5 ms·

I would summarise the article's arguments as follows: A state-owned, and state-managed block of apartments burned, causing a horrible loss of life due to a str

by Lazare 9y ago

I would summarise the article's arguments as follows: A state-owned, and state-managed block of apartments burned, causing a horrible loss of life due to a string of horrible decisions made by state employees and politicians. This is clearly the fault of corporations, capitalism, and politicians who were not involved in the decisions. Also, Thatcher. And Americans. Especially Silicon Valley. And Republicans. I'm open to the idea that there's a larger context which is important to understand, but I'm somewhat sceptical of a conclusion so tidy as "every onewho directly caused this is innocent; everyone I disagree with is actually to blame".

stuaxo 9y ago
You're twisting and simplifying this greatly. It is in fact elements of the state that have been vilifying the poor. The state put in place the systems that mean the lowest bidder gets the job. The companies put the cladding in place then saved money further by not using the flame retardant cladding. Making this to state vs private doesn't make sense, when both are part of the system that caused this. The comment is so far from reality, it reminds me of one of the funniest things I've heard some Americans say on a train, near London; Kid: "Do British people love the government", Dad: "Yes they do". I almost spat out my coffee, it was such a hilarious misrepresentation.
- Lazare 9y ago
  > The state put in place the systems that mean the lowest bidder gets the job. The companies put the cladding in place then saved money further by not using the flame retardant cladding. Actually, no. The paper trail is clear; the council requested the contractors switch to more dangerous, aluminium cladding to save money. This wasn't about private sector greed costing lives; this was a decision made in the public sector. According to this article[1] linked from the citylab piece: "One document - a list of requested savings sent to contractors in July 2014 - details potential savings of £693,161, reducing the cost of the contract from about £9.2m to £8.5m. It includes £293,368 that would be saved by fitting "aluminium cladding in lieu of zinc cladding". [...] The savings were part of an ongoing effort by the council and the local tenant management organisation to drive down the cost of the refurbishment. [...] the change was typical of constant pressure by councils [...] this led to the appointment of a different contractor in 2014 which was then asked to make savings including on the cladding. The entire process was driven by the local council, and the money saved went to the council, not the contractors. > Making this to state vs private doesn't make sense, when both are part of the system that caused this. Sure, the contractors and the council were part of the same system. And in this system, the council hired the contractors, and told them to cut corners; when the first contractors didn't cut enough corners, they found new contractors who could cut more corners. Just because different actors are part of the same system doesn't mean their actions, responsibility, and culpability are equal. (And many of the actors mentioned in the citylab piece, such as silicon valley, aren't even part of the system.) [1]: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40453054 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40453054
sebastianconcpt 9y ago
Upvoted. Abolutely fair summary. I'd add that any article using the word "neoliberalism" would fall in this category. Also lower you 20 IQ points if you treat it with respect.

by Lazare 9y ago

stuaxo 9y ago

You're twisting and simplifying this greatly. It is in fact elements of the state that have been vilifying the poor. The state put in place the systems that mean the lowest bidder gets the job. The companies put the cladding in place then saved money further by not using the flame retardant cladding. Making this to state vs private doesn't make sense, when both are part of the system that caused this. The comment is so far from reality, it reminds me of one of the funniest things I've heard some Americans say on a train, near London; Kid: "Do British people love the government", Dad: "Yes they do". I almost spat out my coffee, it was such a hilarious misrepresentation.

Lazare 9y ago
> The state put in place the systems that mean the lowest bidder gets the job. The companies put the cladding in place then saved money further by not using the flame retardant cladding. Actually, no. The paper trail is clear; the council requested the contractors switch to more dangerous, aluminium cladding to save money. This wasn't about private sector greed costing lives; this was a decision made in the public sector. According to this article[1] linked from the citylab piece: "One document - a list of requested savings sent to contractors in July 2014 - details potential savings of £693,161, reducing the cost of the contract from about £9.2m to £8.5m. It includes £293,368 that would be saved by fitting "aluminium cladding in lieu of zinc cladding". [...] The savings were part of an ongoing effort by the council and the local tenant management organisation to drive down the cost of the refurbishment. [...] the change was typical of constant pressure by councils [...] this led to the appointment of a different contractor in 2014 which was then asked to make savings including on the cladding. The entire process was driven by the local council, and the money saved went to the council, not the contractors. > Making this to state vs private doesn't make sense, when both are part of the system that caused this. Sure, the contractors and the council were part of the same system. And in this system, the council hired the contractors, and told them to cut corners; when the first contractors didn't cut enough corners, they found new contractors who could cut more corners. Just because different actors are part of the same system doesn't mean their actions, responsibility, and culpability are equal. (And many of the actors mentioned in the citylab piece, such as silicon valley, aren't even part of the system.) [1]: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40453054 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40453054

sebastianconcpt 9y ago

Upvoted. Abolutely fair summary. I'd add that any article using the word "neoliberalism" would fall in this category. Also lower you 20 IQ points if you treat it with respect.