staff had not been appointed.

Memnoch

markodaly wrote: »

Quite a claim, one I would like so see substantiated with some actual independent evidence. Now, I am sure you are going to go off and google some statistics about suicides or car accidents to ram the round peg of yours into a square hole.
So, to nib that in the bud I present the life expectancy index for the UK, which has increased every year the Tories have been in power and is at its highest it has ever been.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-expectancy-at-older-ages-is-the-highest-its-ever-been

I don't really want to get into arguing life expectancy as if it's some kind of verifiable statistical proof that a government's policies are justifiable as I'm sure there are numerous variables that affect it and it would require a discussion in itself which would drag the debate off topic.

However, since you brought it up...

https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c?mhq5j=e1

Average UK life expectancy falls.

"New trend could ease pension deficit pressure for UK companies"
MARCH 31, 2017 by: Lucy Warwick-Ching

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pensioners-uk-life-expectancy-falling-institute-and-faculty-of-actuaries-a7661571.html

Figures show that men aged 65 are anticipated to live a further 22.2 years, down from 22.8 years in 2013 and women a further 24.1 years, down from 25.1 years four years ago.

The data were compiled in the institute's Continuous Mortality Investigation (CMI) unit and supplied by the Office of National Statistics.

The analysis also shows that life expectancy of those aged 45 is also on the decline, with a further 42 years to live for men and 44 for women, down from respectively 43 and 45.1 in 2013...

For the past few decades, there has been a very strong improvement in life expectancy in the UK, both at birth but also for 65-year-olds.

But that trend appears to have slowed down since 2011.

Brilliant Tory strategy! More profits less pensions!

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-02-20-30000-excess-deaths-2015-linked-cuts-health-and-social-care

There were 30,000 excess deaths in 2015, representing the largest increase in deaths in the post-war period.

And what about the disabled? Surely they could not have escaped the great beneficence of this cuddly Tory government.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-died-after-fit-for-work-assessment-dwp-figures

Nearly 90 people a month are dying after being declared fit for work, according to new data that has prompted campaigners and Labour leadership contenders to call for an overhaul of the government’s welfare regime.

Statistics released by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) revealed that during the period December 2011 and February 2014 2,380 people died after their claim for employment and support allowance (ESA) ended because a work capability assessment (WCA) found they were found fit for work.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28499-analysis-links-590-suicides-to-push-to-get-disabled-working/

A cruel false economy? UK government efforts to reduce the number of people claiming disability benefit appear to have driven 590 people in England to suicide and to have put 725,000 more on antidepressants.

Researchers suggest the adverse effects of this policy might outweigh any benefits, and could result in disabled people becoming more dependent on state aid, not less.

Since 2010, more than a million people have had their eligibility for disability allowance reviewed. There have been claims that this process has been too severe, putting pressure on people who really are unfit to work and, sometimes, pushing them to suicide.

I stand by my statement that neoliberal ideology is cruel, exploitative and murderous.

Murder has to show clear intent. If you can show us that the Tories intended for people to die then share this evidence with us or at least share it with the London Met. Otherwise, big strong passionate talk aside, that is all it is, talk, empty talk.

They repeatedly ignored warnings and suppressed a report into this issue. They were told lives would be put at risk. When local residents raised fire safety concerns with the local Tory council they were threatened with legal action.

Currently, legally, perhaps you are right in that this might be defined as corporate manslaughter in the UK, though in the US it can be described as murder 4?

Ethically and morally there is no doubt in my mind and I believe the legal definition should be altered so that justice can be done in such cases. There should be far greater accountability for this kind of crime as it kills far more people than terrorism.

It shows correctly that tragic fires like this occurs across all nations and continents. If I can show that fires like this are not isolated to only certain states, then it is reasonable to assume that there most be another underlying cause and common denominator then some ideology you like to label as murderous.

Did these fires occur in buildings occupied by low income tenants? Was there inflammable insulating material installed in these buildings in order to save money? Did the residents raise concerns about fire safety in these buildings and those concerns were not only ignored but they were threatened with legal action? Did their governments refuse to legislate fire safety and installation of sprinklers? Did all of this happen against a background of cuts to essential public services including the fire department?

Unless the above was the case there is no basis for comparison. <snip>
You might as well say that a car crash caused by a drunk driver, is the same as a car crash caused by someone having a heart attack is the same as a car crash caused by corporate negiligence in manufacturing of the car etc.

You are out doing yourself. Calling my response perverse and dishonest when you are calling others defenders of neo-liberal murderers.

Neoliberalism is a cruel, exploitative and murderous ideology in my view. Most who support it are probably ignorant of the same. This cannot be said for those in power who implement it, or those who support it despite knowing the suffering it causes. For those people, I have no time.

<snip>

But you sure as hell want to make the 'murdering' Tories pay for this one because you have skin in the game. As, I said, I would find that motive quite shameful if it were me. Exploiting dead people for political gain.

If I was trying to whitewash the needless deaths of innocent people, many of whom are working poor, and I was doing so with the motive of defending a terrible ideology, I would consider it deeply wrongful. This is why I consider it my moral imperative as a human being to speak out against this ideology. Because of the endless suffering it causes. I would be ashamed of myself, if I did not.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

Remember, the occupants are asylum seekers and refugees. as far as one can tell. Now there are some long term residents, but it would appear to be the poorest that were housed there.

it would have nothing to do with the "Poorest" just the next on the list.

Sam Russell

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it would have nothing to do with the "Poorest" just the next on the list.

I doubt that.

I see that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have been removed from the being responsible for the response to the disaster. The Chancellor, Hamilton, has said the he believes the cladding material is banned in the UK - but of course he could be wrong.

We await an outcome of the Police enquiries, the inquests, and the official enquiry, whenever those occur.

pilly

Sam Russell wrote: »

I doubt that.

I see that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have been removed from the being responsible for the response to the disaster. The Chancellor, Hamilton, has said the he believes the cladding material is banned in the UK - but of course he could be wrong.

We await an outcome of the Police enquiries, the inquests, and the official enquiry, whenever those occur.

How do you mean they have been removed from being responsible?

Sam Russell

pilly wrote: »

How do you mean they have been removed from being responsible?

Apparently, a group of senior managers from other London Boroughs, not including RBofK&C, have taken over the response team. Southwick are one such borough. Anyway, that was what has been reported.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

I doubt that.

why? that is how housing lists work.

Sam Russell

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why? that is how housing lists work.

Have you listened to Paget-Brown, leader on the RBofK&c on the media, or listened to Labour Councillor Blakeman? Have you listened to Tory councillors saying the residents should have been 'grateful' that the council spent £6.4 million on their block?

I think the borough of K&C and the borough of Westminster are not keen on social housing - selling it off to their friends where possible.

So, NO, that is not how housing lists work in London.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

Have you listened to Paget-Brown, leader on the RBofK&c on the media, or listened to Labour Councillor Blakeman? Have you listened to Tory councillors saying the residents should have been 'grateful' that the council spent £6.4 million on their block?

I think the borough of K&C and the borough of Westminster are not keen on social housing - selling it off to their friends where possible.

So, NO, that is not how housing lists work in London.

none of what you have said has anything to do with how housing lists work. it is just some sort of rant.

You put your name on the list, when you get to the top you are offered the next available accommodation. If you turn it down without a good reason, you often go back to the bottom of the list again.

A Little Pony

We may never know the true figure for a few obvious reasons. I'd be surprised if they could identify all the bodies.

markodaly

Memnoch wrote: »

I stand by my statement that neoliberal ideology is cruel, exploitative and murderous.

Again, you fail to prove the intent and ignore other tragedies that occur where people die. Only this weekend , 62 people died in Portugal due to forest fires. What ideology is to blame for that?

Ethically and morally there is no doubt in my mind and I believe the legal definition should be altered so that justice can be done in such cases. There should be far greater accountability for this kind of crime as it kills far more people than terrorism.

First of all no crime has been committed here. At least until all the facts have been objectively and independently looked at. Perhaps there may be a civil case but there will be no one hung drawn and quartered nor a jail cell occupied for even a night.

Secondly, if you are talking about changing laws so that 'crimes' committed in the past can be then prosecuted then you are uprooting the entire legal system.

Was there inflammable insulating material installed in these buildings in order to save money?

I have seen reported but the BBC earlier reported whether or not the flammable material was even available at the time of the renovation. It shows that people need to take a step back and wait for some of the facts to emerge;

Did their governments refuse to legislate fire safety and installation of sprinklers?

Interesting you mention sprinklers because in 2005 the Labour Government voted in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 which stated that only newer buildings built from 2007 and taller than 30m should have sprinklers installed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40293035
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1541/pdfs/uksi_20051541_en.pdf

This may even prove your point that Blair was also a neo-liberal and deservers all he got.

Neoliberalism is a cruel, exploitative and murderous ideology in my view. Most who support it are probably ignorant of the same. This cannot be said for those in power who implement it, or those who support it despite knowing the suffering it causes. For those people, I have no time.

Yes, people in power spend their time thinking up new ways on how to make the lives of other people more miserable.

This is why I consider it my moral imperative as a human being to speak out against this ideology. Because of the endless suffering it causes. I would be ashamed of myself, if I did not.

That is very admirable of you.

prinzeugen

The whole thing regarding the cladding reminds me of the many train fires in the UK in the 40-50's.

They knew that the nitrocellulose varnish was explosive yet it was still used and was not removed from existing coaches quick enough.

At the time x government minister got blamed for this the next one for that.

In the UK it was once the norm, when things like this happen, that the minister for transport or in this case housing carries the can.

The left have jumped on this however and are using it for other reasons.

The number of "May Out" placards outnumber the fire ones. Jumping on a bandwagon.

For Reals

Apparently at the time the cladding was going up on the cheap, the Local Tory led council gave 100 pounds to each council tax compliant resident in the borough, based on the premise that as the council had saved so much money they had a surplus and felt they were the natural recipients. The Torys did well in the following election.

Simply put, they scrimped on the buildings 'upgrade' to save money, while giving out 100 pound payments to other area residents. That's politics at work.
There comes a time when we have to stop thinking left and right and consider right and wrong.

Fratton Fred

For Reals wrote: »

Apparently at the time the cladding was going up on the cheap, the Local Tory led council gave 100 pounds to each council tax compliant resident in the borough, based on the premise that as the council had saved so much money they had a surplus and felt they were the natural recipients. The Torys did well in the following election.

Simply put, they scrimped on the buildings 'upgrade' to save money, while giving out 100 pound payments to other area residents. That's politics at work.
There comes a time when we have to stop thinking left and right and consider right and wrong.

so they didn't give the rebate to people who lived in the tower? How did they justify that one?

For Reals

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so they didn't give the rebate to people who lived in the tower? How did they justify that one?

Only those 100% tax compliant. It's in the post. It's more about scrimping on one hand and giving away with the other.
I'm sure any in the tower thought, 'hmm 100 pounds. I'll put that towards fire retardants and sprinklers for the building'.

Fratton Fred

For Reals wrote: »

Only those 100% tax compliant. It's in the post. It's more about scrimping on one hand and giving away with the other.
I'm sure any in the tower thought, 'hmm 100 pounds. I'll put that towards fire retardants and sprinklers for the building'.

so they didn't give the money to "Other area residents" as you claimed, they simply gave a £100 rebate to everyone who had paid their council tax.

We have no idea who (if anyone) scrimped on the cladding at the moment either. If it was a fixed price contract and the correct cladding was specified, then it may have been the installation company. It may have just been a mistake by the architects. We do not know yet, until the public inquiry issues its findings.

markodaly

For Reals wrote: »

Only those 100% tax compliant. It's in the post. It's more about scrimping on one hand and giving away with the other.
I'm sure any in the tower thought, 'hmm 100 pounds. I'll put that towards fire retardants and sprinklers for the building'.

How many people in Grenfell Tower were tax compliant, as a matter of interest and clarity?

For Reals

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so they didn't give the money to "Other area residents" as you claimed, they simply gave a £100 rebate to everyone who had paid their council tax.

We have no idea who (if anyone) scrimped on the cladding at the moment either. If it was a fixed price contract and the correct cladding was specified, then it may have been the installation company. It may have just been a mistake by the architects. We do not know yet, until the public inquiry issues its findings.

Yes. Which I clarified in the last post.

Of course.

A letter was sent out regarding the savings the council had been making, hence the 100. That said, there is no direct connection of course. Again, just to note. They were cutting back in areas and giving in others.
I don't care if it was Blair or Cameron as PM. It's bad business.

A Dub in Glasgo

For Reals wrote: »

Apparently at the time the cladding was going up on the cheap, the Local Tory led council gave 100 pounds to each council tax compliant resident in the borough, based on the premise that as the council had saved so much money they had a surplus and felt they were the natural recipients. The Torys did well in the following election.

Simply put, they scrimped on the buildings 'upgrade' to save money, while giving out 100 pound payments to other area residents. That's politics at work.
There comes a time when we have to stop thinking left and right and consider right and wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/my-council-tax-rebate-from-kensington-and-chelsea-is-blood-money

In 2014, I received my Kensington and Chelsea council tax bill and a letter from the leader of the council, Nicholas Paget-Brown, explaining that all residents who pay council tax in full would “receive a one-off payment of £100”, to be deducted from the bill. This bonus, the letter continued, was due to the council’s careful management of its finances over the years, “consistently delivering greater efficiencies while improving services”. Austerity, K&C style: you give to the rich while taking from the poor (nobody with discounted bills or claiming council tax support was eligible to share in the bounty of the town hall blue-chips).

markodaly

For Reals wrote: »

A letter was sent out regarding the savings the council had been making, hence the 100. That said, there is no direct connection of course.

Yet, the council was not responsible for the management of this building, nor were they responsible for the renovation. That fell under the authority of KCTMO.

I think some people are finding their level best to push some kind of divide here, where it all honesty, this tragedy was probably due to a number of pen pushers in some civil service office not talking to each other.

Its human nature to want to find a simple explanation and that blame can be apportioned at one single factor or person. If only it were so simple.

A Dub in Glasgo

The council own the tower block and funded the refurbishment. The block was managed on behalf of the council by the KCTMO