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.

I'm very angry with Blair's government too, they had a chance to improve things but didn't (though to be fair, you can't really call Labour under Blair 'Labour' as they were Tory Lite)

I don't think anyone is arguing that Corbyn is the same as new labour

But all are saying that the policy of austerity should not unfairly disadvantage those at the bottom

The truth of the matter is that Labour, Lib Dems and Tories are all in bed with the super-rich who simply like low interest rates and this has allowed the housing market to overheat for years and years.

Corbyn wants to break this stranglehold, and that's virtuous at its core, but he wants to treat the symptoms rather than the cause and that makes property-rights types (like me) tetchy.

As it stands, the market is inflated and we need a gentle cooling rather than a sharp drop or tax revenues will suffer as will property owners across the UK.

7461Mary, with all due respect, how does any of what you have said have any bearing on the issue at hand? You're talking about property prices and how much your children are paying for properties and trying to cover the government in glory when it is abundantly clear that policies are not working.

I'll bet property prices would drop if foreign investors weren't allowed to buy up properties in the capital that they never live in. There should be a minimum residence requirement for buying.

And TM wonders why she didn't get a large majority at the election. The government has handled this tragedy so badly - some people have still not received any help. The only positive I can see from this is that it will hasten TM exit - she and her party are not capable to provide help to those who need it, let alone run the country.

Does Corbyn wonder why he did not get a large majority at the election?

I won't argue with you about what New Labour did / didn't do, they were Tory lite after all. I didn't agree with lots of what they did.

The build up to this has been spread over different governments.

But currently this government have exasperated The division and perception of the the poor and ordinary working families.

The contempt towards people have shown in their policies and austerity cuts.

They had the report in 2013, they sat on it.

KCBC cut further then was necessary, then gave £100 to each full paying council tax payers.

I'm very angry with Blair's government too, they had a chance to improve things but didn't (though to be fair, you can't really call Labour under Blair 'Labour' as they were Tory Lite)

I don't agree with that at all. You can't blame shift what Blair did to the Tory party.

I completely agree that there are social issues to resolve with regards to owning and renting property. The burden that is placed on young vs old is one issue. The other is the policies around ownership in some parts of London where oligarchs buy property but do not live in them. Indeed, they gave made contributed to the inflated house prices in London. However, the way Jeremy Corbyn is seeking to address the problem is likely to cause long term damage to all.

This is lazy to label these problems as rich vs poor. Frankly it is not rich versus poor at all because the vast majority of the people in the UK are not rich. Even the people who are earning £80k can barely make ends meet and are working like donkeys to earn a living.

Sorry, don't really understand your post gloria

Is property rights not a human right. Please check what human rights are about. Property right is a bastion of civil society.

It is my human right to have my property rights preserved, whatever my property may be - bricks and mortar, intellectual, etc

I really don't understand this mentality. Yes, labour made huge mistakes under Blairs shoddy leadership but it really isn't about shifting the blame onto the Tories by any means necessary. The Tories wanted to be in power and they won it. It is not by force that you run for government, it is choice. These politicians chose to run the country and that means assuming responsibility for the people inhabiting it. We cannot simply say oh well labour did this that and the other, Labour kicked off this policy or that privatisation, Blair was responsible for xyz when the fact is that the current government is Tory. The issues and policies that are failing people then become their responsibility because they are now at the helm. That is fact. I'd say it's far more absurd to shift blame to historic Labour leadership when they are not the ones in power right now.

7461Mary - your post has nothing to do with this tragedy

Another, comparing property rights to human rights is so incredibly laughable I don't even know where to begin and you're borderline disrespectful. Do you not see the cruel irony in talking about your property rights when people among the most disenfranchised in the country have been left without a pot to piss in? It would be laughable if it wasn't so bloody tragic.

in fact it would be laughable if it wasn't so bloody tragic*

I do hope all those who think there should be controls on people owning second homes, investing in property, btl etc (which I agree with on in a gut level, although I'm not sure how it could be enforced) who are Labour supporters are making their views known to the Labour party, many of the MPs of whom own second homes, invest in property and are btl landlords.

LotusBomb It sounds like you are saying to Another that our laws should no longer be applicable because there has been a disaster. Is that what you are saying?

Similar issues surrounding regulation happen accross social demographics. Remember fire regulations for Halloween costumes? No body thought to change those laws either.

I think the issue of second homes is difficult. What about the father that has to work away? Or the student only living at that address for half the year?

No, that's not what I'm saying and you're reaching massively if that's what you've inferred. People are saying that some of our current laws around property marginalise the poorest in our society. I'd say that is pretty evident. If Having the discussion about requisition of empty properties owned by foreign buyers so that those who have been left homeless then don't have to be further ripped away from everything that is familiar to them and the community that has supported them far more than the government has is prompting pearl clutching and talks about property rights. I find this pretty gross. Property rights do not trump human rights. If the current laws around property rights cause issues regarding human rights then what a civil society should be doing is looking at how some of those laws need to change. It's not about being non applicable, it's about revision.

presstv.com/Detail/2017/06/17/525600/500-residents-died-in-London-tower-fire-

Should we be discussing this? I'm not sure what to make of it.