[UK] Grenfell Tower Fire: 80 dead; Camden towers evacuated

[Ifreann]

Similar cladding was also used on a tower in Dubai that caught fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marina_Torch#2015_fire

Clearly the cladding isn't the problem. Instead we should ban the poor.

Clad the poor?

[Fartsniffage]

Clearly the cladding isn't the problem. Instead we should ban the poor.

Clad the poor?

Free clothing for the poor? Dangerous socialism....

[Neu Leonstein]

So there's been some progress apparently on rehousing some of these families: Rehousing of Grenfell Tower families in luxury block receives mixed response

And there's plenty of space, it seems: Where are the empty homes in Kensignton?

[Major-Tom]

Clad the poor?

Free clothing for the poor? Dangerous socialism....

What's next? Free milk for children?

[Imperializt Russia]

Free clothing for the poor? Dangerous socialism....

What's next? Free milk for children?

I thought it was 6.8p worth of cornflakes?

[Fartsniffage]

Free clothing for the poor? Dangerous socialism....

What's next? Free milk for children?

But what about the lactose intolerant? Racist...

[Major-Tom]

What's next? Free milk for children?

I thought it was 6.8p worth of cornflakes?

I'm still American, so I'm not sure I get the reference.

[Imperializt Russia]

I thought it was 6.8p worth of cornflakes?

I'm still American, so I'm not sure I get the reference.

This could be a long story...

One of the Tory proposals this election was to scrap free school lunches, and instead provide free school breakfasts. Initially, there was obviously a lot of backlash because in some parts of the country, food at school is the only significantly nutritious meal - and in some places, the only decent hot meal - a child may get on a given weekday due to poverty.

It eventually came out through a series of clarifications, that the Tories' sums on this being cheaper was based on only 25-35% of children taking up the breakfast. They claimed that "even where takeup is low, scores overall improve".
So not only were they providing a cheaper meal to save money, they were actually banking on fewer children being fed.

There was a debate on TV shortly before the election between a Labour MP and a Conservative MP, I do not know either of them.
But the Tory was just badgering, cutting in and being an annoying cunt with the "money tree", "where's the money for that", "how much will this cost?" comments basically, talking over the Labour MP.
The Labour MP finally got to make his overall point, turned around to her and said right in her face "you know how much their sums work out at per child? 6.8p. How many cornflakes can you buy with 6.8p, [MP's name], hmm?"
And she completely shut up.

Clip in question:
https://streamable.com/lll0u

[Glamour]

This is an example of how a balance has to be achieved between growing the economy by allowing business to flourish, honouring the fact that regulation is needed, and realising that people who are not as active within the economy are not irrelevant to the economy, business, or a regulatory nuisance.

The cladding was cheaper, but was put there because wealthy neighbours complained about the building being an eyesore, because the Tories believe that the best thing to do is to accommodate business and wealth in order to grow the economy - and so they threaten legal action against the hoi polloi who complain about potentially going up in flames, but entertaining the whims of the rich who clearly have reasonable ability to sell their house and move elsewhere if the sight of a tower block is so insulting to them. In fact, as capitalists, the Tories should have viewed this as a healthy reason for competition in the wealthy housing market, and good reason for those complaining about the eyesore to maybe develop their property a bit further with their massive disposable income and then stimulate the economy by selling it for profit and buying other expensive property elsewhere.

Because they have a simplistic view of accommodating business - namely, "shut the poor up because it is a waste of money and a lot of red tape is involved in listening to their demands which are legitimate, because of red tape, but practically not doable because we need to save money and shrink the deficit; this should be done out of the public sector because we need smaller government, as Conservatives, as well as low taxes, to encourage business in the nation, and they are calling the result 'austerity', but the masses are simply too uneducated to understand that we need low taxes and encouragement of business in order to grow the economy" - they decided to bend to the slightest whim of those with more wealth, and try to suppress the demands of the "uncivilised" people in a tower block, built to occupy as little square footage as possible so as to accommodate the wealthy property market physically as well as logistically (with the refusal of their demands but entertainment of the slightest whims of the wealthy). Ignore it, and save money by using the cheaper cladding, and ignore the red tape around health and safety because truly, the poor will thank us eventually if we grow the economy. Never mind that this is verging on class-based ghettoisation.

And anyway, no matter how much they demand whatever, we can threaten them with legal action to shut them up anyway, because that is how a sufficiently grown economy should operate. Never mind social issues.

And then - because of this shortsightedness and total lack of balanced thinking - many people are torched alive in the middle of a still, balmy night, and apart from the fact that it forces their eyes open to what should have been blindingly obvious social issues at the time when they were deciding how inconsiderate it was worth being when adapting the building which the poor lived in for the fancies of the rich, they also come to realise that to avoid total unrest, they need to invest in 11 tower blocks to avoid a repeat tragedy, and therefore have also lost a great deal of money. Whatever the option was that would have met a safe standard is now going to be much cheaper than that which will now have to be done, above and beyond basic safety, in order to placate the rage of those who demand something evidently better than that which has been done before, which was not good enough. The main thing to consider if you appreciate the Tories' perspective on why corners should be cut for the sake of the economy, is that this has actually resulted in a net loss in money terms. Therefore to take the situation to its logical conclusion, it is economically sensible to invest in the poor, and also socially sensible.

I might add that the conspiratorial notion that this is the government attempting to actively socially cleanse the poor, is a result perhaps of low education among the poor, which is perhaps a result of a failure to invest in public education, while tripling student loan fees. Not only is the lack of education as opposed to the free flow of abstract information on the internet which informs the uneducated opinion a problem, but anger among the poor at their lack of opportunity is also a factor, and both combined with a sudden disaster lead to emotional reactivity and blame, by the poor, upon the government, and the social result of that is rampant conspiracist ideology. In a group responding to a tragedy which has effected them (without conspiracy theory being involved, this is actually because of impulsive and subtly oppressive government policy), this combination is dangerous and something has to be done. This explains not only Theresa May's fear of meeting the public initially, but also her subsequent scrambling to be seen to be doing something, both in terms of investment, as well as in terms of admitting blame, visiting the victims after her initial attempt, and calling for a process to determine guilt. Yet more shortsightedness, because the government should have invested at the initial point of the performance of the service of building the building, she should have immediately been seen to have been interacting directly with the public, and, even after she failed to do so, she should have avoided trying to create public relations where she went to visit them, because it only appeared false after the fact and this crystallised the views already held about her and her party by the anguished public in light of the event itself and her failure to immediately address it socially as Jeremy Corbyn did, or of her party to have pre-empted it and addressed it economically.

The key is that if you invest in people, you grow the economy and also the society, and if you grow both together, you develop a great culture, and when you have a great culture, people are more reasonable, civilised, cooperative with each other, educated and feel more valued - when they begin to feel more valued, they become more valuable to the state, and the state becomes something worth the respect of all of the people, both wealthy and poor, and such concepts themselves become less divisive in general. The rule of law and red tape are both part of social cohesion, and again, that is balance. Money should not talk louder than common sense.

[Glamour]

TL;DR: The rich have to be kept in line, and the poor have to be lifted up, with enough leighway in the middle for poor people to be inspired to try to become rich and for rich people to have a healthy fear of becoming poor. Over time this would create optimum social mobility which would stimulate the culture, the economy, innovation, business, infrastructure, security, everything.

Anything else will lead to an unbalanced society which affects the economy as we have seen with the Brexit vote, AND the hung parliament. Lifting the rich up and keeping the poor in line, in a society which already display great wealth stratification, is not unbalanced - it is skewed to the point of being nonsensical. And it will lead to an unhinged society. So would crushing the rich and whipping up a mob out of the poor. Unless the entire politics of the UK is a great balancing act and we are soon going to have a change of governing party. Then things could begin to once again balance. And so on.

[Salandriagado]

In this case aren't the flats now owned by the City of London, so they can't sell them on or anything like that?

I'd expect it to be owned by some subset of the GLC, not the City, but yes.

[Vassenor]

In this case aren't the flats now owned by the City of London, so they can't sell them on or anything like that?

I'd expect it to be owned by some subset of the GLC, not the City, but yes.

Apparently the City corporation brought the property so it could be used for this or something.

[Fartsniffage]

I'd expect it to be owned by some subset of the GLC, not the City, but yes.

Apparently the City corporation brought the property so it could be used for this or something.

I'm a little surprised this wasn't more commonly known. New developments have to provide a certain percentage of the build for social housing in the majority of council areas.

It's a way to get new social housing available while right to buy is still in effect and central government doesn't give a shit about providing funds for building it.

[Salandriagado]

I'd expect it to be owned by some subset of the GLC, not the City, but yes.

Apparently the City corporation brought the property so it could be used for this or something.

Ah, cool. Well, that's never getting sold ever, then.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd expect it to be owned by some subset of the GLC, not the City, but yes.

Apparently the City corporation brought the property so it could be used for this or something.

I suspect this is some kind of journalistic mistake, personally.

BBC quoted it as "Corporation of London", and when you google it, you get "Corporation of City of London", an archaic name for the City of London Authority.
Since this administer the City of London borough specifically, and the Greater London Authority manages everything else, I suspect they are referring to the GLA.

[Thyerata]

1. The posh people are whiny about the Greenfell Tower survivors moving in next door (I can't remember the source) and
2. The Met are considering corporate homicide charges (possibly against the Borough Council?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40380584

[Thyerata]

Apparently the City corporation brought the property so it could be used for this or something.

I suspect this is some kind of journalistic mistake, personally.

BBC quoted it as "Corporation of London", and when you google it, you get "Corporation of City of London", an archaic name for the City of London Authority.
Since this administer the City of London borough specifically, and the Greater London Authority manages everything else, I suspect they are referring to the GLA.

The City of London Corporation, and the GLA, are two separate entities. The GLA is responsible for the entirety of London except the Square Mile (the City) which falls under the jurisdiction of the City of London Corporation (though they do own/have interests in other things outside the City, such as Epping Forest)

[Risottia]

I'm still American, so I'm not sure I get the reference.

This could be a long story...

One of the Tory proposals this election was to scrap free school lunches...

OMFG

"please Sir, I want some more"

[Frank Zipper]

Surprise, surprise it was a Whirlpool/Hotpoint fridge freezer that started the fire.

Like the dryer that started this fire in a block of flats
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37203933

[Shrilland]

None of the "victims" had a right to be in any EU country. We need to deport them ASAP. The fact that they set fire to their own home is bad enough, what's next for them? Stabbing people? Bombing? Enough is enough.

[Fartsniffage]

None of the "victims" had a right to be in any EU country. We need to deport them ASAP. The fact that they set fire to their own home is bad enough, what's next for them? Stabbing people? Bombing? Enough is enough.

Deport the Welsh!

[Vassenor]

None of the "victims" had a right to be in any EU country. We need to deport them ASAP. The fact that they set fire to their own home is bad enough, what's next for them? Stabbing people? Bombing? Enough is enough.

Pretty sure just about everyone in the block was a UK citizen. Also owning a faulty appliance without knowing it is not "set fire to their own home".

[Vulgar Bulgar]

None of the "victims" had a right to be in any EU country. We need to deport them ASAP. The fact that they set fire to their own home is bad enough, what's next for them? Stabbing people? Bombing? Enough is enough.

Pretty sure just about everyone in the block was a UK citizen. Also owning a faulty appliance without knowing it is not "set fire to their own home".

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/m ... 70446.html

[Shrilland]

None of the "victims" had a right to be in any EU country. We need to deport them ASAP. The fact that they set fire to their own home is bad enough, what's next for them? Stabbing people? Bombing? Enough is enough.

Pretty sure just about everyone in the block was a UK citizen. Also owning a faulty appliance without knowing it is not "set fire to their own home".

They were not citizens. They purposefully sabotaged their appliances though, that has been proven. This was an act of terror and everyone involved WILL be punished

[Thyerata]

None of the "victims" had a right to be in any EU country. We need to deport them ASAP. The fact that they set fire to their own home is bad enough, what's next for them? Stabbing people? Bombing? Enough is enough.

Pretty sure just about everyone in the block was a UK citizen. Also owning a faulty appliance without knowing it is not "set fire to their own home".

I hate to say this, but Shrilland is right - many of the people in that building had a questionable immigration status - though in light of the tragedy, the Government won't carry out immigration checks on them