Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

I genuinely don't know what to say about Robert Jenrick's statement to the House today on our (lack of) response to the Grenfell Tower disaster. Maybe this statement is why Shapps said something unnecessary and for many people daft about holidays today, holidays being much more likely to draw public attention than government regulations, and wider dealings between public officials the building industry and insurance firms, 'cause what Jenrick had to say is late, inadequate, fails to take responsibility on any number of levels, lacks common sense.... I don't want to describe it as evil, that would be too far, but pathetic doesn't go far enough in condemning this farce of an update to the House.

How are they getting it this wrong? Are they just waiting for Marcus Rashford to force them to do the right thing? I cannot think right now of a cabinet minster who's risen to the level of acceptable failure

This is a tough one to try to understand.

1) On one hand we have what (probably? hopefully?) most people think about Grenfell - watershed moment, disgraceful, something REALLY needs to be done.

2) On the other hand, the residents of such tower blocks are exactly those people who are NOT Tories, and are seen as "not us" by Tory MPs. So they get the sort of help that is generally handed out by the Tory party to people who they know they will never themselves be (Grenfell was not the first lethal tower block fire, and little was done after previous incidents). They don't want to do anything, they think it's a waste of money and an imposition to the companies or landlords (ie the people they really identify with) who profit from the status quo.

The winner will be 2) unless Marcus Rashford or someone similarly effective can apply pressure (for several years).

[Sandydragon]

I genuinely don't know what to say about Robert Jenrick's statement to the House today on our (lack of) response to the Grenfell Tower disaster. Maybe this statement is why Shapps said something unnecessary and for many people daft about holidays today, holidays being much more likely to draw public attention than government regulations, and wider dealings between public officials the building industry and insurance firms, 'cause what Jenrick had to say is late, inadequate, fails to take responsibility on any number of levels, lacks common sense.... I don't want to describe it as evil, that would be too far, but pathetic doesn't go far enough in condemning this farce of an update to the House.

How are they getting it this wrong? Are they just waiting for Marcus Rashford to force them to do the right thing? I cannot think right now of a cabinet minster who's risen to the level of acceptable failure

This is a tough one to try to understand.

1) On one hand we have what (probably? hopefully?) most people think about Grenfell - watershed moment, disgraceful, something REALLY needs to be done.

2) On the other hand, the residents of such tower blocks are exactly those people who are NOT Tories, and are seen as "not us" by Tory MPs. So they get the sort of help that is generally handed out by the Tory party to people who they know they will never themselves be (Grenfell was not the first lethal tower block fire, and little was done after previous incidents). They don't want to do anything, they think it's a waste of money and an imposition to the companies or landlords (ie the people they really identify with) who profit from the status quo.

The winner will be 2) unless Marcus Rashford or someone similarly effective can apply pressure (for several years).

I wouldn't be so quick to define tower block residents as not natural Tory voters. Whilst many tower blocks are social housing, its the councils who need to manage that risk. If you look at the tower blocks in big cities, Manchester springs to mind as I walk past a good number (or did) on the way to work, they are privately owned and aren't cheap. But many have the same problem.

[Digby]

I genuinely don't know what to say about Robert Jenrick's statement to the House today on our (lack of) response to the Grenfell Tower disaster. Maybe this statement is why Shapps said something unnecessary and for many people daft about holidays today, holidays being much more likely to draw public attention than government regulations, and wider dealings between public officials the building industry and insurance firms, 'cause what Jenrick had to say is late, inadequate, fails to take responsibility on any number of levels, lacks common sense.... I don't want to describe it as evil, that would be too far, but pathetic doesn't go far enough in condemning this farce of an update to the House.

How are they getting it this wrong? Are they just waiting for Marcus Rashford to force them to do the right thing? I cannot think right now of a cabinet minster who's risen to the level of acceptable failure

This is a tough one to try to understand.

1) On one hand we have what (probably? hopefully?) most people think about Grenfell - watershed moment, disgraceful, something REALLY needs to be done.

2) On the other hand, the residents of such tower blocks are exactly those people who are NOT Tories, and are seen as "not us" by Tory MPs. So they get the sort of help that is generally handed out by the Tory party to people who they know they will never themselves be (Grenfell was not the first lethal tower block fire, and little was done after previous incidents). They don't want to do anything, they think it's a waste of money and an imposition to the companies or landlords (ie the people they really identify with) who profit from the status quo.

The winner will be 2) unless Marcus Rashford or someone similarly effective can apply pressure (for several years).

I wouldn't be so quick to define tower block residents as not natural Tory voters. Whilst many tower blocks are social housing, its the councils who need to manage that risk. If you look at the tower blocks in big cities, Manchester springs to mind as I walk past a good number (or did) on the way to work, they are privately owned and aren't cheap. But many have the same problem.

There are a lot of people stuck in what was rather pricey property that would struggle in a normal way to be more removed from social housing, this isn't simply a class issue no matter how many so often try to make it one, presumably because for some reason they consider their take on class more important than the actual drivers of the problem

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is a tough one to try to understand.

1) On one hand we have what (probably? hopefully?) most people think about Grenfell - watershed moment, disgraceful, something REALLY needs to be done.

2) On the other hand, the residents of such tower blocks are exactly those people who are NOT Tories, and are seen as "not us" by Tory MPs. So they get the sort of help that is generally handed out by the Tory party to people who they know they will never themselves be (Grenfell was not the first lethal tower block fire, and little was done after previous incidents). They don't want to do anything, they think it's a waste of money and an imposition to the companies or landlords (ie the people they really identify with) who profit from the status quo.

The winner will be 2) unless Marcus Rashford or someone similarly effective can apply pressure (for several years).

I wouldn't be so quick to define tower block residents as not natural Tory voters. Whilst many tower blocks are social housing, its the councils who need to manage that risk. If you look at the tower blocks in big cities, Manchester springs to mind as I walk past a good number (or did) on the way to work, they are privately owned and aren't cheap. But many have the same problem.

There are a lot of people stuck in what was rather pricey property that would struggle in a normal way to be more removed from social housing, this isn't simply a class issue no matter how many so often try to make it one, presumably because for some reason they consider their take on class more important than the actual drivers of the problem

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

[Digby]

I wouldn't be so quick to define tower block residents as not natural Tory voters. Whilst many tower blocks are social housing, its the councils who need to manage that risk. If you look at the tower blocks in big cities, Manchester springs to mind as I walk past a good number (or did) on the way to work, they are privately owned and aren't cheap. But many have the same problem.

There are a lot of people stuck in what was rather pricey property that would struggle in a normal way to be more removed from social housing, this isn't simply a class issue no matter how many so often try to make it one, presumably because for some reason they consider their take on class more important than the actual drivers of the problem

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.

[Son of Mathonwy]

There are a lot of people stuck in what was rather pricey property that would struggle in a normal way to be more removed from social housing, this isn't simply a class issue no matter how many so often try to make it one, presumably because for some reason they consider their take on class more important than the actual drivers of the problem

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?

[Digby]

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?

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.

[Stom]

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.

[Which Tyler]

​Parts of Scotland hit -22* overnight.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-56022387

Meanwhile, in Scotland, apparently, poor people still need to eat:

[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

[Stom]

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.

[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.