LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

kingstongraham

focuszing723 said:

It's an untenable bottomless pit. Which is more important?

I think the answer is normally education.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

focuszing723 said:

That was a stupid logo, because their ain't no money tree.

We need a stronger military now, spend more on a stretched NHS, Our infrastructure needs maintenance/improvement, train our youth to keep up with modern economies...

It's an untenable bottomless pit. Which is more important?

But we were assured that as we had our own currency we could keep buying our own debt. Maybe we should ask on the other thread why QE stopped?

Wouldn't have needed to do QE if they had commenced counter-cyclical spending and not done austerity....

kingstongraham

Pross said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

National Service is surely for countries who have some reasonable expectation to want to draw on a draft to fill out the military in the event of a war; helps when everyone has already done 1-2 years of basic training and knows what end of a gun to hold?

I doubt that Penny has thought it through, but as I recall from my youth, the attraction to old folk back then was:

a) They had done it (or at least the guys) and in their view it never did them any harm; and

b) 12 months of verbal abuse from a psychopathic NCO would stiffen the backbone of the feckless oiks that the younger generation of the time had apparently become

Again, what she's talking about bears no resemblance to military National Service, it's a stupid name for some community volunteering.

If you can work out from this what it actually is they're proposing, you're doing better than me. https://www.ukonward.com/reports/great-british-national-service/

rick_chasey

Reminds me of a comment I saw on the FT BTL a while ago.

"Labour governments like charities for their shared values. Tory governments like charities for their free labour"

TheBigBean

Are any of these schools PFI ones? I'm sure the NAO will write a report on the success of PFI.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

focuszing723 said:

That was a stupid logo, because their ain't no money tree.

We need a stronger military now, spend more on a stretched NHS, Our infrastructure needs maintenance/improvement, train our youth to keep up with modern economies...

It's an untenable bottomless pit. Which is more important?

But we were assured that as we had our own currency we could keep buying our own debt. Maybe we should ask on the other thread why QE stopped?

Wouldn't have needed to do QE if they had commenced counter-cyclical spending and not done austerity....

As you know I never "got" QE so i am genuinely interested in why it has ceased to be seen as a good idea

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

Are any of these schools PFI ones? I'm sure the NAO will write a report on the success of PFI.

No. RAAC predates PFI by decades. Mostly a 60s/70s technology for building lightweight roof slabs. Nobody checks roofs hence this suddenly becoming an issue 4 years after it was first noted that such structures were nearing the end of their lifespans.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

focuszing723 said:

That was a stupid logo, because their ain't no money tree.

We need a stronger military now, spend more on a stretched NHS, Our infrastructure needs maintenance/improvement, train our youth to keep up with modern economies...

It's an untenable bottomless pit. Which is more important?

But we were assured that as we had our own currency we could keep buying our own debt. Maybe we should ask on the other thread why QE stopped?

Wouldn't have needed to do QE if they had commenced counter-cyclical spending and not done austerity....

As you know I never "got" QE so i am genuinely interested in why it has ceased to be seen as a good idea

I thought, beyond its short term function to stabilise financial markets, its main function was a substitute for lower rates when you were already at the lower/zero bound for rates.

So my argument goes if there hadn't been austerity everything would have been running hotter, more inflation, higher debt costs, thus rates wouldn't have been zero or near zero so you wouldn't need to do QE.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Are any of these schools PFI ones? I'm sure the NAO will write a report on the success of PFI.

No. Predates PFI by decades

So should have been replaced by PFI

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

focuszing723 said:

That was a stupid logo, because their ain't no money tree.

We need a stronger military now, spend more on a stretched NHS, Our infrastructure needs maintenance/improvement, train our youth to keep up with modern economies...

It's an untenable bottomless pit. Which is more important?

But we were assured that as we had our own currency we could keep buying our own debt. Maybe we should ask on the other thread why QE stopped?

Wouldn't have needed to do QE if they had commenced counter-cyclical spending and not done austerity....

As you know I never "got" QE so i am genuinely interested in why it has ceased to be seen as a good idea

Read up on how Henry VIII got the nickname Coppernose.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

Reminds me of a comment I saw on the FT BTL a while ago.

"Labour governments like charities for their shared values. Tory governments like charities for their free labour"

They should propose it as compulsory for everyone, not just the young. Why should the rest of us get out of it?

focuszing723

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

focuszing723 said:

That was a stupid logo, because their ain't no money tree.

We need a stronger military now, spend more on a stretched NHS, Our infrastructure needs maintenance/improvement, train our youth to keep up with modern economies...

It's an untenable bottomless pit. Which is more important?

But we were assured that as we had our own currency we could keep buying our own debt. Maybe we should ask on the other thread why QE stopped?

Wouldn't have needed to do QE if they had commenced counter-cyclical spending and not done austerity....

As you know I never "got" QE so i am genuinely interested in why it has ceased to be seen as a good idea

Read up on how Henry VIII got the nickname Coppernose.

Old Copper-Nose, was one of the nicknames of Henry VII's son, Henry VIII. This is because the king devalued the country's currency, on which his face and his large nose were prominent. Seeing the king's nose on coins that held less and less value led to this unfortunate nickname.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Look at Tory policy on anything and tell me they're anything beyond a party for the aged.

I'm not convinced any Party does much for young people. It's probably a bit of a Catch-22 in that they have policies to support the people who get out and vote and in the process alienate those who don't vote because no-one represents them.

sungod

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Are any of these schools PFI ones? I'm sure the NAO will write a report on the success of PFI.

No. RAAC predates PFI by decades. Mostly a 60s/70s technology for building lightweight roof slabs. Nobody checks roofs hence this suddenly becoming an issue 4 years after it was first noted that such structures were nearing the end of their lifespans.

i was wondering at what point the currently quoted 30-year design life was known

if it was back in the time these buildings were constructed, then surely it was a deliberate choice to invest in structures that would need demolition/rebuild after 30 years, followed by a deliberate choice to not do so and see how long they could get away with it

or, if no one knew at the time, it was determined later, followed by a deliberate choice to not demolish/rebuild and see how long they could get away with it

monkimark

To be fair, plenty of standard concrete frames will have been designed for 50 or 60 years. I think the current Eurocode is 50 years so I'm sure there are plenty of buildings beyond their indicative design working life now but they don't necessarily need knocking down.

focuszing723

monkimark said:

To be fair, plenty of standard concrete frames will have been designed for 50 or 60 years. I think the current Eurocode is 50 years so I'm sure there are plenty of buildings beyond their indicative design working life now but they don't necessarily need knocking down.

I've been seeing lot of concrete bridges getting refurbished. It's not quick either it seems to be about one to two years to complete.

briantrumpet

monkimark said:

To be fair, plenty of standard concrete frames will have been designed for 50 or 60 years. I think the current Eurocode is 50 years so I'm sure there are plenty of buildings beyond their indicative design working life now but they don't necessarily need knocking down.

Does that include the Pantheon?

sungod

monkimark said:

To be fair, plenty of standard concrete frames will have been designed for 50 or 60 years. I think the current Eurocode is 50 years so I'm sure there are plenty of buildings beyond their indicative design working life now but they don't necessarily need knocking down.

yes, but this aerated stuff seems to have been known for some time to be degraded, in some cases already failing

construction with a known short-lived material would put the buildings into the temporary category, surely not what should reasonably be expected for buildings like schools, hospitals etc.

i'd expect things like that to be built to survive long term (given adequate maintenance) unless there's a good reason otherwise, in which case the end of life and any replacement should be planned for right from the start

this feels at best like penny pinching and leaving the problem for the future generation to sort out

pblakeney

sungod said:

...
this feels at best like penny pinching and leaving the problem for the future generation to sort out

I think this is the nub of the issue.

tailwindhome

Is the issue with schools in England related to the issues in Donegal?

Something called mica is included in the making of concrete blocks. Blocks from a particular manufacturer contained too much of this mica and as a result thousands of new build houses are literally falling apart. You can take a chunk of concrete block from a wall and crumble it like you were making apple crumble

Huge scandal

rjsterry

tailwindhome said:

Is the issue with schools in England related to the issues in Donegal?

Something called mica is included in the making of concrete blocks. Blocks from a particular manufacturer contained too much of this mica and as a result thousands of new build houses are literally falling apart. You can take a chunk of concrete block from a wall and crumble it like you were making apple crumble

Huge scandal

I think this is a completely separate scandal. The problems with the material have been known for some time but the extent of the problem is poorly understood (if there aren't records from 40-60 years ago, you have to open up the ceiling, possibly remove asbestos and expose the roof structure to inspect). It needed a national programme of replacement but similar to ACM cladding, the problem is so atomised and the stakeholders have so little agency that there's just an inertia until it becomes a crisis.

Pross

sungod said:

monkimark said:

To be fair, plenty of standard concrete frames will have been designed for 50 or 60 years. I think the current Eurocode is 50 years so I'm sure there are plenty of buildings beyond their indicative design working life now but they don't necessarily need knocking down.

yes, but this aerated stuff seems to have been known for some time to be degraded, in some cases already failing

construction with a known short-lived material would put the buildings into the temporary category, surely not what should reasonably be expected for buildings like schools, hospitals etc.

i'd expect things like that to be built to survive long term (given adequate maintenance) unless there's a good reason otherwise, in which case the end of life and any replacement should be planned for right from the start

this feels at best like penny pinching and leaving the problem for the future generation to sort out

If the product has a design life of 30 years and is just failing after 50-60 years I’d say it has given value for money!

Pross

focuszing723 said:

monkimark said:

To be fair, plenty of standard concrete frames will have been designed for 50 or 60 years. I think the current Eurocode is 50 years so I'm sure there are plenty of buildings beyond their indicative design working life now but they don't necessarily need knocking down.

I've been seeing lot of concrete bridges getting refurbished. It's not quick either it seems to be about one to two years to complete.

Concrete roads bridges are designed with a 120 year design life but are regularly inspected and will have some minor maintenance on a fairly regular basis (deck waterproofing or bearing / expansion joint replacement are probably the biggest issues).

briantrumpet

Pross said:

focuszing723 said:

monkimark said:

To be fair, plenty of standard concrete frames will have been designed for 50 or 60 years. I think the current Eurocode is 50 years so I'm sure there are plenty of buildings beyond their indicative design working life now but they don't necessarily need knocking down.

I've been seeing lot of concrete bridges getting refurbished. It's not quick either it seems to be about one to two years to complete.

Concrete roads bridges are designed with a 120 year design life but are regularly inspected and will have some minor maintenance on a fairly regular basis (deck waterproofing or bearing / expansion joint replacement are probably the biggest issues).

I remember seeing a documentary on how they electrified all the steelwork in the reinforced concrete on the M5/M6 interchange, to stop it corroding... genuinely fascinating.

rjsterry

Pross said:

focuszing723 said:

monkimark said:

To be fair, plenty of standard concrete frames will have been designed for 50 or 60 years. I think the current Eurocode is 50 years so I'm sure there are plenty of buildings beyond their indicative design working life now but they don't necessarily need knocking down.

I've been seeing lot of concrete bridges getting refurbished. It's not quick either it seems to be about one to two years to complete.

Concrete roads bridges are designed with a 120 year design life but are regularly inspected and will have some minor maintenance on a fairly regular basis (deck waterproofing or bearing / expansion joint replacement are probably the biggest issues).

Have today stood on Britain's oldest standing concrete bridge, built in 1887.

rick_chasey

The metaphor is so on the nose.

British writers getting lazy.

rick_chasey

Fairly sure the Romans used concrete which is still standing.

Isn’t the pantheon concrete?

I know they make it differently etc

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Fairly sure the Romans used concrete which is still standing.

Isn’t the pantheon concrete?

I know they make it differently etc

Yes. See my Pantheon quip upthread...

Must admit that I thought someone was having me on when they told me. For once, they weren't.

briantrumpet

Oh yes, here's something else the Tories actively want to break...

https://twitter.com/darrenpjones/status/1697613166492995947

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Fairly sure the Romans used concrete which is still standing.

Isn’t the pantheon concrete?

I know they make it differently etc

I think you are completely misunderstanding the issue. It's not about the concrete it's about the cuts in capital spending. As Pross said, getting 50-60 years out of a product designed to last 30 is good going. Nothing lasts forever. Victorian hospitals are still standing but are no longer suitable for the requirements of a modern hospital. Buildings having a lifespan is fine.
Not having a plan for replacement is the mistake.