To ask - Jeremy Corbyn - PM

[MommaGee]

There's stuff about how he thinks he'll be PM in 6 months. How the GLASTO coverage is a BBC plot to "see a MARXIST in power" etc etc but how?
TM is hardly going to call another election and Labor are likely to keep her long enough to get through the crap that is Brexit.

Apologies for all those thinking in thick but I don't see how JC has any even inkling of getting it, let alone a discussion on how much swing he'd need

this bill on rented accommodation is fit for human habitation and Grenfell is a conflation of 2 issues that are not necessarily linked exactly for political capital reasons:

we didn't need a bill about rental accommodation being fit in order to be able to ban cladding that was banned in America and Germany from being used on our buildings.

There are many points of failure on Grenfell - what about the fridge too? It's complex.

I'd start with why the cladding wasn't banned from use in the UK overall and work out from there.

Howabout we find out why our existing laws, bodies and oversight didn't work in this case before we convince ourselves that more laws are needed?

they are getting what they wanted

But what was that? Do they even know?

An end to immigration; who, how many, when, how skilled?

What about EU citizens in the UK, what did they want their status to be?

What about UK citizens in Europe? Did they want to secure their rights? Did they have a plan for doing so, given a hard stance on immigration?

Did they want to stay in the single market? If so, did they understand the conditions that the EU would likely apply to that?

No one had a clue what they were voting for.

in fact if i was hazarding a guess, I'd expect the fit for human habitation would look at what, plumbing, electrics, communal spaces, kitchen, bathroom, floors - do we honestly think they'd be looking at cladding specs from the builders?

It's another case where Corbyn is offering the wrong solution for the problem at hand because it's one he's got in the kit. Clearly this starts with building oversight and how we test and agree building materials.

I don't disagree with the fit for habitation stuff, I simply think this is another lazy, overly simplistic answer that doesn't address what happened with the cladding.

Yes pottered. There is no point passing legislation if safety standards tests are wrong or wrongly applied or not inspected knowledgeably. Or if the 2006 fire safety legislation has had effects that contributed. It needs untangling.

I completely disagree pottered. The issues are inextricably linked.

It's clear that the 'red tape', protocols and and policies in existence weren't sufficient to prevent cladding that is banned in other countries being used on buildings in the UK. That this was driven by financial concerns - both to do the job as cheaply as possible and to try to make the flats look better for prospective residents in private developments nearby - is pretty well established by now.

What about the fridge? Unfortunately, electrical appliances blow up every day. I've seen plenty of tower blocks with one flat burnt out, and the rest of the building in tact. The whole point about Grenfell is the speed at which the fire spread, which was a direct result of the cladding.

Labour were trying to get an amendment to an existing bill, rather than create a new one btw.

Um, yes. I do think fit for habitation would include fire safety.

It's absolutely mandatory in workplaces. Why not domestic dwellings?

that's conjecture and polemic christina. I agree waving we need to unpick all the existing processes that failed and fix those, rather than rushing to make it some other body's responsibility, that seems very unlikely to yield better results to me.

No one had a clue what they were voting for.

I disagree I know lots of people who voted leave and across the board they voted for

• sovereignty, being decisions by U.K. Courts
• controlled immigration
• free trade with Europe and the rest of the world or WTO terms where that is not possible
• not pay billions to the EU
• more freedom around farming and fisheries

You might not like it but that was largely what people wanted and that is broadly the basis on which the government are negotiating.

That might not be what they get but despite the uncertainty the majority of people who voted have voted to leave.

I would have thought the leave vote vindicates what Cameron did even if it wasn't the result he wanted. It's called democracy!

The cost differential doesn't point to that Christina rosetti.

It seems There was a belief that cladding was not going to affect compartmentalisation. It was not supposed to happen..

There may be other issues with internal compartmentalisation being undermined due to improvements ( to make homes "habitable"?) like gas supply which punches holes throughout a building!

He's just enjoying the publicity, safe in the knowledge that he's not going to have to do any hard work. All mouth and no substance, like his manifesto. I doubt he'd actually want to DO the job; it's more fun for him taking the salary and just slagging the Tories off while being hailed as wonderful.

YY.
Although I do think he's starting to believe his own hype though...

If there's another GE this year (I hope there's not) then I fully expect him to be decimated.
A lot of labour candidates campaigned on the "don't worry, he won't get in" message - next time, people won't take that risk.

What's conjecture and polemic pottered? Something you don't want to engage with?

I haven't said anything that the Conservative party haven't acknowledged themselves btw.

might I also add: going after individual LLs for building materials when we're talking about tower blocks is again the wrong way around - oversee the building materials and works properly, i don't see how legislation on habitation targeted at LLs will affect this directly.

Fire safety in rentals at the LL level will mean firedoors and fire extinguishers being fitted in most cases and is going to be far too late in the process.

i mean christina that you don't know that the habitation amendment would've done anything to fix the cladding issue - it's conjecture causing you and Corbyn's team to link the two, not proven fact. Even if that amendement included a fire safety remit, we don't know what those checks would've included.

The holes being punched in the cladding is another interesting wrinkle - this is why we need a proper preview before action/lessons are determined.

*I disagree I know lots of people who voted leave and across the board they voted for

• sovereignty, being decisions by U.K. Courts
• controlled immigration
• free trade with Europe and the rest of the world or WTO terms where that is not possible
• not pay billions to the EU
• more freedom around farming and fisheries*

Absolutely none of that was clarified in the terms of the referendum. None. And the vast majority of these points are hugely complicated with there being no clarity that leaving the EU would make any difference to them.

That is broadly the basis on which the government are negotiating.

Wrong again. We have no clue what the government is negotiating because she won't tell us. At lease some them are impossible anyway. We will have to pay the EU for the privilege of leaving and we'll have to contribute if we want a decent trade deal with them

That's exactly why the cost differential does point to there being economic drivers, Waving Branches.

No other explanation, other than that it would make the block more attractive to those in nearby private developments have been offered.

If there weren't, and the priority was the safety of the residents of Grenfell, there might have been more consideration given to the fact that this cladding is banned in other countries.

It was horrifyingly obvious from the footage that the fire spread terrifying quickly up the outside of the building. It didn't go through holes created for 'gas pipes'. The cladding burnt at an unbelievable rate.

As I said before, I've seen plenty of burnt out flats in tower blocks but nothing like this. And neither has anyone else in the UK.

I meant the structure of the flats pottered. It's happened in my dad's ha flat where they retrofitted gas heating and refitted bathroom. There was a hole left for a month between neighbours' flats - they could chat through it!

No we don't pottered.

The point that I originally made is that the proposed amendment to the bill was voted down by, and only by, Conservative MPs.

I think it's absolutely right to make a party political point out of this.

Are you conjecturing about holes in the cladding now pottered?

well, we'll have to agree to disagree christina, we've no idea whether this amendment would've affected the outcome.

We DO know that our existing buildings oversight failed (for whatever reason) and we should start with that, rather than complaining about some habitation amendment that the tories voted down. Our existing risk assessments massively failed, we need to determine why, not create new laws as a knee jerk reaction.

Wrong again. We have no clue what the government is negotiating because

Sorry but I do have some idea because I have listened to and watched interviews with politicians doing the negotiations. Of course I don't know all the ins and outs because it would be stupid to give details but that doesn't mean we don't broadly know.
On the trade and access to the customs union you may be correct that there is some payment but that doesn't change the fact that there could be tarrif free access.
I guess we will see in 18 months.

I know I would be considerably more worried if JC was negotiating.

ha nice one Christina. I believe I've said several times we need a proper, independent inquiry to establish the failure points and corrective actions, rather than some random policy of Corbyn's.

Sorry but I do have some idea because I have listened to and watched interviews with politicians doing the negotiations.

Where they refuse to be pinned down on any actual hard positions. You come across as a bit trusting. That's nice, just keep believing what Theresa tells you. It'll all be fine.

I don't think anyone would disagree that there needs to be a proper, independent inquiry. Urgently.

One that isn't overseen by TM and her self-serving cabinet.

yes - exactly. And nobody sensible should commit further than that - let's have an inquiry and figure out as best we can what checks we should have in place.

fwiw, i do think there is evidence that the conservatives have not dealt adequately with some market failures - firms doing the disability assessments, not enough bursaries for nurses, they need to put the caring back into conservatism.

Perhaps the building cladding is another one - but we shall see.

That doesn't mean Corbyn's policies are the answer as yet.

Jeremy Corbyn is the genial face and puppet of a very nasty hard left political movement known as Momentum. If he ever becomes PM they will be dictating to him their policies and causes. During the election instead of reasoned debate on forums such as this we had hard left Momentum posters hurling aggressive abuse at anyone who didn't agree with them and shutting down opposite views.

Also John McDonald waving Mao's red book around parliament shows where his and JC's sympathies lie. 45 million people died under Mao's communist regime something John Macdonnell felt could be joked about.

If you value freedom of speech, personal liberties and a functioning economy you would not vote for Jeremy Corbyn to be PM but if North Korea is your idea of a great country to live in then Corbyn and Momentum are for you