Snap General Election called

[Sandydragon]

Do you have a view as to why this government (whether under May or Johnson) has done nothing, 3.5 years after the fire?

Laziness and/or incompetence. There just isn't any acceptable reason much more progress hasn't been reached. Actually we see something similar during the pandemic, rather then getting on with strategising detailed plans and making decisions they don't want to make they're sitting around hoping someone or something else magically makes things better, and they deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule for their ongoing failure

If you talk to them they genuinely give the impression, and not just on this subject, that announcing something even to the degree of announcing something will be looked at can be equated with acting. Or as we see with Grenfell if you get data from them on what's been done to correct the situation they'll cite you sights where cladding has been dealt with, and by dealt with they're including sights where some work might have started but the cladding and internal fire structures are still to be actually dealt with, and they're perfectly happy with lying in such fashion.

I don't doubt that there is much laziness and incompetence there, and these things may play their part.

But do you not think their natural sympathies also play a part, eg would they feel inclined to take action which benefits the poor at the expense of the rich (who also happen the fund the Tory party), or leave things as they are?

And that takes us back to the issue that only poor people live in tower blocks which isn't the case. Incompetence most definitely, and I suspect that Brexit (and covid) have played a huge part in stopping other routine work. I don't see this as a class issue, more of one that this cabinet isn't competent and are only there because they are Brexit loyalists.

[Son of Mathonwy]

It’s also worth pointing out that the governments cladding deviation really fucks over a lot of young professionals who bought flats in the east end under the past buy schemes.

My sister’s flat, for example, is looking likely to lose most of its value, really ending her plans with that place.

And these young professionals used to be Tory voters.

There are no doubt some Tory voters and young professionals affected (although surely these are in a minority). But whoever they are, they're not rich. They're not people the Tory MPs identify with or want to suck up to.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Laziness and/or incompetence. There just isn't any acceptable reason much more progress hasn't been reached. Actually we see something similar during the pandemic, rather then getting on with strategising detailed plans and making decisions they don't want to make they're sitting around hoping someone or something else magically makes things better, and they deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule for their ongoing failure

If you talk to them they genuinely give the impression, and not just on this subject, that announcing something even to the degree of announcing something will be looked at can be equated with acting. Or as we see with Grenfell if you get data from them on what's been done to correct the situation they'll cite you sights where cladding has been dealt with, and by dealt with they're including sights where some work might have started but the cladding and internal fire structures are still to be actually dealt with, and they're perfectly happy with lying in such fashion.

I don't doubt that there is much laziness and incompetence there, and these things may play their part.

But do you not think their natural sympathies also play a part, eg would they feel inclined to take action which benefits the poor at the expense of the rich (who also happen the fund the Tory party), or leave things as they are?

I think this is a bad scenario to map class sympathies atop. Those stuck in various situations from unsafe housing to financial problems arising from this go across the earnings spectrum. I think you might ascribe some traditional idea here of penny pinching in terms of a government not wanting to pay out for what in large part is its own failings around building regs and, proper standards in inspections of buildings and materials coming through the supply chain, and not considering how the green agenda has been negatively impacting at times, but you get that with all governments whether left or right leaning

We keep getting the idea brought up this is a penalty on the poor, and certainly Grenfell didn't house the richest but (a) they spent a lot of money on Grenfell and it turns out that they spent it badly was more a problem than there was no investment and (b) the situation whilst likely impacting a higher % of low earners goes well beyond that across the various class divides.

This is just a bad situation brought on by years of neglect and cutting corners in public and private orgs that has been horrifically mismanaged since we got an horrific demonstration as to why more attention should have been paid from a long time back. And it's a bad situation which affects buildings, and buildings house more than just poor people, rich people have been known to live in them too. Had they addressed this situation it should have been to address it for everyone caught up in the situation, but they've failed across the board, it's not like they've addressed it where there are rich people and ignored it just for low(er) earners.

Either I'm overly cynical or you're overly trusting.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Laziness and/or incompetence. There just isn't any acceptable reason much more progress hasn't been reached. Actually we see something similar during the pandemic, rather then getting on with strategising detailed plans and making decisions they don't want to make they're sitting around hoping someone or something else magically makes things better, and they deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule for their ongoing failure

If you talk to them they genuinely give the impression, and not just on this subject, that announcing something even to the degree of announcing something will be looked at can be equated with acting. Or as we see with Grenfell if you get data from them on what's been done to correct the situation they'll cite you sights where cladding has been dealt with, and by dealt with they're including sights where some work might have started but the cladding and internal fire structures are still to be actually dealt with, and they're perfectly happy with lying in such fashion.

I don't doubt that there is much laziness and incompetence there, and these things may play their part.

But do you not think their natural sympathies also play a part, eg would they feel inclined to take action which benefits the poor at the expense of the rich (who also happen the fund the Tory party), or leave things as they are?

And that takes us back to the issue that only poor people live in tower blocks which isn't the case. Incompetence most definitely, and I suspect that Brexit (and covid) have played a huge part in stopping other routine work. I don't see this as a class issue, more of one that this cabinet isn't competent and are only there because they are Brexit loyalists.

But this problem predates Johnson and his cabinet of Brexiteering incompetents.

[Digby]

I don't doubt that there is much laziness and incompetence there, and these things may play their part.

But do you not think their natural sympathies also play a part, eg would they feel inclined to take action which benefits the poor at the expense of the rich (who also happen the fund the Tory party), or leave things as they are?

I think this is a bad scenario to map class sympathies atop. Those stuck in various situations from unsafe housing to financial problems arising from this go across the earnings spectrum. I think you might ascribe some traditional idea here of penny pinching in terms of a government not wanting to pay out for what in large part is its own failings around building regs and, proper standards in inspections of buildings and materials coming through the supply chain, and not considering how the green agenda has been negatively impacting at times, but you get that with all governments whether left or right leaning

We keep getting the idea brought up this is a penalty on the poor, and certainly Grenfell didn't house the richest but (a) they spent a lot of money on Grenfell and it turns out that they spent it badly was more a problem than there was no investment and (b) the situation whilst likely impacting a higher % of low earners goes well beyond that across the various class divides.

This is just a bad situation brought on by years of neglect and cutting corners in public and private orgs that has been horrifically mismanaged since we got an horrific demonstration as to why more attention should have been paid from a long time back. And it's a bad situation which affects buildings, and buildings house more than just poor people, rich people have been known to live in them too. Had they addressed this situation it should have been to address it for everyone caught up in the situation, but they've failed across the board, it's not like they've addressed it where there are rich people and ignored it just for low(er) earners.

Either I'm overly cynical or you're overly trusting.

I'm overly trusting because I think they're pathetic and incompetent, and their risible efforts to dodge the reality of government decision making over the years doesn't even make any sense given all the positives come with addressing the issue not hoping it goes away?

There are plenty of issues that could be picked up and look at through the lens of class struggle, this isn't one of them and it's not only not useful it's actually counter productive to try and make this one about class.

[Digby]

It’s also worth pointing out that the governments cladding deviation really fucks over a lot of young professionals who bought flats in the east end under the past buy schemes.

My sister’s flat, for example, is looking likely to lose most of its value, really ending her plans with that place.

And these young professionals used to be Tory voters.

What's the cladding deviation? Is that the historic divergence from acceptable standards? And if so it'd be worth keeping in mind cladding is very likely a big problem but still a minority problem in the whole picture

Lol, phone autocorrected from decision...

Basically, all flats, including 3-5 story short-rises popular in the part-buy schemes, need to get some certificate about cladding, even though this wouldn't effect them. And the owner-tennants need to sort it out themselves, not the developers, because, of course, it's the poor developers who need looking after here.

That makes much more sense. Though I still suspect cladding isn't the bigger part of the problem, sadly we probably still don't know what the actual scope of the problem is because the government in its infinite wisdom is refusing to ask sensible questions and capture the sort of data you'd want

[Stom]

What's the cladding deviation? Is that the historic divergence from acceptable standards? And if so it'd be worth keeping in mind cladding is very likely a big problem but still a minority problem in the whole picture

Lol, phone autocorrected from decision...

Basically, all flats, including 3-5 story short-rises popular in the part-buy schemes, need to get some certificate about cladding, even though this wouldn't effect them. And the owner-tennants need to sort it out themselves, not the developers, because, of course, it's the poor developers who need looking after here.

That makes much more sense. Though I still suspect cladding isn't the bigger part of the problem, sadly we probably still don't know what the actual scope of the problem is because the government in its infinite wisdom is refusing to ask sensible questions and capture the sort of data you'd want

That's because they don't care. This is a good old fashioned oligarchy: they only want to make money from their situation. Every decision they make has to make more money for them and their friends. If it doesn't, they don't want anything to do with it.

Brexit was simply a way of making Britain a tax haven, as the EU has introduced stricter rules on transparency for banks...something this government don't want.

They just want to fleece the British public and they're being as brazen about it as my lovely government over here.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I think this is a bad scenario to map class sympathies atop. Those stuck in various situations from unsafe housing to financial problems arising from this go across the earnings spectrum. I think you might ascribe some traditional idea here of penny pinching in terms of a government not wanting to pay out for what in large part is its own failings around building regs and, proper standards in inspections of buildings and materials coming through the supply chain, and not considering how the green agenda has been negatively impacting at times, but you get that with all governments whether left or right leaning

We keep getting the idea brought up this is a penalty on the poor, and certainly Grenfell didn't house the richest but (a) they spent a lot of money on Grenfell and it turns out that they spent it badly was more a problem than there was no investment and (b) the situation whilst likely impacting a higher % of low earners goes well beyond that across the various class divides.

This is just a bad situation brought on by years of neglect and cutting corners in public and private orgs that has been horrifically mismanaged since we got an horrific demonstration as to why more attention should have been paid from a long time back. And it's a bad situation which affects buildings, and buildings house more than just poor people, rich people have been known to live in them too. Had they addressed this situation it should have been to address it for everyone caught up in the situation, but they've failed across the board, it's not like they've addressed it where there are rich people and ignored it just for low(er) earners.

Either I'm overly cynical or you're overly trusting.

I'm overly trusting because I think they're pathetic and incompetent, and their risible efforts to dodge the reality of government decision making over the years doesn't even make any sense given all the positives come with addressing the issue not hoping it goes away?

There are plenty of issues that could be picked up and look at through the lens of class struggle, this isn't one of them and it's not only not useful it's actually counter productive to try and make this one about class.

I agree you're overly trusting (whereas I'm just cynical enough ).

We don't know the reason for the government's failure re Grenfell, we can only speculate. I base my speculation on evidence of the behaviour of this government. For example (see Wikipedia):

In May 2020, Jenrick accepted that his approval of a £1 billion luxury housing development on Westferry Road, Isle of Dogs had been unlawful. The 1,500-home development was proposed by Richard Desmond, a Conservative Party donor and owner of Northern & Shell. The government's planning inspector had previously advised against the scheme, as it delivered an inadequate amount of affordable housing and as the height of the tower would be detrimental to the character of the area.[32] However, Jenrick approved the scheme on 14 January, knowing that an approval by that date would enable Richard Desmond to avoid having to pay a council-imposed infrastructure levy of between £30 and £50 million, which could have been used for funding schools and health clinics.[33][3] Tower Hamlets council pursued legal action against Jenrick, arguing that his decision showed bias towards Desmond. It was also reported that Jenrick helped Desmond save an additional £106m by allowing affordable housing at 21%, instead of enforcing the local and London-wide planning policy requirement of 35%.[34][4]

Jenrick's behaviour is neither lazy, nor incompetent. It I does however show clear bias towards the rich.

This kind of behaviour is why I think that bias towards the rich is a factor in the Tories' continuing failure to act on this matter. I'm surprised you can be so certain that it is not.

[Digby]

I do think this government has a bias towards the elite, I just don't think it's especially relevant in what's happening around building safety standards, with Grenfell being the trigger but also not in all ways illustrative of the wider problem. They are on this failing across the board, they're trying not to acknowledge their own role and they're trying to do as little as possible to correct the situation. And I can say for a fact there are a number of Conservative MPs utterly bewildered and pissed off by their government's response on this, and they're not pissed off because it's a Tory government

Saying the failings on this stem from worrying about the rich more than the poor is akin to looking at the Welsh lineout problems over many years and wondering it it's because their hookers like strawberry or raspberry yogurt, it's just missing the point. You could argue a willingness to allow more of a light touch on the regulatory front plays a role, but that's still a different thing to worrying just about the rich and the failings on building safety go back well before 2010 anyway

[Zhivago]

"bias towards the elite"?

Sounds awfully like a euphemism for corruption

[Son of Mathonwy]

I do think this government has a bias towards the elite, I just don't think it's especially relevant in what's happening around building safety standards, with Grenfell being the trigger but also not in all ways illustrative of the wider problem. They are on this failing across the board, they're trying not to acknowledge their own role and they're trying to do as little as possible to correct the situation. And I can say for a fact there are a number of Conservative MPs utterly bewildered and pissed off by their government's response on this, and they're not pissed off because it's a Tory government

Saying the failings on this stem from worrying about the rich more than the poor is akin to looking at the Welsh lineout problems over many years and wondering it it's because their hookers like strawberry or raspberry yogurt, it's just missing the point. You could argue a willingness to allow more of a light touch on the regulatory front plays a role, but that's still a different thing to worrying just about the rich and the failings on building safety go back well before 2010 anyway

You think the government has a bias towards the elite.
You understand that government action (or should I say, lack of action) re Grenfell favours the elite.
And yet you think that the government's bias towards the elite is irrelevant to understanding their action re Grenfell.

Sorry, I can't understand your thinking here.

[Digby]

I do think this government has a bias towards the elite, I just don't think it's especially relevant in what's happening around building safety standards, with Grenfell being the trigger but also not in all ways illustrative of the wider problem. They are on this failing across the board, they're trying not to acknowledge their own role and they're trying to do as little as possible to correct the situation. And I can say for a fact there are a number of Conservative MPs utterly bewildered and pissed off by their government's response on this, and they're not pissed off because it's a Tory government

Saying the failings on this stem from worrying about the rich more than the poor is akin to looking at the Welsh lineout problems over many years and wondering it it's because their hookers like strawberry or raspberry yogurt, it's just missing the point. You could argue a willingness to allow more of a light touch on the regulatory front plays a role, but that's still a different thing to worrying just about the rich and the failings on building safety go back well before 2010 anyway

You think the government has a bias towards the elite.
You understand that government action (or should I say, lack of action) re Grenfell favours the elite.
And yet you think that the government's bias towards the elite is irrelevant to understanding their action re Grenfell.

Sorry, I can't understand your thinking here.

I did not say government action on Grenfell favours the elite, I noted if they'd gone about responding to it by dealing with the elite first that would be one thing, this they haven't done because they're just not dealing with it across the board.

And yes I think they're biased to the elite, but that doesn't apply to every single policy or or direction taken. And in this instance they even have the obvious retort (which they are using) which is they're concerned about using taxpayer money to address a situation for homeowners when many taxpayers don't own homes

[Son of Mathonwy]

I do think this government has a bias towards the elite, I just don't think it's especially relevant in what's happening around building safety standards, with Grenfell being the trigger but also not in all ways illustrative of the wider problem. They are on this failing across the board, they're trying not to acknowledge their own role and they're trying to do as little as possible to correct the situation. And I can say for a fact there are a number of Conservative MPs utterly bewildered and pissed off by their government's response on this, and they're not pissed off because it's a Tory government

Saying the failings on this stem from worrying about the rich more than the poor is akin to looking at the Welsh lineout problems over many years and wondering it it's because their hookers like strawberry or raspberry yogurt, it's just missing the point. You could argue a willingness to allow more of a light touch on the regulatory front plays a role, but that's still a different thing to worrying just about the rich and the failings on building safety go back well before 2010 anyway

You think the government has a bias towards the elite.
You understand that government action (or should I say, lack of action) re Grenfell favours the elite.
And yet you think that the government's bias towards the elite is irrelevant to understanding their action re Grenfell.

Sorry, I can't understand your thinking here.

I did not say government action on Grenfell favours the elite, I noted if they'd gone about responding to it by dealing with the elite first that would be one thing, this they haven't done because they're just not dealing with it across the board.

And yes I think they're biased to the elite, but that doesn't apply to every single policy or or direction taken. And in this instance they even have the obvious retort (which they are using) which is they're concerned about using taxpayer money to address a situation for homeowners when many taxpayers don't own homes

I didn't say government action on Grenfell favours the elite because you said it, I said it because it's obviously the case.

Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell shows bias towards the elite?

[Stom]

You think the government has a bias towards the elite.
You understand that government action (or should I say, lack of action) re Grenfell favours the elite.
And yet you think that the government's bias towards the elite is irrelevant to understanding their action re Grenfell.

Sorry, I can't understand your thinking here.

I did not say government action on Grenfell favours the elite, I noted if they'd gone about responding to it by dealing with the elite first that would be one thing, this they haven't done because they're just not dealing with it across the board.

And yes I think they're biased to the elite, but that doesn't apply to every single policy or or direction taken. And in this instance they even have the obvious retort (which they are using) which is they're concerned about using taxpayer money to address a situation for homeowners when many taxpayers don't own homes

I didn't say government action on Grenfell favours the elite because you said it, I said it because it's obviously the case.

Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell shows bias towards the elite?

I'm not sure their action/inaction shows bias toward the elite in isolation, tbh. I think their actions when looked at in relation to their other actions just adds another log to the fire, true.

But I don't think you can say that elites would benefit directly and obviously from their actions on Grenfell, I just think they're serious incompetent and don't give a fuck when it's not directly benefitting the elite, lol.

So, in that way, yes, because this is a problem that cannot result in their friends making more money, they're not taking it serious enough.

[Digby]

You think the government has a bias towards the elite.
You understand that government action (or should I say, lack of action) re Grenfell favours the elite.
And yet you think that the government's bias towards the elite is irrelevant to understanding their action re Grenfell.

Sorry, I can't understand your thinking here.

I did not say government action on Grenfell favours the elite, I noted if they'd gone about responding to it by dealing with the elite first that would be one thing, this they haven't done because they're just not dealing with it across the board.

And yes I think they're biased to the elite, but that doesn't apply to every single policy or or direction taken. And in this instance they even have the obvious retort (which they are using) which is they're concerned about using taxpayer money to address a situation for homeowners when many taxpayers don't own homes

I didn't say government action on Grenfell favours the elite because you said it, I said it because it's obviously the case.

Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell shows bias towards the elite?

Yes, I don't think their response to Grenfell shows them having a bias towards the elite. I think it's much more about not wanting to admit governments have for a long time been getting building standards wrong, and they're especially concerned about having to pay to fix that ongoing failure. Their failures impact buildings that house people across the wealth spectrum, so it's not an issue that only applies to those considered in the elite or not.

Their response to Grenfell is pathetic and actively harmful to many, but it's actively bad across the board

This is one of those areas they're just being very weird in, and you can't get a sensible answer. Mind as someone trying to get a sensible answer from them on FCA fees and why they're setting them as they are because it makes no sense, and then how it can possibly stand comparison with their (in)action on the fess levied by the Gambling Commission on the gambling industry I'm pretty close to thinking they should just be lined up against a wall already. As an aside, their work on FCA fees and the fees levied by the Gambling Commission both deserve much more attention, ridicule and the like, and they're pretty much getting away for free on both those such are their other screw ups

[Sandydragon]

I did not say government action on Grenfell favours the elite, I noted if they'd gone about responding to it by dealing with the elite first that would be one thing, this they haven't done because they're just not dealing with it across the board.

And yes I think they're biased to the elite, but that doesn't apply to every single policy or or direction taken. And in this instance they even have the obvious retort (which they are using) which is they're concerned about using taxpayer money to address a situation for homeowners when many taxpayers don't own homes

I didn't say government action on Grenfell favours the elite because you said it, I said it because it's obviously the case.

Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell shows bias towards the elite?

Yes, I don't think their response to Grenfell shows them having a bias towards the elite. I think it's much more about not wanting to admit governments have for a long time been getting building standards wrong, and they're especially concerned about having to pay to fix that ongoing failure. Their failures impact buildings that house people across the wealth spectrum, so it's not an issue that only applies to those considered in the elite or not.

Their response to Grenfell is pathetic and actively harmful to many, but it's actively bad across the board

This is one of those areas they're just being very weird in, and you can't get a sensible answer. Mind as someone trying to get a sensible answer from them on FCA fees and why they're setting them as they are because it makes no sense, and then how it can possibly stand comparison with their (in)action on the fess levied by the Gambling Commission on the gambling industry I'm pretty close to thinking they should just be lined up against a wall already. As an aside, their work on FCA fees and the fees levied by the Gambling Commission both deserve much more attention, ridicule and the like, and they're pretty much getting away for free on both those such are their other screw ups

I think the issue the government is having is squaring the ideological mismatch between a really bad flaw in the planning rules (and the assurance process around it) which has led to this vs the fact that they don't want to intervene in private property ownership. Councils will obviously take action locally on social housing, but private owners are being left with a mountain of costs to manage as a result of this.

Personally, I think they need to suck this one up as regulation and its enforcement is at the heart of the problem and the problem is widespread. Government intervention would require imagination and energy, something that few would accuse Jenrick of possessing.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I did not say government action on Grenfell favours the elite, I noted if they'd gone about responding to it by dealing with the elite first that would be one thing, this they haven't done because they're just not dealing with it across the board.

And yes I think they're biased to the elite, but that doesn't apply to every single policy or or direction taken. And in this instance they even have the obvious retort (which they are using) which is they're concerned about using taxpayer money to address a situation for homeowners when many taxpayers don't own homes

I didn't say government action on Grenfell favours the elite because you said it, I said it because it's obviously the case.

Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell shows bias towards the elite?

Yes, I don't think their response to Grenfell shows them having a bias towards the elite. I think it's much more about not wanting to admit governments have for a long time been getting building standards wrong, and they're especially concerned about having to pay to fix that ongoing failure. Their failures impact buildings that house people across the wealth spectrum, so it's not an issue that only applies to those considered in the elite or not.

Their response to Grenfell is pathetic and actively harmful to many, but it's actively bad across the board

This is one of those areas they're just being very weird in, and you can't get a sensible answer. Mind as someone trying to get a sensible answer from them on FCA fees and why they're setting them as they are because it makes no sense, and then how it can possibly stand comparison with their (in)action on the fess levied by the Gambling Commission on the gambling industry I'm pretty close to thinking they should just be lined up against a wall already. As an aside, their work on FCA fees and the fees levied by the Gambling Commission both deserve much more attention, ridicule and the like, and they're pretty much getting away for free on both those such are their other screw ups

Sorry, I should have said:
Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell favours the elite?

I haven't heard anything about FCA fees and the gambling commission. Maybe our journalists are doing a poor job.

[Digby]

I didn't say government action on Grenfell favours the elite because you said it, I said it because it's obviously the case.

Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell shows bias towards the elite?

Yes, I don't think their response to Grenfell shows them having a bias towards the elite. I think it's much more about not wanting to admit governments have for a long time been getting building standards wrong, and they're especially concerned about having to pay to fix that ongoing failure. Their failures impact buildings that house people across the wealth spectrum, so it's not an issue that only applies to those considered in the elite or not.

Their response to Grenfell is pathetic and actively harmful to many, but it's actively bad across the board

This is one of those areas they're just being very weird in, and you can't get a sensible answer. Mind as someone trying to get a sensible answer from them on FCA fees and why they're setting them as they are because it makes no sense, and then how it can possibly stand comparison with their (in)action on the fess levied by the Gambling Commission on the gambling industry I'm pretty close to thinking they should just be lined up against a wall already. As an aside, their work on FCA fees and the fees levied by the Gambling Commission both deserve much more attention, ridicule and the like, and they're pretty much getting away for free on both those such are their other screw ups

Sorry, I should have said:
Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell favours the elite?

I haven't heard anything about FCA fees and the gambling commission. Maybe our journalists are doing a poor job.

I think the Grenfell highlights long term bad regulatory and compliance practices and the response highlights a failure to take ownership of your own mess, and failure to take ownership of a problem is bad management rather than particular to elitism

And I'm not surprised FCA fees and the gambling commission can't get proper coverage given all else, but they're both really bad issues and the ideology shown by HMG is inconsistent across the two to boot

[Digby]

I didn't say government action on Grenfell favours the elite because you said it, I said it because it's obviously the case.

Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell shows bias towards the elite?

Yes, I don't think their response to Grenfell shows them having a bias towards the elite. I think it's much more about not wanting to admit governments have for a long time been getting building standards wrong, and they're especially concerned about having to pay to fix that ongoing failure. Their failures impact buildings that house people across the wealth spectrum, so it's not an issue that only applies to those considered in the elite or not.

Their response to Grenfell is pathetic and actively harmful to many, but it's actively bad across the board

This is one of those areas they're just being very weird in, and you can't get a sensible answer. Mind as someone trying to get a sensible answer from them on FCA fees and why they're setting them as they are because it makes no sense, and then how it can possibly stand comparison with their (in)action on the fess levied by the Gambling Commission on the gambling industry I'm pretty close to thinking they should just be lined up against a wall already. As an aside, their work on FCA fees and the fees levied by the Gambling Commission both deserve much more attention, ridicule and the like, and they're pretty much getting away for free on both those such are their other screw ups

I think the issue the government is having is squaring the ideological mismatch between a really bad flaw in the planning rules (and the assurance process around it) which has led to this vs the fact that they don't want to intervene in private property ownership. Councils will obviously take action locally on social housing, but private owners are being left with a mountain of costs to manage as a result of this.

Personally, I think they need to suck this one up as regulation and its enforcement is at the heart of the problem and the problem is widespread. Government intervention would require imagination and energy, something that few would accuse Jenrick of possessing.

I can see why they don't want responsibility because it comes with cost, but yes given they own the regulatory side and were asleep at the wheel it's bizarre to think they can avoid that charge. They need to put their hands in the pockets, though yes they also need to be much sterner with private owners, and if private owners are unable or unwilling to act simply take properties into public ownership where appropriate. And they do need to get a wriggle on because it's far from obvious the standards are right as of today so problems/exposure could be continuing to grow

Their position to date that they've taken advice and are only responsible for the cladding (and then only above a certain arbitrary height) is a pathetic attempt to lessen their exposure, and it's odd too because it's going to need some really bizarre judicial rulings to remotely stand, and just about everyone involved seems to think the judges will tell Jenrick to do one (and that includes Jenrick thinking that) so why not just do the right thing now, well actually why not do the right thing years ago but we are where we are. Why on this on the pandemic, on Brexit, on school meals for starving children we get this repeat attempt to look inhumane, incompetent and late in acting I don't know. The only possible saving grace for Jenrick in this is he simply cannot get No.11 to sign off on the spend, but he is agreeing if so to stay in post and defend the indefensible

[Son of Mathonwy]

Yes, I don't think their response to Grenfell shows them having a bias towards the elite. I think it's much more about not wanting to admit governments have for a long time been getting building standards wrong, and they're especially concerned about having to pay to fix that ongoing failure. Their failures impact buildings that house people across the wealth spectrum, so it's not an issue that only applies to those considered in the elite or not.

Their response to Grenfell is pathetic and actively harmful to many, but it's actively bad across the board

This is one of those areas they're just being very weird in, and you can't get a sensible answer. Mind as someone trying to get a sensible answer from them on FCA fees and why they're setting them as they are because it makes no sense, and then how it can possibly stand comparison with their (in)action on the fess levied by the Gambling Commission on the gambling industry I'm pretty close to thinking they should just be lined up against a wall already. As an aside, their work on FCA fees and the fees levied by the Gambling Commission both deserve much more attention, ridicule and the like, and they're pretty much getting away for free on both those such are their other screw ups

Sorry, I should have said:
Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell favours the elite?

I haven't heard anything about FCA fees and the gambling commission. Maybe our journalists are doing a poor job.

I think the Grenfell highlights long term bad regulatory and compliance practices and the response highlights a failure to take ownership of your own mess, and failure to take ownership of a problem is bad management rather than particular to elitism

And I'm not surprised FCA fees and the gambling commission can't get proper coverage given all else, but they're both really bad issues and the ideology shown by HMG is inconsistent across the two to boot

Okay, but do you think the government's inaction over Grenfell has led to (or kept us in) a situation which favours the elite? (This is just a question of the outcome, not the reasons for it.)

[Digby]

Sorry, I should have said:
Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell favours the elite?

I haven't heard anything about FCA fees and the gambling commission. Maybe our journalists are doing a poor job.

I think the Grenfell highlights long term bad regulatory and compliance practices and the response highlights a failure to take ownership of your own mess, and failure to take ownership of a problem is bad management rather than particular to elitism

And I'm not surprised FCA fees and the gambling commission can't get proper coverage given all else, but they're both really bad issues and the ideology shown by HMG is inconsistent across the two to boot

Okay, but do you think the government's inaction over Grenfell has led to (or kept us in) a situation which favours the elite? (This is just a question of the outcome, not the reasons for it.)

Again I don't think this is an elite Vs non elite situation. You could I suppose argue some 'elites' would be included among property owners/developers not being forced to act, but equally you could argue they too are being exposed to ongoing uncertainty and risk with the government not clarifying the situation, and too when both rich and poor people live in buildings then if the problem is buildings it's daft to think in terms of this being an elite issue.

So no I don't think government action in this has helped elites, and more it's not only not helpful to think it such fashion it's actually in this instance counter productive as it's helping to get in the way of pushing the agenda forwards when there are people out there (like say Lammy) looking to make this part of their class warfare agenda. There's already more than enough emotion wrapped up in this on the back of Grenfell, so I'd prefer those seeking to write their agenda atop all this would find more suitable subjects to talk on and stop being a hinderance to improving peoples' lives

[Son of Mathonwy]

I think the Grenfell highlights long term bad regulatory and compliance practices and the response highlights a failure to take ownership of your own mess, and failure to take ownership of a problem is bad management rather than particular to elitism

And I'm not surprised FCA fees and the gambling commission can't get proper coverage given all else, but they're both really bad issues and the ideology shown by HMG is inconsistent across the two to boot

Okay, but do you think the government's inaction over Grenfell has led to (or kept us in) a situation which favours the elite? (This is just a question of the outcome, not the reasons for it.)

Again I don't think this is an elite Vs non elite situation. You could I suppose argue some 'elites' would be included among property owners/developers not being forced to act, but equally you could argue they too are being exposed to ongoing uncertainty and risk with the government not clarifying the situation, and too when both rich and poor people live in buildings then if the problem is buildings it's daft to think in terms of this being an elite issue.

So no I don't think government action in this has helped elites, and more it's not only not helpful to think it such fashion it's actually in this instance counter productive as it's helping to get in the way of pushing the agenda forwards when there are people out there (like say Lammy) looking to make this part of their class warfare agenda. There's already more than enough emotion wrapped up in this on the back of Grenfell, so I'd prefer those seeking to write their agenda atop all this would find more suitable subjects to talk on and stop being a hinderance to improving peoples' lives

Okay, fine, we disagree on whether the government's actions benefit the rich. I think it's pretty clear that winning and losing on this is fairly well correlated with wealth, but I think we'll have to leave it there if you don't agree.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I did not say government action on Grenfell favours the elite, I noted if they'd gone about responding to it by dealing with the elite first that would be one thing, this they haven't done because they're just not dealing with it across the board.

And yes I think they're biased to the elite, but that doesn't apply to every single policy or or direction taken. And in this instance they even have the obvious retort (which they are using) which is they're concerned about using taxpayer money to address a situation for homeowners when many taxpayers don't own homes

I didn't say government action on Grenfell favours the elite because you said it, I said it because it's obviously the case.

Are you saying you don't think government action on Grenfell shows bias towards the elite?

I'm not sure their action/inaction shows bias toward the elite in isolation, tbh. I think their actions when looked at in relation to their other actions just adds another log to the fire, true.

But I don't think you can say that elites would benefit directly and obviously from their actions on Grenfell, I just think they're serious incompetent and don't give a fuck when it's not directly benefitting the elite, lol.

So, in that way, yes, because this is a problem that cannot result in their friends making more money, they're not taking it serious enough.

I agree with you (as I said to Digby I miswrote slightly in my post above).

[Digby]

Okay, but do you think the government's inaction over Grenfell has led to (or kept us in) a situation which favours the elite? (This is just a question of the outcome, not the reasons for it.)

Again I don't think this is an elite Vs non elite situation. You could I suppose argue some 'elites' would be included among property owners/developers not being forced to act, but equally you could argue they too are being exposed to ongoing uncertainty and risk with the government not clarifying the situation, and too when both rich and poor people live in buildings then if the problem is buildings it's daft to think in terms of this being an elite issue.

So no I don't think government action in this has helped elites, and more it's not only not helpful to think it such fashion it's actually in this instance counter productive as it's helping to get in the way of pushing the agenda forwards when there are people out there (like say Lammy) looking to make this part of their class warfare agenda. There's already more than enough emotion wrapped up in this on the back of Grenfell, so I'd prefer those seeking to write their agenda atop all this would find more suitable subjects to talk on and stop being a hinderance to improving peoples' lives

Okay, fine, we disagree on whether the government's actions benefit the rich. I think it's pretty clear that winning and losing on this is fairly well correlated with wealth, but I think we'll have to leave it there if you don't agree.

Who do you think the elites are in this, just the freeholders with tenants? And why is this issue remaining live preferable to them to having the tax payer foot the bill and either agreeing to write that sum off or HMG saying they'll fix the problem and then go after property owners to reclaim the spend but quietly agreeing to never doing that?

I've got no problem saying the government benefits the elite with a number of regressive positions which one might or might not like. This issue though targets people across the board, so if the argument is it impacts more lower earners then that's about there are more lower earners, not that their policy on responding to Grenfell drives that

[Which Tyler]

Anyone heard about the Isle of Mann roundabout - the architects seem unimpressed?
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/new ... sle-of-man

Another said the proposal ‘cannot die’ because of Johnson’s fervent belief in it, adding: ‘Just as Hitler moved around imaginary armies in the dying days of the Third Reich, so the No. 10 policy unit is condemned to keep looking at this idea, which exists primarily in the mind of the prime minister.’

Alan Dunlop, the architect who first proposed a Celtic crossing between Ireland and Scotland, said the latest idea ‘does not sound credible’.

He said: ‘I cannot think why Johnson would say that, particularly at a time when there is so much criticism being levelled at the prime minister and the so-called Boris’s Burrow is being ridiculed in much of the press.

‘It only serves to undermine that which I know to be structurally, technically and physically achievable, and that is a tunnel or bridge that connects Scotland with Ireland.’

I'm no structural engineer, but digging circa 300 miles through granite seems a tad tougher than 30 miles through chalk (Channel Tunnel) - whilst not connecting 2 of the biggest economies in the world and crossing the busiest sea lane in the world (Shush though don't tell Grayling)