| Red Tape 19:52 - Jun 28 with 6399 views | BytholWyn |
It doesn't take a genius to work out that when a terrible tragedy on the scale of the one seen at Grenfell happens then something has probably gone terribly wrong with the regulatory framework. Even without any understanding of the specifics of the situation it's obvious that at even at "best" it could be a one-off case of a rogue builder slipping some shoddy and dangerous work past an inspector. But what is becoming eminently clear is that the Grenfell disaster could have happened at any of a huge number of properties across England. At the time of writing 120 high-rise buildings have failed inspection failures - a truly shocking 100% failure rate. This sort of systematic failure points unequivocally to a catastrophic regulatory regime failure.
This Newsnight article is very damning: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40418266
What this article suggests is that the regulations in England that cover high-rise buildings are stringent enough - but that their enforcement has effectively been handed to the building industry itself to "interpret" as they see fit:
"The first thing to know is that local officials no longer run all building inspections. England has a so-called "Approved Inspector" regime. Contractors must no longer wait for a local authority official to check their work. Instead, they may hire people to check their construction processes meet the required standards. There is no single regulator - or arm of government - directly upholding standards."
It has been deemed legitimate for contractors to bypass the required A2 standard of low combustibility cladding by a variety of options, including "Desktop studies":
"Option 3 is for a so-called "desktop study":
"If I have conducted tests of a cladding product in a few different scenarios, then I might not need to bother with a new fire test. I can convince inspectors to sign it off by hiring an expert who will say "based on these results, I am confident that this cladding is safe in this context" without doing any further trials."
Just how self-serving these "studies" have been - carried out at the contractor's behest remember, not a council or government appointed inspector - is immediately obvious in the 100% failure rate of real-life scenario testing of the actual materials. It's not hard to see how an expert might have a vested interest in judging a design safe given who was paying for their services. Had every desktop survey they produced come up with a 100% failure (as it self-evidently should have) how many reports do you think the "expert" would have been commissioned to produce by the contractor? Any advance on one?
But it gets worse:
"We reported last night, however, on a troubling fourth route. The National House Builders' Council (NHBC) is a big player in building inspection. Last year, they issued guidance which states that you can use a variety of sub-A2 insulation boards with B-grade external cladding - and you can do all of that without even a desktop study.
That effectively means that a sector body has unilaterally decided that largely using B-grade material is now sufficient, not A2. NHBC themselves state that "this is on the basis of NHBC having reviewed a significant quantity of data from a range of tests and desktop assessments."
Truly shocking stuff - and yet outside of Newsnight this doesn't seem to have been picked up on by the wider media.
One of my immediate thoughts after the disaster was "I wonder how the cladding regulations and their enforcement differ between the UK and continental Europe". I needn't have looked so far away. So far, in Scotland, no high-rise building has been found to use the sort of cladding used in Grenfell (and apparently all over the place in England). This may just have something to do with regulations introduced in Scotland in 2005, following the death of a man in a tower block in Irvine in 1999: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40406057 It's also worth noting that the Welsh Government has said that the specific brand of panel, Reynobond PE, is not in use in Wales. However, the results of on-going tests on the cladding used in Wales (including 14 in Swansea, the highest number in Wales) have yet to be published. It will be interesting to see if the results deviate from England, and if this is a reflection of any differences between the regulatory regimes in Wales and England.
Which brings me to the point of my article. The Tories have demonised red tape and regulation for decades - it's a part of the crazy neo-liberal (actually neo-anarchist would be closer to the mark) creed of the Tories. Don't take my word for it. Here's a direct quote from the Conservative Party Manifesto for the recent election:
"... poor and excessive government regulation limits growth for no good reason. So we will continue to regulate more efficiently, saving £9 billion through the Red Tape Challenge and the One-In-Two-Out Rule."
Red Tape exists for a reason. It's not some sort of fungus that grows surreptitiously in the night. It exists, invariably, to enhance public safety and well-being. At times it's cumbersome, at others out-dated, so a case can always be made for continually reviewing the necessity and scope of regulations. But the Tories have made a religion out of relentlessly attacking red tape. The shameful thing is that no other political party has offered any meaningful counterweight to their systematic attack on regulations and safe regulatory practice. Outsourcing the policing of regulations to self-interested bodies should be a complete no-no, because of the obvious conflicts of interest. But in the Tories feckless Brave New World anything goes. No one has stood up to them because defending Red Tape is as dull as ditch water, and doesn't win any votes.
No wonder the UK has became a World leader in man-made disasters. You'd think that we would learn to question our approach to things after calamities such as the one at Hillsborough. Nah, get another drink in... |  | | |  |
| Red Tape on 23:30 - Jun 28 with 1580 views | Gowerjack |
| Red Tape on 23:19 - Jun 28 by Kerouac |
You don't agree with it but you'll still vote for the c*nts right?
Ha ha.
I will repeat as you didn't understand the first time...it was Blair and Labour that f*cked this one up and from there this kind of tragedy was always going to happen, got that ?
If Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband had stormed to victories those people in that tower would still have burned to death in their death trap tower. To pretend otherwise is to delude yourself...
...and talking of delusion,
making a profit is kind of essential actually and should not be denigrated at every opportunity. When we reach the point (like we have in Wales) where average pay is higher in the public sector than the private we are TRULY on our way to the place called '3rd World Country'. |
Dear me.
As thick as mince. |  |
| |
| Red Tape on 23:30 - Jun 28 with 1577 views | Kerouac |
Anyway, not going to waste anymore time on you noggin...you are one of them who try to make out they're reasonable and open minded but it didn't take too long for you to trot out that brainwashed sh*t about the Tories wanting to "tear up the fabric of society"...nobody who gets into politics wants that you f*cking fool.
The Tories are just people who have a different idea about how to get to the end goal of a prosperous, happy, society.
There are lots of parties with lots of different ideas...they all mean well.
This current Labour Party however is by far and away the most repugnant, malignant, negative force in British politics in my lifetime.
If you believe in the shite that comes out of their mouths you are a fecking imbecile. Unfortunately there is a lot of you about. [Post edited 28 Jun 2017 23:52]
|  |
| |
| Red Tape on 23:37 - Jun 28 with 1567 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Red Tape on 23:30 - Jun 28 by Kerouac |
Anyway, not going to waste anymore time on you noggin...you are one of them who try to make out they're reasonable and open minded but it didn't take too long for you to trot out that brainwashed sh*t about the Tories wanting to "tear up the fabric of society"...nobody who gets into politics wants that you f*cking fool.
The Tories are just people who have a different idea about how to get to the end goal of a prosperous, happy, society.
There are lots of parties with lots of different ideas...they all mean well.
This current Labour Party however is by far and away the most repugnant, malignant, negative force in British politics in my lifetime.
If you believe in the shite that comes out of their mouths you are a fecking imbecile. Unfortunately there is a lot of you about. [Post edited 28 Jun 2017 23:52]
|
Political re education camp spot booked for you after the autumn election.
Love red John and comrade Corbyn.
P.S. pack for winter, St Kilda is a bit of a cold spot in January. |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Red Tape on 23:50 - Jun 28 with 1559 views | Nogginthenog |
| Red Tape on 23:30 - Jun 28 by Kerouac |
Anyway, not going to waste anymore time on you noggin...you are one of them who try to make out they're reasonable and open minded but it didn't take too long for you to trot out that brainwashed sh*t about the Tories wanting to "tear up the fabric of society"...nobody who gets into politics wants that you f*cking fool.
The Tories are just people who have a different idea about how to get to the end goal of a prosperous, happy, society.
There are lots of parties with lots of different ideas...they all mean well.
This current Labour Party however is by far and away the most repugnant, malignant, negative force in British politics in my lifetime.
If you believe in the shite that comes out of their mouths you are a fecking imbecile. Unfortunately there is a lot of you about. [Post edited 28 Jun 2017 23:52]
|
Ho hum |  | | |
| Red Tape on 23:54 - Jun 28 with 1556 views | BytholWyn |
The dangers of using private companies or industry bodies to enforce regulations or to interpret them with no or minimal oversight should be blindingly obvious. The primary responsibility of any private enterprise is to it's shareholders - and the profit motive takes precedence over all other considerations. This isn't a criticism per se, it's just stating the bleeding obvious. But this is why conflicts of interest inevitably arise when private enterprise is involved in the regulatory process. The policing of regulations should always be in the hands of government agencies who operate without regard to any profit considerations. This is the clear separation of powers and responsibilities that the Tories (and yes, the Red Tories under Blair) have assiduously undermined over decades.
Blair's culpability lay in mindlessly aping the Tories in the venal pursuit of power at all costs - but the intellectual (if that's the right word) authorship for this cancerous denigration of the vital role of regulation in the functioning of a civic society lies pretty much exclusively with the Tory party. They are the fanatics and zealots - and yes, their nihilistic worldview has cost lives, and not just in Grenfell Tower. This is the main reason why I hold the Tories in utter contempt - and I'm not a Socialist, and certainly not a Corbynista.
It is refreshing to read that Guardian article linked to earlier, perhaps the penny is finally dropping. There is a meta argument that is rarely made, that goes beyond the latest catastrophe and encompasses countless tragedies stretching back decades. To pick some apparently superficially examples - there is a common thread that unites the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster (ferries being allowed to leave port with their bow doors open to shave a few minutes off journey times), the financial collapse in 2008 (Wikipedia: "Investment banks ... paid handsome fees to the rating agencies to obtain the desired ratings." Plain corruption to you and me - the excellent Big Short film is great on this) to the Grenfell Tower disaster. Certainly in the first two instances absent or weakly enforced regulation was blown out of the water by short-term profiteering - and that pattern has very probably been repeated with the cladding of tower blocks in England. But will the electorate at large understand this? Will we ever put a premium on boring old health and safety and a prudential approach to civic affairs? I'd love to think the times they may be a changin' - but the cynic in me thinks "yeah, right". | | | |
| Red Tape on 00:05 - Jun 29 with 1548 views | Loyal |
| Red Tape on 23:54 - Jun 28 by BytholWyn |
The dangers of using private companies or industry bodies to enforce regulations or to interpret them with no or minimal oversight should be blindingly obvious. The primary responsibility of any private enterprise is to it's shareholders - and the profit motive takes precedence over all other considerations. This isn't a criticism per se, it's just stating the bleeding obvious. But this is why conflicts of interest inevitably arise when private enterprise is involved in the regulatory process. The policing of regulations should always be in the hands of government agencies who operate without regard to any profit considerations. This is the clear separation of powers and responsibilities that the Tories (and yes, the Red Tories under Blair) have assiduously undermined over decades.
Blair's culpability lay in mindlessly aping the Tories in the venal pursuit of power at all costs - but the intellectual (if that's the right word) authorship for this cancerous denigration of the vital role of regulation in the functioning of a civic society lies pretty much exclusively with the Tory party. They are the fanatics and zealots - and yes, their nihilistic worldview has cost lives, and not just in Grenfell Tower. This is the main reason why I hold the Tories in utter contempt - and I'm not a Socialist, and certainly not a Corbynista.
It is refreshing to read that Guardian article linked to earlier, perhaps the penny is finally dropping. There is a meta argument that is rarely made, that goes beyond the latest catastrophe and encompasses countless tragedies stretching back decades. To pick some apparently superficially examples - there is a common thread that unites the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster (ferries being allowed to leave port with their bow doors open to shave a few minutes off journey times), the financial collapse in 2008 (Wikipedia: "Investment banks ... paid handsome fees to the rating agencies to obtain the desired ratings." Plain corruption to you and me - the excellent Big Short film is great on this) to the Grenfell Tower disaster. Certainly in the first two instances absent or weakly enforced regulation was blown out of the water by short-term profiteering - and that pattern has very probably been repeated with the cladding of tower blocks in England. But will the electorate at large understand this? Will we ever put a premium on boring old health and safety and a prudential approach to civic affairs? I'd love to think the times they may be a changin' - but the cynic in me thinks "yeah, right". |
This 👠|  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Red Tape on 00:13 - Jun 29 with 1540 views | Kerouac |
| Red Tape on 23:54 - Jun 28 by BytholWyn |
The dangers of using private companies or industry bodies to enforce regulations or to interpret them with no or minimal oversight should be blindingly obvious. The primary responsibility of any private enterprise is to it's shareholders - and the profit motive takes precedence over all other considerations. This isn't a criticism per se, it's just stating the bleeding obvious. But this is why conflicts of interest inevitably arise when private enterprise is involved in the regulatory process. The policing of regulations should always be in the hands of government agencies who operate without regard to any profit considerations. This is the clear separation of powers and responsibilities that the Tories (and yes, the Red Tories under Blair) have assiduously undermined over decades.
Blair's culpability lay in mindlessly aping the Tories in the venal pursuit of power at all costs - but the intellectual (if that's the right word) authorship for this cancerous denigration of the vital role of regulation in the functioning of a civic society lies pretty much exclusively with the Tory party. They are the fanatics and zealots - and yes, their nihilistic worldview has cost lives, and not just in Grenfell Tower. This is the main reason why I hold the Tories in utter contempt - and I'm not a Socialist, and certainly not a Corbynista.
It is refreshing to read that Guardian article linked to earlier, perhaps the penny is finally dropping. There is a meta argument that is rarely made, that goes beyond the latest catastrophe and encompasses countless tragedies stretching back decades. To pick some apparently superficially examples - there is a common thread that unites the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster (ferries being allowed to leave port with their bow doors open to shave a few minutes off journey times), the financial collapse in 2008 (Wikipedia: "Investment banks ... paid handsome fees to the rating agencies to obtain the desired ratings." Plain corruption to you and me - the excellent Big Short film is great on this) to the Grenfell Tower disaster. Certainly in the first two instances absent or weakly enforced regulation was blown out of the water by short-term profiteering - and that pattern has very probably been repeated with the cladding of tower blocks in England. But will the electorate at large understand this? Will we ever put a premium on boring old health and safety and a prudential approach to civic affairs? I'd love to think the times they may be a changin' - but the cynic in me thinks "yeah, right". |
Very good.
I agree with most of it except your absolvement of all of those hypocritical Labour Party members (and voters) for the Blair years..."red Tories", you are not having that. So when the Tories govern it is their fault (except if the Lib Dems are involved, then it was all the Lib Dems fault) and when Labour governed it was still the Tories' fault!
F*ck no, half the Labour tw*ts trying to stir up a lynch mob in London were part of that administration. Their hypocrisy stinks.
...and getting rid of red tape can sometimes be the right thing to do.
What went on with the BRE was just fecking stupid (yes the Tories have been guilty of similar bad decisions but the Labour Party must own that one) | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Red Tape on 00:26 - Jun 29 with 1532 views | Jack_Meoff |
| Red Tape on 00:13 - Jun 29 by Kerouac |
Very good.
I agree with most of it except your absolvement of all of those hypocritical Labour Party members (and voters) for the Blair years..."red Tories", you are not having that. So when the Tories govern it is their fault (except if the Lib Dems are involved, then it was all the Lib Dems fault) and when Labour governed it was still the Tories' fault!
F*ck no, half the Labour tw*ts trying to stir up a lynch mob in London were part of that administration. Their hypocrisy stinks.
...and getting rid of red tape can sometimes be the right thing to do.
What went on with the BRE was just fecking stupid (yes the Tories have been guilty of similar bad decisions but the Labour Party must own that one) |
The BRE was privatised on March 19th 1997 Kez. Just saying. Kind of makes your last point a tad moribund does it not?
And this is from someone who hates Blair with a passion. |  |
| If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever. |
| |
| Red Tape on 08:06 - Jun 29 with 1494 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Red Tape on 22:08 - Jun 28 by Kerouac |
The Building Research Establishment quango was privatised under one Anthony Blair...supported by all those hypocrites in the Labour Party.
The self same quango is now failing all of those buildings in those tests.
The fire regulations in England are a mess and were last reviewed under Blair's Labour government.
Even with all of this hypocrisy and incompetence I still wouldn't label these idiots "murderers".
The Labour Party are f*cking scum.
That is all. |
"The Building Research Establishment was privatised under one Anthony Blair..."
Except that, y'know, it wasn't.
Edit - I see Jack Meoff got there first. [Post edited 29 Jun 2017 8:08]
|  |
| |
| Red Tape on 10:05 - Jun 29 with 1461 views | BytholWyn |
Yup, BRE privatised in March 1997, Blair government elected in May: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_Research_Establishment
Kerouac does have a bit of a point though. It's a cliche I know but Labour under Blair and Brown accepted the Tory neoliberal agenda and tried to out-Tory the Tories - especially with regards to financial de-regulation. As a result it's difficult for much of the rank and file of the Labour party to offer principled opposition to the Tories or to Tory-thinking without engaging in rank hypocrisy.
As a principled politician Corbyn is in a better position than most to offer opposition to neoiberal ideology - but the stance he's taken so far on Grenfell is missing the point. Yes, austerity and pulic sector cutbacks probably have some bearing on events - but that isn't the central theme here. As a consequence he's letting the Tories off the hook. Chris Grayling yesterday quite reasonably pointed out that a lot of money had been spent on renovating Grenfell Tower, but that the issue was how that money was spent. One thing I know for sure is that if I was sitting in a non-clad tower block this morning I wouldn't be grumbling about why my local council hadn't got around to cladding my building.
By prematurely trying to shoehorn the disaster into his anti-austerity message Corbyn is risking discrediting himself, but more importantly, he's failing in his responsibility of holding the government to account. That is what is desperately needed right now. I'm afraid that none of the political parties at Westminster can offer that leadership. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
