Tower Block Fire

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

[
3) the solution is to stop paying people because they have children. It should be targeted on people who have a financial need

Firstly, we need people to have children to avoid some fairly disastrous demographics... immigration not being flavour of the month, apparently. Secondly, means testing costs money so doesn't automatically save money.

kingstongraham

And thirdly, child benefit is no longer a universal benefit.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

[
3) the solution is to stop paying people because they have children. It should be targeted on people who have a financial need

Firstly, we need people to have children to avoid some fairly disastrous demographics... immigration not being flavour of the month, apparently. Secondly, means testing costs money so doesn't automatically save money.

I am convinced that the arguments against means testing pre-date computerisation. If £20 a week was going to incentivise you to have kids then you would qualify on my means testing

As stated below it is no longer a universal benefit

and another thing - sending child benefits to children living oversea is insane and even if it does only cost £30m per annum should be stopped

rjsterry

Canada has child benefit as well, SC

BTW (and I'm aware I've not helped) how on earth is child benefit relevant to a fire in a tower block?

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Canada has child benefit as well, SC

BTW (and I'm aware I've not helped) how on earth is child benefit relevant to a fire in a tower block?

is it you who made another comment about Canada or is there more than one of you trying to discombobulate me

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Canada has child benefit as well, SC

BTW (and I'm aware I've not helped) how on earth is child benefit relevant to a fire in a tower block?

is it you who made another comment about Canada or is there more than one of you trying to discombobulate me

I don't think there's more than one of me. :shock: I think you started it by claiming Britain had ideas above its station and we should aspire to be more like Canada - can't remember what it was in reference to.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Canada has child benefit as well, SC

BTW (and I'm aware I've not helped) how on earth is child benefit relevant to a fire in a tower block?

is it you who made another comment about Canada or is there more than one of you trying to discombobulate me

I don't think there's more than one of me. :shock: I think you started it by claiming Britain had ideas above its station and we should aspire to be more like Canada - can't remember what it was in reference to.

That would have been a reference to stop wanting to be a global superpower. Don't know enough about their welfare policies to decide whether we shockproof them. I now know that they have child benefit but will need to Google the levels.

surrey_commuter

Wow - households earning less than £15k get £3k a year per kid up to five years old then £2.5k up to 18. Gets gradually phased out but seems to go to high levels.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Wow - households earning less than £15k get £3k a year per kid up to five years old then £2.5k up to 18. Gets gradually phased out but seems to go to high levels.

Seems fair enough unless we go back to the Victorian approach of trying to stop the poor from breeding. And all that is still far smaller than the tax credit bill, let alone non-means-tested, triple-locked state pensions.

Pross

Is anyone inspecting privately built housing, retail and office blocks given the amount of tower blocks that have failed the checks? One of the images I saw on the news showed Kingspan cladding which I linked to pages back and which I've seen widely used (I think their factory is in Cardiff) but then I guess there are different types intended for different uses but there must be some nervous developers out there trying to decide whether to start getting their buildings inspected too.

rjsterry

Pross wrote:

Is anyone inspecting privately built housing, retail and office blocks given the amount of tower blocks that have failed the checks? One of the images I saw on the news showed Kingspan cladding which I linked to pages back and which I've seen widely used (I think their factory is in Cardiff) but then I guess there are different types intended for different uses but there must be some nervous developers out there trying to decide whether to start getting their buildings inspected too.

Indeed. I can't believe there aren't some of the office to residential conversions with similar materials. I do agree with the point that some are making on the current testing. If it's not being tested in context with the substrate, framing system, cavity barriers, etc. then they may be getting false positives.

BTW, I think most of Kingspan's stuff is PIR, rather than PE, but that might be just their straight insulation.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Wow - households earning less than £15k get £3k a year per kid up to five years old then £2.5k up to 18. Gets gradually phased out but seems to go to high levels.

Seems fair enough unless we go back to the Victorian approach of trying to stop the poor from breeding. And all that is still far smaller than the tax credit bill, let alone non-means-tested, triple-locked state pensions.

Bizarrely we seem to be arguing for the same outcome. I would cut child benefit based on household income.
I would also stop giving fuel allowances and bus passes to people who are old and give them to people who need it

rjsterry

Quite possibly. I suppose I just wanted to make the point that means testing costs something and increases complexity, so doesn't necessarily result in more money for those that need it or greater efficiency. cf. under- and overpayment of tax credits, and the glittering success of universal credit.

rick_chasey

I did watch a piece on newsnight last week where they showed the remnants of a fire in one of those towers that failed the test, and the fire did not behave like it did in Grenfell; it was contained within the flat.

slowbike

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Bizarrely we seem to be arguing for the same outcome. I would cut child benefit based on household income.

Can't argue against the basic principle - but for £20/week it's probably going to cost a lot more than would be saved.

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I would also stop giving fuel allowances and bus passes to people who are old and give them to people who need it

Fuel Allowances - I assume you'd prefer to see those means tested - again - can't argue with the principle - its the cost of the administration that will probably make it not worth while.
Bus passes - no - disagree totally there - give them bus passes - busses are subsidised anyway - keeping OAPs mobile is better for their health and keeps money moving around - you don't want them sat at home all day - otherwise they'll soon have to be sat in a home ... and those that can afford to run cars everywhere - will continue to do so...
The other benefit is that we have less cars on the road ...

dabber

Slowbike wrote:

Bus passes - no - disagree totally there - give them bus passes - busses are subsidised anyway - keeping OAPs mobile is better for their health and keeps money moving around - you don't want them sat at home all day - otherwise they'll soon have to be sat in a home ... and those that can afford to run cars everywhere - will continue to do so...
The other benefit is that we have less cars on the road ...

Perhaps going off topic a bit but this way of referring to OAPs is pretty insulting. I've just had my 70th birthday and on that day I rode the Tourmalet, the next day Luz Ardiden. We don't all sit around doing FA.

guy.spartacus

rjsterry wrote:

Pross wrote:

Is anyone inspecting privately built housing, retail and office blocks given the amount of tower blocks that have failed the checks? One of the images I saw on the news showed Kingspan cladding which I linked to pages back and which I've seen widely used (I think their factory is in Cardiff) but then I guess there are different types intended for different uses but there must be some nervous developers out there trying to decide whether to start getting their buildings inspected too.

Indeed. I can't believe there aren't some of the office to residential conversions with similar materials. I do agree with the point that some are making on the current testing. If it's not being tested in context with the substrate, framing system, cavity barriers, etc. then they may be getting false positives.

BTW, I think most of Kingspan's stuff is PIR, rather than PE, but that might be just their straight insulation.

True - but so is the Celotex RS5000 that was on Grenfell tower. Celotex started to produce RS5000 as a direct competitor to Kingspan's K15 insulation that was the only PIR board approved for use in buildings over 18m due to the 'Class 0 spread of flame' property.

slowbike

Dabber wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Bus passes - no - disagree totally there - give them bus passes - busses are subsidised anyway - keeping OAPs mobile is better for their health and keeps money moving around - you don't want them sat at home all day - otherwise they'll soon have to be sat in a home ... and those that can afford to run cars everywhere - will continue to do so...
The other benefit is that we have less cars on the road ...

Perhaps going off topic a bit but this way of referring to OAPs is pretty insulting. I've just had my 70th birthday and on that day I rode the Tourmalet, the next day Luz Ardiden. We don't all sit around doing FA.

It wasn't meant to be insulting - sorry!
I hope to be doing similar to you when I'm 70+ (sooner than I'd like) - I know some fit and active OAPs (still riding good distances/speed into their 90's) and others that basically do nothing. The point is - the bus pass is something applied for and provides transport for those who wish to use it - given it's free, it provides amount of encouragement for those not active to be a bit more so ...

dabber

Slowbike wrote:

Dabber wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Bus passes - no - disagree totally there - give them bus passes - busses are subsidised anyway - keeping OAPs mobile is better for their health and keeps money moving around - you don't want them sat at home all day - otherwise they'll soon have to be sat in a home ... and those that can afford to run cars everywhere - will continue to do so...
The other benefit is that we have less cars on the road ...

Perhaps going off topic a bit but this way of referring to OAPs is pretty insulting. I've just had my 70th birthday and on that day I rode the Tourmalet, the next day Luz Ardiden. We don't all sit around doing FA.

It wasn't meant to be insulting - sorry!
I hope to be doing similar to you when I'm 70+ (sooner than I'd like) - I know some fit and active OAPs (still riding good distances/speed into their 90's) and others that basically do nothing. The point is - the bus pass is something applied for and provides transport for those who wish to use it - given it's free, it provides amount of encouragement for those not active to be a bit more so ...

No, sorry to you Slowbike... I was being too sensitive.

surrey_commuter

Slowbike wrote:

Dabber wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Bus passes - no - disagree totally there - give them bus passes - busses are subsidised anyway - keeping OAPs mobile is better for their health and keeps money moving around - you don't want them sat at home all day - otherwise they'll soon have to be sat in a home ... and those that can afford to run cars everywhere - will continue to do so...
The other benefit is that we have less cars on the road ...

Perhaps going off topic a bit but this way of referring to OAPs is pretty insulting. I've just had my 70th birthday and on that day I rode the Tourmalet, the next day Luz Ardiden. We don't all sit around doing FA.

It wasn't meant to be insulting - sorry!
I hope to be doing similar to you when I'm 70+ (sooner than I'd like) - I know some fit and active OAPs (still riding good distances/speed into their 90's) and others that basically do nothing. The point is - the bus pass is something applied for and provides transport for those who wish to use it - given it's free, it provides amount of encouragement for those not active to be a bit more so ...

What about helping the working poor making working more cost effective?

I would like to see means tested tried again in this age of computers that we now have.

slowbike

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Dabber wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Bus passes - no - disagree totally there - give them bus passes - busses are subsidised anyway - keeping OAPs mobile is better for their health and keeps money moving around - you don't want them sat at home all day - otherwise they'll soon have to be sat in a home ... and those that can afford to run cars everywhere - will continue to do so...
The other benefit is that we have less cars on the road ...

Perhaps going off topic a bit but this way of referring to OAPs is pretty insulting. I've just had my 70th birthday and on that day I rode the Tourmalet, the next day Luz Ardiden. We don't all sit around doing FA.

It wasn't meant to be insulting - sorry!
I hope to be doing similar to you when I'm 70+ (sooner than I'd like) - I know some fit and active OAPs (still riding good distances/speed into their 90's) and others that basically do nothing. The point is - the bus pass is something applied for and provides transport for those who wish to use it - given it's free, it provides amount of encouragement for those not active to be a bit more so ...

What about helping the working poor making working more cost effective?

I would like to see means tested tried again in this age of computers that we now have.

Thought we were talking about bus passes - although it's quite a way from the original subject ...
To get a bus pass you have to be old or disabled - or both ...

I'm all for helping those trying to get work - Perhaps those on a level of benefit should also have bus passes to enable them to travel to work more easily - although that would mean a difference in when the pass can be used.

If this country really wanted to reduce car use then public transport should be cheaper to the point of making it significantly cheaper than running your own vehicle for the same journey (assumes you want a vehicle for other purposes too)

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Dabber wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Bus passes - no - disagree totally there - give them bus passes - busses are subsidised anyway - keeping OAPs mobile is better for their health and keeps money moving around - you don't want them sat at home all day - otherwise they'll soon have to be sat in a home ... and those that can afford to run cars everywhere - will continue to do so...
The other benefit is that we have less cars on the road ...

Perhaps going off topic a bit but this way of referring to OAPs is pretty insulting. I've just had my 70th birthday and on that day I rode the Tourmalet, the next day Luz Ardiden. We don't all sit around doing FA.

It wasn't meant to be insulting - sorry!
I hope to be doing similar to you when I'm 70+ (sooner than I'd like) - I know some fit and active OAPs (still riding good distances/speed into their 90's) and others that basically do nothing. The point is - the bus pass is something applied for and provides transport for those who wish to use it - given it's free, it provides amount of encouragement for those not active to be a bit more so ...

What about helping the working poor making working more cost effective?

I would like to see means tested tried again in this age of computers that we now have.

Means testing is happening now with working tax credits and child tax credits. We've had computers for a while now. Not sure that's the issue, although "government" and "IT project" is normally followed by "failure".

slowbike

rjsterry wrote:

Means testing is happening now with working tax credits and child tax credits. We've had computers for a while now. Not sure that's the issue, although "government" and "IT project" is normally followed by "failure".

you forgot "Massive budget overspend"

Having worked in Local government during a massive "IT project" that didn't fulfill it's requirements - I concur!

People think it's so easy "because we've got computers" - it isn't ... co-ordinating that data is a massive undertaking and one that governments constantly get wrong.

I really don't know why central gov doesn't have an IT department that provides all the DB structure software for local gov - save them from sourcing their own software from a load of different providers and having a constant stream of cockups ...

bendertherobot

Interim report 'within a year' but scope not yet agreed.

I could have sworn the PM said interim report in September ish. Perhaps she omitted 2018.

rjsterry

Slowbike wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Means testing is happening now with working tax credits and child tax credits. We've had computers for a while now. Not sure that's the issue, although "government" and "IT project" is normally followed by "failure".

you forgot "Massive budget overspend"

Having worked in Local government during a massive "IT project" that didn't fulfill it's requirements - I concur!

People think it's so easy "because we've got computers" - it isn't ... co-ordinating that data is a massive undertaking and one that governments constantly get wrong.

I really don't know why central gov doesn't have an IT department that provides all the DB structure software for local gov - save them from sourcing their own software from a load of different providers and having a constant stream of cockups ...

But, but,... ... the private sector.... profit incentive... efficiency... <splutter>

rjsterry

Interesting that the choice to lead the enquiry specialised in commercial law. Does that indicate that the initial thinking is that this disaster was primarily a result of a culture of endless subcontracting in the construction industry (and to some extent in the inspection regime)?

rick_chasey

So the council meeting discussing Grenfell was cancelled last minute because, as they say, journalists were present.

Journalists obtained a court order to be present, and so the council canned the meeting.

Bizarre.

slowbike

Rick Chasey wrote:

So the council meeting discussing Grenfell was cancelled last minute because, as they say, journalists were present.

Journalists obtained a court order to be present, and so the council canned the meeting.

Bizarre.

Not particularly. The council are going to want to discuss what cockups occured - they don't want that reported/made public until the official investigation is done. Try to have the meeting behind closed doors - get told no chance - meeting should be public - so canned the meeting as they can't usefully discuss whats on the adgenda ... perfectly sensible. The daft thing was having this subject on the adgenda to start with.

It's a shame the press can't live with just reporting the outcome of the investigation - now the initial urgency has gone there is little point (IMHO) of clamouring over every soundbite, arse covering or backstabbing word said.

The investigation and inquiry need to be given times and opportunity to carry out their tasks - if there are criminal cases to answer then waiting till after the investigation has completed before reporting is the best way to ensure these get a fair trial.

rick_chasey

Are you for real?

Local Government (Access to Information Act 1985) law says, quite clearly, the press is entitled to attend all council meetings. It's proper bread & butter journalism stuff. Have a couple friends who are local journos and this is literally the first thing you learn - always have someone at every council meeting. It's quite fundamental to a working democracy.

K&C are trying to flout the law here.

If sunlight is the best disinfectant, then the press need to attend. Else you get stuff occurring in the dark and corruption can become even more endemic.

That's why the court, unsurprisingly, said "of course journalists can attend".

slowbike

Rick Chasey wrote:

Are you for real?

Local Government (Access to Information Act 1985) law says, quite clearly, the press is entitled to attend all council meetings. It's proper bread & butter journalism stuff. Have a couple friends who are local journos and this is literally the first thing you learn - always have someone at every council meeting. It's quite fundamental to a working democracy.

K&C are trying to flout the law here.

If sunlight is the best disinfectant, then the press need to attend. Else you get stuff occurring in the dark and corruption can become even more endemic.

That's why the court, unsurprisingly, said "of course journalists can attend".

I have no problems that the court said of course journos can attend - if it's a meeting that's supposed to be public - you completely missed my point that the council were daft to have this on their adgenda to start with.

Closed doors meetings happen - they have to - doesn't make anything corrupt by itself.

The clamour of the press for anything vaguely disaster related is really annoying me - headlines "events as they happend" and "what we know so far" - with every little snippet - however irrelevant - usually the vet for the cat whose owner lives next door to the chippy where the victim(s) may have once sneezed as they passed the shop.
Yes - it's a disaster, yes it needs reporting - but get a grip on yourselves - bring back some dignity to journalism and drag yourselves out of the gutter.