We know Theresa May is bad at her job. Arrogant. Distant. Inflexible. Possessed of poor judgement. Unempathic to the point where it is embarrassing to witness her inability. But let's, please, not make this personal. She may have tried to make the general election a vote of confidence in her. But it wasn't. It wasn't even about party politics, which have for far too long in England and Wales denied people real political choice by putting only variations on a theme before them to choose between. Instead let's realise that what Theresa May represents so well is a political philosophy and it is not chance that it arrives with someone like her as Prime Minister.
Thatcher put it in a nutshell, of course. She said there was no such thing as society. And she meant it. Neoliberalism says there are only markets. And contractual relationships. But no obligations. No duty. No care. Just mercenary relationships.
And so we get to Grenfell Tower where mercenary considerations mattered more than lives.
And we get to a prime minister incapable of showing that she does care.
At the same time Jeremy Corbyn did what May's philosophy could never tolerate: he (quite literally) embraced people. He, to quote Louis Armstrong, shook their hands saying "How do you do" when what he actually meant was "I love you".
Again, I am not going to be personal. Corbyn was far from alone: across London and beyond (because we saw it in Manchester and it could happen anywhere) people have reached out to say the same thing. The Manchester concert a couple of weeks ago (and I watched it, with surprising pleasure) had love for the other person you could not know but who still mattered to you at its very core.
And this difference, or rather the indifference of neoliberalism as opposed to the care of genuine social democracy / socialism is back on the political agenda now. We saw it on June 8. People did not embrace May because they knew she that did not embrace them.
And this might also explain the choice of voters across age groups. My generation has learned to do emotion. My male friends and I openly hug each other now with real joy and affection, unashamed to do so in ways our fathers could never have contemplated. And when I observe younger people I see that they did not have to learn to do this: it is in their DNA, as it was on ours, except we were told to repress it.
Neoliberalism reflected a ghastly selfishness and an emotional isolation that crushed, structured and divided post war society but not its politics until Thatcher appeared on the scene. Now there is a chance to reject that reproach. Now there is the option of putting society first.
Many people are angry about Grnefell Tower. I think that will continue for time to come. This is not something that will be easily forgotten. The mounting death toll over months to come will be an unfortunate and saddening reminder of how devastating this failure to care has been.
But I hope people realise that they have a choice on this. I hope Labour realises that too. I hope it is now completely unambiguous in its rejection of all that has to do with neoliberalism. And I hope it puts real political choice - and the option to care - very firmly and proudly before the people of England and Wales again. Because people need to have that choice. It's been denied for too long. The callous indifference that led to Grenfell Tower is the evidence of that, where a sprinkler was too much to pay for a life. We cannot go there again.
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:
I think that this is a super piece of writing.
It has become evident to me over the years that concepts like ‘efficiency’ and ‘economy’ have just been a short hand for increasing investment yields for those who wish to make money out of things.
Concepts like ‘effectiveness’ and ‘equity’ – more end user orientated goals – seem to come out last every time.
And Grenfell Tower is what can happen as a consequence.
‘Instead let’s realise that what Theresa May represents so well is a political philosophy ‘
she’s not even doing that bit with any aplomb! here lack of ability extends to not even being able to put across the argument for market fundamentalism.
Richard, what I think you are observing here is a shift in the culture and a cycle of 40 years apparently shifting; I say apparently because, as we noted after the election, it is as yet a fragile change and could be pushed back. I hoped to live long enough to see the last 40 years of unmitigated economic and moral garbage come to a close and now, well, it just might be.
Everything Thatcher said not only did not happen but what happened was diametrically opposed to it.
I think there is a sense out there that we must keep this change going and not let up in sustaining it, it is time to be ‘as mad as hell and not stand for it anymore.’
I was feeling, at the start of the election that the country was just not ready for change as the MSM seemed to still in charge and polls were predicating a Tory landslide with Tory Hubris at all time elevation. But a tipping point had been reached. I personally thought the tipping point would have been around 2013 when sanctions/bedroom tax and vile denigratory language was thrown at the ill and poor – I genuinely believed that people would not take it and I watched on, aghast, as it was all, apparently, swallowed. So I was four years out but something was brewing and I like to think that many of us on this site (thanks to Richard’s hosting) will have helped in incremental ways in our own postings on the internet, conversations and exchanges.
I don’t think now that neo-liberalism can put the election genie back in the bottle.
Neo-liberalism always depict the victims as guilty of being inadequate and therefore not worthy of compassion, social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer his Lamarckian evolutionary ideas about society before Darwin first published his theory in 1859, and both Spencer and Darwin promoted their own conceptions of moral values. Spencer supported laissez-faire capitalism on the basis of his Lamarckian belief that struggle for survival spurred self-improvement which could be inherited.
The bomb fire of regulations turns into the bomb-fire of people and environment.
Enclosure of benefits by Corporates and rentier finance while dumping the problems and negatives onto the depleteed commons.
“We know Theresa May is bad at her job. Arrogant. Distant. Inflexible. Possessed of poor judgement. Unempathic to the point where it is embarrassing to witness her inability. But let’s, please, not make this personal.”
That sounds quite personal.
It’s a bit like saying “I don’t want to draw attention to how fat you are” to someone.
If you’re going to attack someone on a personal level, by all means do; but don’t pretend you aren’t.
Are you as good at missing the point as she is?
Pedants are not welcome here
Take note
Bernard you’ve confused yourself. Whether Teresa is incompetent or not(she clearly is) is irrelevant – what she represents is an unhealthy ideology that has been the only one on offer since the mid 1980s (Michael Foot’s 1983 manifesto) until now.
The thing about normal people is that they’re pretty nice, Ken loach when asked about socialism recently said it’s already here, you can see it in the way people look after each other in hard times – we’ve seen it this week.
Something I must say now, is that I work with a lot of inner city 20 18-25 year olds especially in the Grime and Trap music scene, and boy are they politically switched on, all those little rioters 4 years ago? They grew up, and many have joined the Labour Party. Not a few either. They support JC and they want to make s difference. They make me very proud, there are some future political thinkers in the budding and it makes me look forward to a future that they control.
They need to hear about MMT and Richard’s ideas because they are the people who will put it into practise.
Indeed, about 40 years ago two of my Irish uncles who lived in the UK – one in London and one in Yorkshire had not seen each other for about a year and embraced each other warmly when they met. The interesting thing was that one of my uncle’s English friends was very envious and said he would love to do that but culturally felt unable to do it. My Uncle related the story after a childish question “What is the difference between the English and the Irish?” In this way fortunately a lot less than there used to be.
There is hope that humanity will prevail and some of the bleakness I felt when the Tories were in track for a landslide victory has lifted.
On another matter, just when I think the Mail has lost its ability to make me feel like vomiting it seems to suggest that the cladding was applied due to “green” red tape. You couldn’t make it up
They have actually put that on green accusation on their front page
It is literally sickening
It’s also sickening that The Guardian is currently trying to manipulate the news by closing down its comments facility on articles about the Grenfell Fire Disaster whilst other on-line news sources such as The Independent, Huffington Post and The Mirror aren’t.
The Guardian can do what it likes with its comments – most of which are made by deeply offensive trolls
That is the freedom of the press at work
“the bleakness I felt when the Tories were in track for a landslide victory has lifted”
The Tories were never in track for a landslide victory. We simply made the mistake of thinking that they were. So did they.
You often write with passion and anger, Richard – which is one reason I’ve continued to read your blog over many years – but I have to say this blog is something special. It both captures the pain and despair of the moment while at the same time explaining cleary and concisely why we are where we are and have come to this.
Incidentally, while I accept all you say about the ideology that creates and sustains a politician/individual such as May, after yesterday’s display of contempt and heartlessness I cannot ever see her as anything other than an absolute bastard. And this from a vicars daughter! God knows what form of compassion her family taught her, but it wasn’t and isn’t anything I recognise.
Thanks
Let’s be clear: I agree that Theresa May is, candidly, a waste of space!
However, I think the rush to blame the right or austerity for this terrible disaster is imprudent. It could backfire on us. Why? Because the organisation in charge of the building was an allegedly incompetent not-for-profit/public sector tenancy management organisation. And because green measures could — possibly — be responsible in part for the fire – eg the use of highly flammable coolants in fridges in order to protect the ozone layer, and the use of flammable cladding on the building to reduce energy consumption.
I have to disagree…
There is nothing wrong in trying to save the planet
There is in doing it dangerously
I agree. I am not against green policies at all. However, even the Guardian reports:
The government’s building safety experts warned last year that the drive for greater energy efficiency meant more and more buildings are being wrapped in materials that could go up in flames.
In a report compiled before the Grenfell Tower disaster on Wednesday, the Building Research Establishment, which works for the Department of Communities and Local Government on fire investigations, said attempts to innovate with insulation were leading to an “increase in the volume of potentially combustible materials being applied” to buildings….
As far back as 2000, Gordon Cooke — a leading fire safety consultant — warned in a report commissioned by the mineral wool industry “the use of plastic foam cored sandwich panels … is difficult to justify when considering life safety”.
He said the panels “can contribute to the severity and speed of fire development” and said this has led to “massive fire loses” in the past.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/experts-warned-government-against-cladding-material-used-on-grenfell
“…and the use of flammable cladding on the building to reduce energy consumption…”
£5,000 more and the entire cladding would have been far less flammable if not inflammable, and still reduce energy consumption, according to newspapers today including the Daily Mail.
PE-plastic ‘flammable(DE)’ tiles: £22/sq.m
FR-fire-resistant tiles: £24/sq.m
Fire resistant insulation panels are still flammable. Under the circumstance, a forced draught fire, the fire resistance wouldn’t have made the slightest difference. (The fire resistance is achieved by the substance emitting a fire retardant gas when heated towards combustion temperature. In a situation like this, the gas would be instantly dissipated by the draught. Much better would be to use a non-inflammable mineral wool insulation. But this doesn’t meet recent standards for insulation. Because green influenced politicians know best)
There was no point fitting the panels if they did not insulate
Maybe you miss the glaringly obvious?
To: A preson actually qualified to have an opinion on this
What you are describing is only one of the ways of fire retarding a plastic, namely using additives that decompose (on heating) to form water and carbon dioxide, thus diluting the other, more flammable gasses.
For an outdoor material, where air movement removes these diluent gasses, there are other ways of preventing fires from spreading, including char formation and intumescence (swelling) of the burnt surface of the plastic to protect the unburnt material below, both of which would have made a difference here.
They could also have used halogenated FR additives that form radicals that rapidly react with the hot polymer surface to form less flammable polymer ends (that takes more heat out of the fire), but these are losing favour in the industry, since halogenated combustion products are more toxic, not ideal since fire deaths are mostly due to inhalation of toxic smoke!
Signed
Someone who really does know what they are talking about!
The cause of the fire, the cladding and anything else that made it worse aren’t the biggest issue here. A big tower block like that should have had an interlinked and functioning alarm system and a suitably protected escape route and the fire brigade should have had the time and resources to help get everyone out.
I’m not for a second suggesting the emergency response was inadequate. What is obvious is that despite the fire brigade throwing everything they had at it and staff working beyond exhaustion it was impossible to save everyone. If the alarm system and protected escape routes had been adequate then most able bodied residents would have self evacuated and the brigade would only have had to rescue a small number of trapped or physically less mobile residents.
I saw on the news this morning that firemen were having to make the horrific decisions as to who to rescue and who to leave to their fate. That is awful and totally unacceptable in the UK. That’s why it is such a shock.
Something has gone badly wrong here and the political environment of cutting regulations, oversight and funding cannot have helped. People are right to be angry and right to hold the authorities responsible for this.
Various people up the chain of authority took decisions in slow time and in comfort about what to spend on fire safety. As a consequence of the wrong decisions being made in the past firemen have had to make life and death decisions whilst exhausted and at risk of death themselves.
That’s what happens when profit and costs are proritised above human life and when decision makers neglect their responsibilities to the society they live in. Normal people who do believe in society have to put themselves at risk to deal with the inevitable problems that arise whether they be accidents, terrorist attacks or the slow decay of the fabric of our country.
Oh I think we can politicize this tragedy and put much of the blame on austerity.
A video of Boris Johnson telling a Fire Safety Panel to “shove off” has resurfaced today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN3e-aYUusc&feature=youtu.be
What May showed yesterday was that, even after the drubbing she got at the polls last week, and the accepted criticism of her style, and the promise to do better, she simply hasn’t got the capacity to learn. That’s what is sad, and it will be her downfall.
The old Soviet Union had all the things you say we have at our disposal now to solve these problems.
Its own currency (no need to borrow – effectively the magic money tree)
The wealth of a superpower
An abundance of resources — raw materials, technology, skilled and unskilled labour
Zero influence of neoliberals, capitalism, greed etc.
An enormous state capable of directing resources to make anything happen.
An ideology supposedly based on the common good.
A cold climate – where there is more at stake for good housing than in a hot country.
Huge equality.
Yet with all that, the housing conditions were terrible for nearly everyone. I saw it myself, shortly after the USSR collapsed.
Where do you think they went wrong?
Democracy
Choice
Accountability
Transparency
The rule of law
Or to put it another way, stop being crass
Why choose the USSR as a comparator??? False dichotomy much?
I’d look at the Scandinavian countries and Germany for good examples of how well run economies are capable of delivering good living conditions for their people while remaining globally competitive.
Adam
I assume there were a lot of fires in tower blocks in the USSR. I haen’t been able to find details but I suppose that isn’t surprising. You’re right, its quite a gnomic post. It obviously implies that tis sort of fire happened all the time in the USSR but it doesn’t give any instances.
Also it has been known for a long time that these high performance insulation boards are a potential fire risk. I installed phenolic foam insulation boards in a house 10 years ago and the local planning authority were very good and thorough in ensuring I did everything possible to minimise risks. The regulations and oversight were in place years ago for even an individual home owner doing renovations on a low rise indivdual dwelling.
I struggle to see how such insulation could be used externally on a tall building containing many flats, many kitchens, many boilers and many people without significant extra precautions: fire resistant breaks in the cladding between flats and between floors, sprinkler systems, very long lasting fire resistant escape routes, failsafe fire detection and alarm systems, well signed and lit (inc emergency battery back up) escape routes etc.
How building regs have failed to ensure that such a huge tower block was safe in 2017 when in 2007 they were sending engineers and fire safety officers on multiple visits just to check on 3-bed semi detached houses I have no idea.
I can hazard a guess though…
And your qualifications in building design & structural engineering are what, Richard?
Better than those of an anonymous troll
Not just a troll but a preson.
Technicalities of the cladding are a diversion. The total fire risk should have and could have been managed adequately if the appropriate regulations, site visits and funding had been in place.
The cladding is being used as a scapegoat to distract from a systemic failure to ensure the safe renovation of hundreds of people’s homes.
If I were the cladding contractor I would be utterly and irreconcilably distraught seeing my work contributing to such terrible loss of life but not half as suicidal as I’d be if I were one of the top decision makers or controllers of the renovation budget.
I loved Daniel’s response.
The issue of the type of insulation cladding that should be fitted to high rise buildings ought to be one of seeking a balance between thermal insulation and fire resistance and this balance enshrined in the Building Regulations. That it wasn’t after the deadly 2009 Lakanal House tower fire can only be blamed on the Tory government since the national building safety responsibility buck stops there.
When I worked for KCTMO I had nightmares about burning tower blocks
“Part of my job involved quarterly block inspections, including fire-safety checks. But as austerity bit, our workloads increased with no additional resources”
This is how it happens. An erosion in oversight of pesky ‘Elf & Safety’ regulations doesn’t even need an elaborately designed conspiracy, just the right environment and a withdrawal of resources.
David Cameron: I will kill off safety culture
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-i-will-kill-off-safety-culture-6285238.html
Richard is anyone that you know of investigating how much of the £10 million refurbishment money was actually spent on materials, workers pay, consultancy fees etc and what were the profit margins.
The Guardian has done some
I have done some for another organisation
I wasn’t aware that the government changed the rules for accounting for deaths by fire. It seems that when a person injured in a fire later dies in hospital, they’re now excluded from the fire death stats.
Thank you Richard. You have put many of thoughts and feelings of the last few days into words.
Â
I work in commercial aviation. This is an industry that works very hard to keep everybody safe. The papers like to scare people but I can assure you, a huge amount of effort is made across the world, by people listening to their consciences to do what is right to prevent accidents.
Â
As an industry, we don’t go around demanding deregulation so that we can make more money. We do the opposite in fact. Whenever we acquire new knowledge about how to prevent accidents, we embody that in to global regulations and recommendations so that everybody can benefit. This is how we have managed to have fewer and fewer accidents, despite a massive increase in the number of flights.
It makes me sick, deep down in my stomach, when I see the finance industry and their cousins the politicians, laying waste to life, and then shouting down and insulting anybody who tries to stand in their way through the media they control.
It is absolutely time for us as individuals and as a country to throw away the selfishness of neoliberalism, find our integrity, and start to live together in solidarity.
Â
Excellent article Richard, and an excellent comment from you Percy. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Those who defend neoliberalism are only doing it for themselves.
Excellent NS piece about attitudes towards social housing. It really is time we stopped denigrating people who rely on the state to house them, and accepted the state has an obligation to house all its people safely and securely.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2017/06/after-grenfell-we-need-change-how-we-talk-about-council-housing
“a city cannot function without nurses or cleaners or retail workers: not everyone in London will ever be able to afford London housing costs. But people do not cease to need homes, simply because they can’t afford them. If the market won’t provide — and it should be abundantly clear by now that it won’t — then the state must step up.
If it did, then maybe we would shake this ludicrous idea that having the state as a landlord means that, somehow, you’ve failed. And maybe then councils would feel pressure to treat their tenants as citizens or customers to whom they owed a decent standard of home — rather than people who should take what they’re given and be grateful”
Good piece, good quote, good call.
You need 3 things for a fire:- Fuel, Oxygen and Heat.
Clearly the cladding was the fuel.
By the way Richard, I think this is only my second post here but keep up the excellent work. I find the vast majority of your comments to be most instructive and I wish I was as forthright as you in my make-up.
Thank you
I heard interviewed on PM R4 Fri afternoon a Mike Granatt a former member of the civil contingency secretariat for the cabinet office,
he gave an impression of what the position entails and a candid assesment of the current performance of the government and RBKC
I’m glad he was given the chance to speak publicly,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tbf6m#play
interview starts shortly after 15th minute,
Good article on high rise housing in the FT (free, I think) here:
https://www.ft.com/content/80c884d4-51af-11e7-a1f2-db19572361bb
Also a housing website – “More bricks than mortar”! which expalins a lot: http://www.24housing.co.uk/news/former-housing-ministers-under-pressure-over-grenfell-fire/
This incident has touched a lot of nerves …because lots of people live in high-rise flats and/or know other people who do. I don’t live in one, but I have friends who do. Trust me, they are all personalising this event, and thinking ‘what if that was me?’ They’re certainly grateful for the councils in their areas which have been turning up with reassurances, re-issued fire evacuation plans, have set up extra inspections, etc.
I think we can all imagine what that horror must have been like for the people who suffered it. We’ve all seen who ‘cares’ and who doesn’t in the aftermath. Those responsible for the situation are being outed. Let’s hope this marks a turning point in UK politics. The problem isn’t the Tories, it’s the people who keep voting for them. Maybe that will change?
Absolutely. When they start squealing you know you’re hitting a nerve and they don’t like being found out. So when Boris made that pre-emptive attack about not politicising things, it was clear that he knew that this time the blame was inescapably his Party’s and that there was no chance of getting away from it with a scapegoat. Mrs May though is slightly worse – not only does she not admit responsibility for mistakes, I think she doesn’t even accept the reality that they happened. Talk about being out of touch.
Richard, on so many levels, principally emotional and rational, and after so many years of reading your instructive and inspirational articles, this is, I believe, your finest blog. We, the people…..
Words fail me but, inadequate as they are, my sincerest thanks.
Nick
Thanks
But as usual, I just bashed out what I thought and understood myself just a little better as a result
It continually surprises me that others read what I write
But I admit I am pleased if it’s of any use to anyone
Richard