The Grenfell Tower fire has claimed twelve lives at the time of writing but no one thinks that will be the final total. And, I stress, that no one knows the cause of the fire or why it spread so rapidly at this moment. I am not suggesting for a moment that I do: I have no expertise in the field. All I can have is sympathy for all those who have suffered, and will suffer for a long time to come, and a concern that this should not happen again.
No one can, of course, guarantee against fires. But let's not pretend that the systemic risk of their occurrence cannot be reduced.
Requiring two stairwells in high rise buildings makes sense. But we do not do that.
Requiring sprinkler systems makes sense too. But we don't require them either.
Refurbishment that is more about putting in a cladding to make a tower block visually acceptable to Notth Kensington makes a lot less sense than making it safe. If the cladding is flammable (and according to those interviewed on Radio 4 last night the requirements are lax) then the prettification is wholly unacceptable.
Cutting fire inspections by 25% over seven years will increase risk.
As do serious cuts in fire service personnel do the same thing.
And not undertaking reviews of regulations when risk has been identified is inexcusable.
But these systemic risks were allowed to develop and exist. I would strongly suggest that this was not a person's fault unless those people George Osborne and Dvid Cameron. That is because these systemic risks increased during the era of austerity that they created.
I heard the people of Grenfell Tower and its neighbourhood saying last night that these risks would not have been taken if this was not social housing. I fear they are right. Their lives may well have been deemed not to matter.
Well, I don't buy that idea. Rather, I do not buy that belief, for that is what it is. I think each person matters. And each deserves to be safe. And I think this country may have failed the people of Grenfell Tower by adopting austerity that put their lives and those of millions of others at risk.
And yes, I do mean millions of others.
We know there were 30,000 excess deaths in the NHS because of cuts in 2016.
We know there have been benefits suicides.
We now know the police cannot cope.
We know that Grenfell Tower is not alone.
We know the fire service is 25% slower in its response rate now.
And that ambulances are not as efficient either.
And we know that all this was supposedly needed to balance books that never needed balancing, meaning that this was really just an excuse to put lives at risk to cut the size of the state with the aim of increasing the private wealth of a few.
And even if it turns out this was not the reason why people died at Grenfell Estate it is still the reason for the ongoing excess deaths in the NHS. And it is the reason for the fire safety cuts.
Austerity is a killer.
And that is wholly unnecessary.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
For me this is more about neoliberalism more broadly.
Former housing minister quoted as saying that whilst automatic sprinklers save lives it was not the responsibility of government to regulate them as a requirement, as they were concerned this might deter private housebuilding. Absolutely unbelievable and hopefully this marks a turning point in putting profits before safety. The Government has literally palmed off responsibility for keeping people safe, but they are still accountable for their actions.
Conservatives are very relaxed with playing with poor people lives, austerity is merely a tool.
I happen to have been reading about the history of American railways in the 19th Century:
‘In addition, cars themselves were not reinforced to better withstand the carnage during derailments. Railroads used their power to influence politicians and avoid infrastructure improvement and safety enhancements, such as knuckle-couplers and air brakes. Such things only cost money. In their greed they even refused to interchange freight with one another. This arrogant attitude eventually led to extreme regulatory oversight.’
In our present economic environment of wealth extraction by financilaisation it is becoming harder to make profits and this means that construction companies and building companies are going to cut corners. Shareholder maximisation will always be behind it.
Much the same here
It took massive effort to require continuous brakes in passenger trains
And it take major fires (Quintinshill, 1915) before this was thought to be an issue in railways safety
The Government has a duty to set standards and secondly to provide the resources for decent, safe housing – in effect, for all.
Luxury flats appear not to catch fire, in the UK.
Water will always find a route – so will fire.
I’m proud to work for a social housing developer who routinely puts sprinklers in our new homes despite the fact that this Government has made it financially harder for us to develop (it can be very expensive and time consuming to fit sprinklers but it is worth it).
What strikes me is that we know aluminium is a flammable metal – it burns. The British warships made out of Al because it was cheaper in the Falkland war burnt; aircraft in crashes burn. It just seems a little short sighted to me to put it on a building full of potential fire risks.
OK – the metal is light and dos not add to significantly to the weight of the building’s structure but there are more fire retardant materials they could of used.
It is just bad thinking all the way through.
“What strikes me is that we know aluminium is a flammable metal — it burns. The British warships made out of Al because it was cheaper in the Falkland war burnt”
Actually, Aluminium doesn’t burn. And Aluminium is more expensive than galvanised steel and about the same price as stainless steel, albeit Aluminium is much much lighter.
Aluminium melts at around 1,220F. Anyone in the vicinity of heat of that magnitude would be long dead well before Aluminium could possibly melt. It is not a ‘flammable metal’. Try putting an empty aluminium beer can on a camp fire. In the morning you will find a blackened, very possibly melted, but definitely not burned beer can.
It’s one of those internet myths that “HMS Sheffield sank because the aluminium superstructure caught fire”. The main reason this myth isn’t believable is that the ship was of all steel construction. Aluminium was not used in its construction.
What (most probably) burnt in the Grenfall Tower case was the ‘sandwich’ filling in the cladding.
But the Aluminium did not burn.
The internet has enough misleading information. No need to add to it and suggest that choosing aluminium was a cost saving choice and led to the tragedy.
Fyi,
Aluminium is not a flammable metal, although it melts at a relatively temperature. Aluminium alloys containing high levels of magnesium are flammable, but they are expensive and therefore not suitable for cladding.
I think the issue is the chimney effect
The issue may well turn out to be the chimney effect.
It is just a bit worrying that a social housing developer thinks that aluminium is a flammable material.
Fair enough I stand corrected about the ships. My apologies.
But this is reported as a common misconception that is now also widely refuted on the internet as well – not just widely circulated so I do not think that harm I have done is extensive. Some of the sources are here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80)
http://www.austal.com/sites/default/files/00-images…/AUS%20Aluminium%20Brochure.pdf
I also recall that the higher thermal conductivity of Al contributed to burns suffered by sailors on some of the ships hit but this seems to have been exacerbated by protective gear made out of man made fibres.
In building structures however, I do not see the sense in using aluminium – a material that can conduct heat very quickly onto more combustible materials and that loses its strength much sooner under heat than steel.
The idea in buildings is that there needs to be as much retardation of fire as possible to help get people out but also have the opportunity to put the fire out before it gets too serious and causes a collapse – especially on high rise buildings.
Note that if aluminium is mixed with other structures the risk of melting increases or fire hazards rise
I gather many steel windows are in fact a steel veneer on a ply and polystyrene interior – and that burns like fury
It seems the metal plates had a plastic core (CH4 News tonight). There are different configurations of the cladding product, some with metal cores all the way through.
I dont think stairwells was the issue, from what I’m reading and watching. The issue seems to have been the new exterior cladding. If the airgap between the cladding and walls hadn’t been blocked at intervals up the building, then the cladding would act as a tall chimney and a kind of heat-driven wind tunnel surrounding the entire building if a fire caught inside the chimney (a resident who escaped said his neighbour on the the 4th floor told him his fridge exploded).
Search Youtube for Boris Johnson in the London Assembly telling a fire safety panel to get stuffed during an argument about cuts and throwing his dummy out of the pram. And it’s worth noting that 79 Tory MPs who are also landlords voted against Corbyn’s proposed law for rented properties to be made fit for human habitation. The majority of the MSM is ignoring these stories, but social media and the Fifth Estate most certainly has picked up where the MSM is letting us down. Again. Now that electoral law no longer forces balanced reporting, it’s back to business as usual.
I can assure you the MSM is looking at the cladding – I have been involved in investigations on it this morning
That was not something I expected when I wrote that blog
Not the cladding, but the kinds of precursors mentioned. If faulty wiring or appliances in rented accomodation initially started a fire after repeated resident and professional warnings at borough, city and government levels…..
For example:
Borough level:
https://twitter.com/EL4JC/status/875109518107193344
https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/kctmo-playing-with-fire/
(Nov. 2016)
City level:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN3e-aYUusc
Government level:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-mays-chief-staff-sat-10620357
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/full-list-landlord-tory-mps-who-voted-against-making-properties-fit-human-habitation-1537725
It’s tragic to think that it takes human lives to draw the public’s attention to political failure, but sadly that sometimes happens. Austerity is a function of Neo-liberal economics. Neo-liberals are sociopaths. Individual lives don’t matter. People are quite literally sacrificed at the altar of a corrupt economic ideology, akin to the religious rites of old. There’s no other way of saying it. This could be a Macmillan ‘event’ that ultimately brings May down.
“I have been involved in investigations on it this morning”
Terrific news that you are involved in an official capacity.
I’m sure that many of us have ‘googled’ around the subject but that is a far cry from being involved in investigations. If you are now ‘involved in investigations’ I think the authorities have the right person involved.
I am working with journalists – not authorities
But I do know who made the materials and quite a lot more now
You’ll have seen the story in The Guardian about a previous fire in Melbourne, Australia, in a similarly clad building, where a fire spread at record spead then, Richard. The inquiry their found that aluminium composite clading was widely used across Australian cities and around the world despite the fact that when tested it failed Australian fire regulations.
The cladding in this case looks to be UK made
Good news that you are spreading your intellect into other fields.
I have already seen a ‘forensic architect’ being interviewed on TV and no doubt there are many specialists in cladding, fire safety and all the other issues out there but I can see why journalists would be asking you to do their investigations into this.
Which publications should we look out for to benefit from your input?
Keep going!
I can’t say yet
Sorry!
When you hear the government mouthing the platitudes about “Making difficult decisions” meaning “cuts” do not be afraid to point out they get them wrong. This is one such occasion.
And when you hear the other platitude about the “first duty of government is to protect its citizens” – do not be afraid to ask if that includes fires in tower blocks and other social housing.
This situation made me very angry today. The leader of the local council was asked why recommendations to install sprinklers haven’t been followed, and he gave some predictable reply, but what it comes down to is that there wasn’t enough money to do it. Here’s the thing: what if there WAS enough money to retrofit sprinklers on high rise buildings, and by doing so give jobs to people who do it? What if there was ALWAYS enough money to do things that are both for the public good and provide good quality employment? The system has failed us, and days like today show the sickening impacts of that failure.
Shameful, even by her standards – https://twitter.com/Liam_O_Hare/status/875292010609094656
There is a systemic problem in the UK. I have been on industrial sites which, had they been visited by factory inspectors, would have been immediatly closed. E.g.: high voltage switchgear not maintained for decades (= bomb waiting to go off). & so on & so forth.
The MSM often talk about a “health & safety” culture that goes over the top. Perhaps in the case of minor stuff it does. But in the case of major stuff (apartment blocks fit for purpose, industrial sites conforming to basic safty requirements) there seems to be a significant gap. Meeting basic safety requirements is much more than a box ticking exercise – it requires people with knowledge making site visits/inspections. This element seems to have been lacking in the London tragedy and is certainly lacking in many many industrial sites. By contrast, minor building work has endless visits by “building inspectors” – perhaps these could be better deployed making sure that existing buildings are safe.
The papers today are full of “why” “how” and “outrage”
Conveniently forgetting they have, several times in the recent past, decried “elf and safety gone mad”
(Sorry for the quote marks and Littlejohn reference)
This is a real tragedy and I I hope the public enquiry leaves no stone unturned.
But I am also reminded of the reaction to the bad winter most of the country suffered in 2010 (bear with me)
When people were questioning why the country struggled and there weren’t enough gritters, snowploughs etc…
Right-on folks were quick to point out that it doesn’t happen very often and said equipment would be lying idle most years, thus a waste of money.
Same was said about the London Fire Brigade cuts “fire deaths are going sown every year” “stations were built for horse and cart” “modernise” “do more with less” etc..
More than one ex-tradesman has told me about the poor quality of modern houses and buildings, built as quickly as possible to sell or lease for maximum profit.
Despite the tragic events, I cannot see any of this discontinuing.
Richard,
I certainly hope you are investigating why this cladding was put on in the first place.
James
That is not a question I could answer
Although not a question I would expect you to answer Richard,
It is a question someone should be answering given that there have been concerns regarding the fire risks of cladding going back years around the globe!
I recall a number of similar fires in Dubai a couple of years ago, which led to a change in regulations I believe.
As soon as I saw this incident reported I immediately spotted similarities!
Are you able to say which questions you have been asked about Richard? I want to be sure to read your input.
I am afraid the answer is no, and I know it has not been used yet
Oh, dear.
I admit I couldn’t see for a second why journalists would be beating a path to your door for an opinion on something you know nothing about (although I guess it wouldn’t be the first time) and I thought to myself “sounds like he’s made it all up for some bizarre self-aggrandising purpose, which would make him rather sad and pathetic”.
But I guess we’ll never know the truth.
Although you do.
I have not a clue what you are talking about
I’m probably in the minority here on this, but I find the rush to make political capital out of this terrible disaster rather distasteful. The bodies of the dead are barely cold. There will be plenty of time to point fingers in the days and months ahead.
This is 2017
Attention spans have changed
Sorry
And I am not sure that demanding change is making political capital
But isn’t it all political? If the state had a much bigger say in things then we certainly wouldn’t be reading about terrible fires in blocks of flats.
I agree
I just watched an account from a survivor that was harrowing and as the man broke down the BBC interviewer put her arm around him in a way that broke barriers.
Given the whole there’s no ‘magic money tree’ nonsense and the groundswell of anti-austerity that welled up through the election, surely now, the notion of putting money before life must become a central issue and pull us more together. If we can think of jobs and available resources with money as the activator and engaged citizens as the movers behind the democratic decision making then we can weaken the grip of financialised demagoguery.
We need another election soon to sweep austerity away in its entirety.
Joining this via the email round-up Richard, so – apologies ‘Late again’… but see, please, if you haven’t already today’s Steve bell cartoon in the Graun Steve Bell on the Grenfell Tower disaster — cartoon | Opinion | The Guardian.
Last night’s ‘Mock the Week’ had a round on the number ‘8’,as in ‘If this is the answer, what’s the question?’ One of the questions was ‘Is it ‘How many days is it till we have another election?’. There is already an ‘end of days’ feel about this government, this Party and this Prime Minister as all those Austerity pigeons come home to roost. ‘All that red-tape’ they got rid of, that was there to help save lives; ”Tightening our belts’ -well, ‘You tighten yours’ actually…that imposed dangerous cost-cutting on the ‘undeserving’ poor – cheap flammable cladding which was put up apparently to ‘improve the appearance of the building’, presumably for the benefit of the rich people elsewhere in the Borough who had to look at it out of their own ‘comes with sprinklers’ apartments.
And then of course Her inability to go and talk to the people* (which was just weeks ago such a priority for her – one so important it prevented her going on tv) as compared and contrasted with Jeremy’s simple human warmth and compasson.
As one article put it ‘He doesn’t just look like a Prime Minister in waiting…he’s beginning to sound like one too’. Theonly question now would appear to be ‘How soon?’.
*And NB the appalling Nick ‘Forty’ Watt on Newsnight, reverting to his old Guardian role of reproducing CCHQ propaganda unedited by ‘reporting’ that She didn’t want to get in the way of the emergency services…an excuse which was held up to ridicule by those who were there who reported that Corbyn’s presence hadn’t been a hinderance but had indeed been very much appreciated.
PS Sorry! – something amiss with the Steve Bell link – try again!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2017/jun/15/steve-bell-grenfell-tower-fire-disaster-cartoon
I live in the Barbican, which was constructed as council housing; following this dreadful tragedy I put up some shots on Facebook of the three tower blocks, which are 41 storeys high and constructed of vast amounts of concrete. Concrete doesn’t burn at all well, and there is no gas anywhere in the Barbican estate.
The Barbican also has beautiful private gardens for all those who live here, including my favourite: the garden in the lake; I had recently posted some shots of those which people love.
It’s a wonderful place to live; if it was possible to build to these standards in the Barbican then it was, and is, possible to do so everywhere. People deliberately chose not to do so, and we need to have that fact clearly in our minds when government, national and local, claims otherwise.
I also see that it was designed and built to a very high spec, which I suspect underpins its lasting appeal. (And as you quite rightly point out,it was council housing – LCC or GLC? – albeit not always ‘loved’. I well remember an old friend who worked in the Temple bought a small apartment there for about £50k some 30 years ago and everyone thought he was mad. I see £50k is now the change you’ll get out of a million for the same property).
A theme which Richard has touched on is that of building down to a price because we ‘can’t afford it’, rather than building to the highest standards not least when those standards are intended to protect…The contrast with the Barbican is that it does not appear that anyone thought then ‘it’s only for the poor’, or indeed as we heard on last night’s C4 news ‘they should be grateful for what they get’…
(I digress, but in the tv doc about ‘Crossrail’ they found an unexpected arch under/holding up the docks. Experts determined that it was – at 150 years old – ‘strong and stable’ (sorry!) enough to continue to support the dock above even when they shaved off some of it to accommodate their tunnel!)
…and as we just read, the cladding chosen ‘was £2 per sq. m cheaper than the fire resistant version’. Someone’s deliberate choice…dear God.