Aibu to be so angry with the tory government regarding grenfell

[GreenTreesWithLeaves]

Grenfell should not have happened. Austerity, cost cutting, ignoring the poor, helping the rich get richer, all this led to the horrific circumstances.

Tory response? Theresa May didnt even speak to the survivor residents. A tory minister cited security reasons, yet the Queen managed to come out and talk to the residents without issue.

Tories have form for voting against safety issues in housing. All to benefit the wealthy. It is utterly shameful that these are the people that run our country, who care only for the rich.

It isn't just about London but the K & C borough is reported as having the biggest wealth gap and it is the place where some of the housing crisis is contributed to by the wealthy buying surplus property.

Let's be logical:

1. we don't have enough houses for all the people growing up and all those getting divorced etc
2. we have a large number of people, particularly in London buying up houses and leaving them empty.

What should we do?

Well just because something is difficult, does it mean we shouldn't do it? Or that we should never change anything?

But it is just obvious that you can't have a city where only rich people can live. Of course you're going to end up with people living in unsafe, inadequate housing, illegal sublets and so on.

So there needs to be a different solution. Unless we want shit like Grenfell Tower happening over and over again.

It seems as though in places like K and C there is a policy to hope that the poor people will go and live elsewhere. Make it all a bit "nicer", that's what it boils down to; a real disdain for those ordinary people. The communications we have seen seem to underline that.

squeegle
You are absolutely spot on

It's not just London by any means it's everywhere. The most desirable places are the worst but it happens everywhere, every town,city and rural area.

My house is worth less than the teeny city flat I once lived in in a city I can no longer afford to live in and had to move away from. We're surrounded by villages we can't afford to live in. No way could we live in the SE at all.Should we have the right to live in these places regardless?

Is it necessary to violate property rights (the bastion of civil society)

Property rights are not the bastion of civil society; human rights are. Property is never, ever more important than human lives.

And why the fuck do you keep saying that the council is Labour? Its always been Tory controlled.

Sorry OP but when anyone feels the need to preface 'government' with 'tory' it totally detracts from the message.

I am heartily sick of EVERYONE using this for political point-scoring, it's not just the media doing so.

Blame a government, blame a council, blame a housing association but for goodness sake please stop making it about a political party.

fizbo Should everyone have the right to choose to live where they like?

Yes. I believe they should. And I don't think that that is a radical idea, either. I think it's quite fair.

Blame a government, blame a council, blame a housing association but for goodness sake please stop making it about a political party.

Isn't this a bit of a contradiction?

Yes I BLAME the TORY council 100 per cent. Because said Tory council has made their contempt for the poor and socially housed of North Kensington abundantly clear over the decades.

I do not believe the same disaster would have happened in neighbouring Hammersmith or Brent.

Taken from another thread, an interesting non bias read.

www.e-architect.co.uk/london/grenfell-tower-in-west-london

I think it's a bit ridiculous to start talking about the right to buy property as if the right for the rich to buy a huge property they'll never use is more important than the right for poor people to live in a house that is safe and in an area they actually want to live in.

At that point, if people are seriously arguing that, then I just feel like we are coming at things from such different places that we will never be able to come to any kind of agreement or even compromise.

I say all this as someone who stands to inherit two properties so it has nothing to do with the politics of envy or anything like that. People are inherently selfish and unfortunately the government needs to step in and mitigate that.

Isn't this a bit of a contradiction?

No, as soon as you specify it's the fault of a political party it starts to sound perilously like political point scoring. And the message gets lost.

But Big I'd like to live in Kensington or the city we left or in one of the more desirable villages. Everybody would, we can't all have it though. Safe housing for all is a completely different issue.

I hear what you're saying about the message getting lost but at what point does the government get held to account? I've lived in social housing for years, the quality of care and services has rapidly been declining especially since the privitasation began. I want to know why when the decisions were taken to privatise, nobody thought about setting and monitoring a benchmark for quality of care. These private housing associations have far too much autonomy and the government should have taken responsibility for the monitoring of this.

But these people do live there.
Have been born there.
Had children there.
Go to work and school there.
Are part of the community there.
And they can afford their social housing rents.
It's not about them re locating to that borough.

Lots of people have died in a completely preventable disaster.

Making it about nasty people bullying the tories and worrying about the ultra rich's right to buy property they never intend to live in as an investment is ridiculous. That's what's making it political bollocks, ignoring the horror and reality to pontificate about other things.

Regardless of what has gone before, it has taken days for local and national government to get its head out of its arse and do something for the survivors and community. That is something we can all hold them to account for.

From the Guardian today:

King says many of the problems date back decades to changes in building regulations in 1986, which allowed blocks in London to be built and refurbished with materials on their exteriors that have almost no fire-resistant qualities at all. ... Prior to 1986, such materials would have been illegal.

So the regulations were made inadequate under Thatcher, and have remained so ever since. It is more to do with the agenda of sweeping away red tape, driven by the demands of 'the markets' and an agenda of privatisation than reflecting any single party. That said, Corbyn is perhaps finally offering an alternative viewpoint.

These people are a different issue. They have been through a significant trauma so everything possible should be done. As a general policy no. My mil has seen all her dc leave the SE. They lived and went to school there, this happens in Cornwall too. Only those with social housing or who bought years and years ago have stayed. They have no support. We all have to go where there is work and housing we can afford at the end of the day.

It's a complicated topic. 30 years ago and today I could not afford to live in Kensington so I an most other middle class people and plenty of working class trug in on the London underground for at least an hour a day from the dormitory suburbs. it does not kill us. MPs might think it's impossible and need two properties but they are wrong.

As we know people in that block in the dreadful tragedy were hugely varied, most not from the UK, two italian architects for example whom I presume were rich enough to pay private rental of 1500 a month - the rent for flats in that block. Some old ladies presumably been there or in the area for years, syrian refugees, all kinds. These are not simple issues at all.

Teh only partry who has ever done anything about second homes and tax is the Tories as everyone knows. My daughter is paying over £50k (yes £50k !!!!!!!!!!!! _) stamp duty because of the new Tory anti property second homes tax. They are the middle ground fairly high tax policy these days which is one reason May was elected. This is just because she has not sold her first flat. If she sells it within 3 years she gets £22k of th stamp duty back. Secondly if she were to let out the first flat she would be taxed on profit she had not made (as the main cost - interest - is not now since April set off). For these and 12% - 15% London stamp duty rates property in London is dropping in value.

The Tories / Coalition also brought in ATED - an annual property capital tax paid on properties owned by a limited company or trust ( even if it's in a trust to ensure a silly young person does not spend the money) which starts on properties worth £500k - so another tax on London property. This is a tax paid annually every single year. So effective has it been that it's put my Yorkshire borther off buying a flat in London for his regular trips - instead he'll carry on getting up at 4am for work in London on those days he goes.

Add to that huge council taxes - mine is over £3k as I house an adult child as I live in London so don't even get a single person discount.

These many many measures have been brought out by the Tories and the previous Coalition to deal with these issues.

Labour brought out none of these. Blair and his lot did not tackle this issue. The Conservatives as ever are the people to deal with these issues best which is why the country chose not to return Corbyn as leader.

I'm still not clear on why KCTMO. was making decisions with respect to health and safety. Is it not the case that this is dictated by the government for social housing?

My understanding of KCTMO and its like is that they are responsible for carrying out discretionary works and maintainence. Have I got this wrong?

Yes as I recall the Blairs did zilch choosing instead to buy up flats in a city we can no longer afford to buy in.

The chattering classes. Making this horrendous event an excuse to talk about property prices.