itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

I hope you adopt the same disdain for the many existing MP's who cheered Tony Blair's Iraq war speech/vote and sit at the top of their parties tree.

That's a little different though - the sensitivity bit - because a comment like that definitely changes/reinforces peoples opinions, well exampled by the young person who made the point in the context of mainstream media. However, the comment made was not on the insensitivity to the vote but that they cheered voting down the pay increase. That's not accurate and it reinforces a false narrative rather than fact. It should have been challenged, particularity as it was a Queens speech and some in the BBCQT room must know Conservative rebels were looming and the pay review is coming. Misappropriating fact for a political narrative s wholly divisive and both sides should be ashamed when they do it or support those who do. Corbyn and Hamas, the red button or even the bus, they were all false narratives and they continue to divide.

But surely a Guardian favourite - Sharon White, Chief Exec of Ofcom - is doing a superb job and should be trusted implicitly in her judgement. Very tongue in cheek especially as I don't truly know her influence in this whole thing and what Ofcom could/should be doing....

I'm playing devils advocate here because we both know the Conservatives are playing politics, but technically they didn't just vote 'not to remove the cap', but to wait until the pay review is completed before making a decision. However, I think we both know how often recommendations are actually fully embraced by political parties! https://hansard.digiminster.com/Commons/2017-06-28/debates/BC4CBE6F-0750-4939-A277-0745C918E944/HealthSocialCareAndSecurity#contribution-C8A5D5BC-B8C5-4DD7-8FF6-6CCB8A36650F It's important to make the distinction because any failure to now take on board the review and others opinions will make them look even weaker. Though clearly misinformation is the order of the day as watching question time I saw Nick Ferrari say mainstream media is important for journalistic integrity and then a woman puts her hand up to tell us a story she probably saw on social media that the Conservatives cheered the public sector pay defeat, when they were really cheering an amendment victory......it couldn't have been a more ignorant response and the Canary woman nodding away just shows what a mess the media is really in.

I don't think it's that bad and it gives them a chance to show they can be united even when they disagree. I'm not a big fan of Chuka but fair play to him for tabling/voting for what he believed in. Corbyn was 'King of the Rebels'.

They ask which party you belong/belonged to and I'd imagine not being of a certain political persuasion does count against you.

It was a little tongue in cheek as it's quite a list but meh, let's play! I work with caseworkers, had friends who have done the job and have been a caseworker myself (voluntarily. as some parties can't afford to pay). I also spent many years applying for those positions because I was shocked at how little some MP's really knew about their area. (I said some, many are superb) I understand the job and how hard it is but I also feel that some of that workload described says more about the what the MP doesn't already know than how difficult the job is....or maybe he's just being super, super descriptive!

Sadly so. Before he was elected I asked my local MP (candidate at the time) how he felt about building homes on the greenbelt considering there was no land (his words, not mine). He hushed quietly that 'he was for it'. When I then asked how he would manage that opinion as an MP when it's in direct opposition to his Council (he was a local councillor at the time) he asked what I meant because he wasn't at odds........when I explained to him that he just contradicted his local policy and the general election manifesto, he shrugged and moved the conversation to police cuts and terrorism. Is a very nice chap though.

You could just become an MP without the title or salary of an MP..... http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=61175

The rise of UKIP can very much be attributed to Labour's failures and so you are correct that many terrible things have and continue to occur under the Conservatives, but I don't think you are giving Blair/Brown and all the other career politicians that remain in their positions equal weight in criticism. Unless you're happy with a million dead in Iraq, many no shows in votes and inquiry after inquiry (look at Hillsborough) swept under the carpet. This is also particularity true of devolved powers where local councils from both political sides have been letting down our communities for decades. Funnily enough, when elected, UKIP do pretty well in local politics. Both lists of failures are endless, which is my entire point. By being so divisive we have done our society and nation a disservice, and again, the rise of UKIP is a perfect example of that. Yet nobody talks about why we end up with these one-policy groups, just that we must get rid of them......well that certainly worked for the EU referendum. I worked in many of the industries/sectors you have drawn attention to and to be honest the cuts didn't cause the biggest problems, not to us guys on the front line, it was the stupid decisions of parties playing politics with regulation and policy which in many cases moved funding away from the front line, plus lower wages and higher rents. (Remember, the cost of housing rose the most under Labour, not the Conservatives...but for me that's just another unhelpful stat when taken in isolation....) Those policy/regulatory decisions created the real cuts, this time administered by the private sector, because New Labour (like the Conservatives) were obsessed with privatisation. In benefits that was a disaster but Labour kept chucking money at it until the Conservatives rightly (but too harshly) changed the process. And not even that much! Most of what you see today is New Labour structure, which is why it keeps failing. eg - When supporting people back into work for a private company (govt contract) I had £6k client spend (retained by the private company if not all used up), could earn £1000+ after the first appointment (we were meant to see 13 people a day), I was discouraged from working with the hardest to help (my contract was 'Helping the Hardest to Help'), and earned around 30% more than my JobCentrePlus partners. We even had psychologists that weren't allowed to do complex work. Our company was so inefficient that Scotland tried to get rid but Labour allowed them to rebrand and win bigger contracts. It was such a poorly administered programme that even Birmingham City Council (biggest council in Europe) was too small to bid for the contract! New Labour were just as poisonous because they too often relied on ignorance as a method of governance. You can call the 'Tories poison' if you like but there are many good individuals in all parties (as you say) and it's important they rise to the top or the bad ones learn from their mistakes.....judging from both cabinets I think it's safe to say that at the moment it's career politics as usual....apart from one man, who only got his chance because of a joke nomination.

Until Corbyn came in I felt exactly the same about Labour. But then I also had direct voluntary experience with Labour councils, councillors and MP's as well as Conservative ones and the difference in competence was huge. (just in case you weren't sure, Labour were the villains over and over again, they literally didn't give a **** (not a swear word) about people and the work our projects did) How could anyone vote for a party which did everything the Conservatives did but didn't tell you how poorly they were managing it or how badly you'd be stung when it all fell apart? Now things are different and there is a choice (sort of, the PLP are still useless) but since 2001, anyone being anti-Conservative but voting Labour probably didn't look at the overall picture and was too entrenched in hate. I always voted for the best local candidate because I saw how policy was made and noticed how infrequently my elected MP's would either vote or speak in parliament. Of course how they voted was important but not as important as why they chose to vote that way....though few people bother to think/ask about that. People honestly think if they vote for X,Y and Z and not this party that it will make a difference, well sadly that's bullplop. The only way to get change is to vote in good people who are willing to fight for policy and their community. I'd take a rebel over a lazy career politician any day of the week!

Sadly for you, it is. You have asked pretty much nothing from me that will inform the debate. You'll have to point out things I have said relative to construction which make no sense.....as I said before, you don't do that. You simply do opposition! Which brings us nicely again to your parting and failed point. I'll help everyone which is why I haven't withdrawn from the conversation...whereas twice you have said you are done with talking to me despite me actually having in-depth knowledge I have been sharing for quite some time....about lots of things not just construction. It's a shame for sure....but not my shame. Your only POV when replying to me is opposition, with no compromise on your one sided approach. You can''t even accept that my blame perspective holds any weight and when you do throw accusations you direct it at two figures that are easy to hate. You even questioned, not asked about, the Mayoral powers! It's frustrating but if I can cope with 14 hour days for three years to save the Aston Arena, I can cope with the occasional flurry of facts directed at your entrenched opinion....I know others have benefited from my knowledge as I have benefit from theirs!

Definitely. Stuff like PFI, welfare to work, increase in leasehold properties, focus on university and away from a wider career spectrum, OFSTED, closing of school kitchens and move onto offsite catering, academies etc. etc. were policies which impacted people on the ground and I believe hurt the most. I started my love affair with wasted money when working on a Labour crafted 'helping the hardest to help' contract. It was delivered by the private sector and appalling is too weak a crticism. The worst part was the Conservatives came in and rubbed their hands with glee; it was exactly the mechanism for privatisation they were desperate for but now they had cross party support! Absolute disaster!

I see it slightly differently, though we're not too far apart in the final six words. I always felt it was clear 'to all of those with more than half a brain' that we needed a mix of policy, austerity and spend and that spend/support in certain areas had far outweighed the benefits. Restructuring was needed with an element of austerity, but not austerity across the board. That was exceedingly stupid but local authorities are still culpable, and they continue to cut local services rather than resource draining revenue streams. This mess didn't start a decade ago when the Tories came in, it started well before the new government were left a note to say there was no money!

It was a tongue in cheek comment but for fun; Corbyn's Labour are......if we're going on the accepted academic definition of far-left being the extreme left of a political party or group.......but then accepted academic definitions might also place Western activities as 'terrorism', so meh, I prefer tongue in cheek! But back to the fun; 'New Labour' were basically Conservatives and Corbyn represents an ideology the main party (many elected MP's) rallied against and still rally against, even if they kept their jobs because of it! Under that accepted academic definition he, or the newest Old Labour are 'far-left'. Not so fun

Same reason the far left are. They have an agenda and rhetoric and look for the first opportunity to push that. Those sorts don't care about context or content, just clicks!

This can cover two points above and below! - You express that you have little knowledge whereas I have some. I hope you can simply take my word for it because you don't seem the sort to do research for yourself; or we wouldn't be having this conversation! It was tongue in cheek because you're obsessed with opposing me rather than either accepting I have knowledge you don't, or specifically asking me about a topic! Exactly. The review process is done at very many levels from designer to central govt. Therefore no-one is to blame, yet. We're nowhere near that stage! You're doing it again, blaming others when there is collective fault! The mayor of London has the powers to set up a review, to speak to LA's, to find the funding for improvements and to put conversations onto the agenda....but then for you that's not his job, it's the job of everyone who isn't Labour! Funny he can promise to change planning so we get more affordable homes but he can't change the conversation about fire safety. Meh, I guess one wins votes and the other conversation wins the hearts of non-voters. As we have established and you have confirmed, this isn't your realm so you can either accept facts or keep arguing opposition. Khan could have done more to drive the agenda, especially with so many Labour councils in London. The government could have legislated and that includes all ex-housing ministers (plus shadow ones) AND PM. Local authorities could have imposed planning conditions (the majority of found failed cladding on flats is in Labour councils) The products pass the fire safety test but perhaps not together, That's two conversations and we are just understanding it all now....before we join the blame game! The developer clearly looked to save cash as did the designers but then again, pointS above!!!! McDowell said the residents were - "murdered by political decisions that were taken over recent decades." Thank god the Labour party is moving on and leaving all those horrible entrenched sorts behind! On the last point about 'same government'. Nope. This government is very different than the last, particularly in housing. I look forward to you blaming John Healey too, I really like him, he seems genuine, but under your logic and his experience in DCLG, he should be added to the list of accountable and perhaps not the Shadow Minister for Housing,

No, serious recommendations made over the decades. Not chit-chat. It's news to you. But then we established in the other thread that you're not too bothered about construction regulation or the opinion of industry in driving good practice. I'm only 35 and they were discussing sprinklers in council buildings a long long time before I even started Uni. When I tried to save the Aston Arena is was one of the first things I checked when doing my H+S report (2012) and the first thing the fire safety officer discussed with me when I kept it open for another 6 months. We had to isolate the non-sprinkler sections. Informal report which led to the inquest. A bit like now when everyone is spending their time blaming as many Conservatives as they can instead of listening to what people are actually saying. Yup Snowy I'd portion blame to Boris too. Exactly right, a full term, a bit like May or Barwell never had. Boris did an awful job for London....well, not awful. he did a good job carrying on the good things Ken did.

More general. Fire safety officers and tenants have always discussed problems with workmanship and value of sprinklers but it's only when something happens that we focus blame on the easiest targets; who are still culpable of course. The issues with fire safety. It's not a new topic. He's been an MP in London for many years, surely to god saw the report in 2009 and by 2016 was the Mayor for a city with the most flats and substandard accommodation in the UK. By working with tenants he campaigned on new housing estates and regeneration so I am assuming he knew. If he didn't know then I'm bang wrong (seems v unlikely, particularity with his work history), but I won't be wrong in saying that if he didn't know, he's shown negligence in his role. I wouldn't go as far as to blame him, though I'd argue he should take as much criticism as people feel Barwell and May deserve. Well we can argue the causes of bankruptcy all day because it's not only central governments fault, not by a long shot. However, local authorities can find the money for revenue officers but not a planner or planning policy procedure to enforce sprinklers as part of a planning condition? That's local authority prioritisation/ignorance and nothing to do with their bank account.

All great points and it's been in discussion for the last 20 years. Labour and Conservatives should hang their heads in shame. The Tenancy Management Organisation also has two councillors on it, one Labour, one Conservative. Khan has known about his for many years and as Mayor should take some responsibility considering his powers in the city and the way planning is delivered in London. That's a big one actually, local government has not taken enough criticism when they can very easily require sprinklers as part of a planning condition....all over London....if it was a priority! It doesn't excuse central government from ignoring this problem, especially in shared accommodation, though as I mentioned previously cost is a problem as we're seeing in Wales and perhaps some of those costs will be people lives. Some sprinkler systems don't work properly (or at all) and there has been no investment to make sure water pressure is adequate. In part that's because regulation was rushed through without making sure the infrastructure was in place. That's not inherently bad but it's pretty negligent.

Sorry to go off topic but I wanted to ask whether you consider this Labour and the previous one (New Labour) as different? And if so does it matter to you? I've never seen a Labour government that really knew how to govern for the people without spending frivolously and so I preferred to vote Conservative as they seem to care about the balance sheet. However, imo things are now different and Labour are more representative of the values I thought we shared...though i'm v sceptical about the quality of many Labour MP's,

I think perhaps the major difference is how the media outlets work and those stories get softened as you go up the chain and more brutal as you move to social media and chinese whispers. It's still the same message of ignorance and it permeates. But then I feel it's the media climate we live in and the anti-Tory union and hyped criticism of everything until we know the facts is as dangerous. We shouldn't be engaging in any public outcry that pitches one against the other unless the whole thing is out in the open....cough, brexit.

I think you've made an interesting point about heightening tensions, especially for a tower fire. Imo she should have been there at first light helping while her guys worked on the next action. No press opportunity, just solidarity. That to me is the the leader I want even if she'd have taken a lot of flack. However, on the flack side, Khan deserves it as much as Barwell/May and I think fair play to him for showing up to take it. Angry people need to vent somewhere and showing up calms the ongoing conversation. It is going to be interesting to see how politicians and the media handle this awful incident.

Funny isn't the word, it's damn painful!

The EU typically hiding their problems and coming to the table looking organised but without the blessing/support of many member states. It's a bit like the 'Health of the EU' survey!