Summary
The Grenfell inquiry highlights systemic failures rooted in neoliberal ideologies that prioritises minimal regulation and government oversight, contributing to the tragedy seven years ago.
The Grenfell Report suggests multiple parties share the blame, but the focus should be on the indifference to regulations that led to the disaster. Both major UK political parties have been influenced by that indifference, underscoring the need for genuine reform in thinking that leads to regulation to protect society and prevent future tragedies.
Musing on what to say about the Grenfell inquiry has been quite hard. Nothing anyone can say can take away the trauma of what happened seven years ago, or its aftermath for so many people. I will not try in that case: this was a tragedy that the inquiry has decided need not have happened. I can only hope those who lost so much are compensated now.
What I do note is that the summaries of the report that I have read and heard suggest that there are many parties to whom blame can be apportioned. I see little benefit in reiterating just who those parties might be.
I do, however, note that there is a very strong political dimension to this disaster that can be discussed now without in any way prejudicing whether or not prosecutions might take place because I am not interested in personalities. I am instead interested in the systemic failure that occurred.
My overwhelming impression, having read quite a lot, is that throughout all the organisations that dealt with fire regulations and fire safety in the run-up to this disaster, there was, without apparent exception, an indifference to the obligations that those laws and regulations created.
We know the coalition government from 2010 onwards was contemptuous of regulation. Their attitude was commonplace throughout right-wing politics, in particular in this era, although Labour was not exempt. This attitude created the culture that permitted Grenfell to happen.
In addition, anyone who has engaged with the business community throughout the last 40 years will be familiar with the contempt that many so-called business leaders, including the directors of many companies on whose actions lives depended, have shown for the role of the state and the need for regulation to ensure that markets operate in the public interest.
And as anyone with the power to observe knows, regulation has too often been little more than a facade during much of the neoliberal era, becoming a lucrative game for those appointed to senior roles in organisations regulating sectors about which they had little or no knowledge, and who were unskilled in the significance of regulation itself.
Underpinning all of this is, of course, one political philosophy, which is that of neoliberalism. Neoliberal thinkers, whether they be philosophers, economists or politicians, have argued that minimal government and regulation is what enables society to prosper. Of all those who are likely to face prosecution once the Metropolitan police close what will end up seeming like a never-ending investigation in the aftermath of this report, the proponents of neoliberalism are the least likely to face any risk of being brought to account and yet in my opinion they are easily the most culpable for their actions.
The falsehoods that they have promulgated have ultimately led to the deaths of the victims of Grenfell.
Their claim that small government is good for society is wrong. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Likewise, their claim that limited regulation is necessary for competition to thrive is false. You can no more have fair competition and honest markets without high quality, properly imposed regulation then you can have a game of soccer without the rules of football being followed.
In addition, the idea that low cost when it comes to government is necessarily best is very obviously false, as has been proven so many times, not least at Grenfell.
And finally, the tacitly implied idea within neoliberalism that tokenistic regulation is all that is necessary is very obviously false. If society is to be protected from abuse, which abuse is apparent throughout much of the activity that led to this disaster, then proper regulation led by those who are dedicated to the task, who are trained in it and who are committed to upholding standards for the benefit of society as a whole is essential. Anything else is disastrous.
The faults that I note have permeated the thinking of too many of the UK's political parties, and most especially that of both the Tories and Labour: there is little point differentiating them. They have embraced these corrupt ideas to deliver government that is not fit for purpose and which has failed us.
The unfortunate fact is that this is not the message that has been delivered about why the Grenfell disaster happened. Appointing a judge-led inquiry, overseen by a person who is himself a member of the establishment, was never likely to result in an outcome where the systemic failings that resulted in this tragedy were going to be mentioned, let alone be discussed. It seems that they have not been.
Instead, the focus is on the detail and the personalities, but not on the real underlying cause of the failure.
That real cause is the neoliberal thinking that is corrupting our society in so many ways. Only by ridding our politics of that thinking will we eliminate the risk of another Grenfell happening, but what is the likelihood of that happening when most of our politicians are corrupted by this thinking?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Neoliberalism is primarily about profit, as that in their eyes, is the only metric that measures success.
It is based on a misquoting of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of the markets, that they tend to find the best options for the economy.
In practice, neoliberal is best only for a small group of people who make money.
Neoliberalism puts profit before people, as highlighted by the last 40 years, and the people of Grenfell.
I do agree to a certain extent that relaxation of rules were a causal effect here, but I have seen a dramatic increase in heath & safety and product standards over the last 30 years in my business life, so I feel the issue lies partly elsewhere.
The lack of professionalism of local authority staff and the cloak of limited liability responsibility for advisors and suppliers is more to blame in my view. If that could be addressed to make individuals and/or corporate officials personally liable for their actions, this would be a significant contributory factor in improving standards and reducing the likelihood of such events reoccurring.
It is all very well to say those affected should be compensated, but simple putting the onus on local authorities or government to foot the bill does not address the issue, it just means someone else suffers by funding being cut elsewhere.
I am nit any more convinced about your argument on unprofessional local authority staff (some exist, everywhere) than I am on compensation.
You are looking for detail
Look at the big picture
“Instead, the focus is on the detail and the personalities, but not on the real underlying cause of the failure.”
See my reply below to this exact question.
I was first involved with Building Control in the mid 70s, as a trainee post grad surveyor.
We were called in to measure the falls on a drain, on a major rehab scheme, and all underground works had then to be inspected and approved before they were covered up.
Almost no Building Regulations specifications are inspected nowadays for compliance. They are mostly self certified by the builder or installer.
Since BRE was privatised it too has relied on self inspection, and materials testing outsourced.
I have no idea when the compliance changes took place, but it is a feature of ‘light touch’ regulation to minimise checks and balances.
“Lack of professionalism of local authority staff” – my erse.
Building Inspectors hate and despise the current system, because it undermines their own professionalism.
Their role is public safety and the material integrity of buildings.
The most diligent and committed local authority staff, like Environmental Health inspectors have had their roles stripped away by the self certification culture nd budget cuts in local government – deliberately so by Tory central government.
I think you owe them an apology.
‘Tony’
I am a Development Manager working for a local authority.
Only the other day we had a local authority (LA) Building Control Officer on my site advising on the sub-structure – the pouring of concrete for a raft foundation.
My experience of LA building control is that they are very good, but slow – particularly when looking at detailed construction drawings.
Why?
Because their wages are shit. It is a public service after all. They cannot retain staff.
In the public sector realm, we do not get away with anything and do things by the book.
To do things as badly as what happened at Grenfell can only be pre-meditated and deliberate. And has all the hallmarks of the private sector practice. Was the LA Building Control involved or were they private?
As part of my job I purchase s.106 acquisitions from private developers. Nearly every time we do this we have to refuse to take the properties at handover even though a Building Control Officer has been around, the NHBC inspection has been done, the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) have signed the property off as mortgageable, the electrics have been certified (gas too) because the units are:
1. Not connected to the drainage system.
2. The RCD mains protection device has not been wired in, poor electric workmanship.
3. No spark arresters on gas boilers.
4. Blocked drainage (with building rubble).
5. Roofing materials not fitted to spec.
6. Vent flues from bathrooms/kitchens not connected to external emission points.
7. Poor connections for fire suppressant systems.
8. I could go on………………….
My view after 13 years in development is that certification for works that only has to be there for the building control officer (BCO) to record that it is certified – is not worth the paper it is written on. BCOs are not electricians or gas installers. They look at the structures and layouts (for example access out of a building if it is on fire). So do we ned more people checking? Of course we do.
One of the good things that came out of Grenfell is that because the indemnity charges went up on private providers of building control services went up, a lot of them left the market hopefully leaving us with the better ones. Hopefully. Fingers crossed.
This means that we now have the Building Safety Act 2022 and any building over a certain height can only be signed off and approved by a local authority building control officer – not a private one. That speaks for itself. This means more work for local authority building control officers who also have to sign off electric vehicle charging points as well.
But the wages are still crap for such an important role and recruitment and retention is hard.
And many LA building control officers will tell you that they are simply not informed by people about building works or work to existing homes because people want to avoid their charges. Many of these people avoiding BC charges are themselves on crap wages, as well as builders cutting corners for profit. We have been to building sites with advanced works which have NEVER seen a building control officer. And of course, we don’t buy.
So what we have is a self reenforcing cycle of shit for a building quality control system.
My view is that before Richard has to apologise for anything, there is a lot more apologising that has to be done by many others.
The other thing is is that bribery and corruption is rife and no one seems to be beyond it these days. But where is the vigilance?
Do you agree?
It is not Richard who owes the apology but Jim Boyd for this assertion:-
“The lack of professionalism of local authority staff”
We had a recent occasion here where, after £120m a year had been taken off our council budget (about 40%) by there being an extended freeze on Council Tax from Hoyrood by the SNP, there was only one senior Building Control Officer left for the whole authority. (We have about 80,000 people in our council area)
I heard that recruitment had been frozen for a period of several months, so staff could not even be recruited to oversee this legal duty.
I have my criticisms of Building Control in Scotland as an administrative setup, but not of individual officers, about whose professionalism I have no doubts.
They are actually obliged to sign off self certification, it being baked in to the system.
All structural engineering assessments for Regs compliance have been outsourced. IMO that was a huge mistake…
Liability insurance by the professional body is okay as far as it goes, but insurance does not guarantee a professional standard..
Also all electrical signoffs are done by the contractor, whose professional competence and integrity are judged by undertaking and passing the revisions for the latest Regs edition, and paying their subs to the NICEIC.
We have had an electrician locally with a 16th Edition ticket signing off 18th Edition works. I do not know how this boorach came about. Of course all the properties he had wired were then uninsurable.
.So we have both structural engineering and electrical works, (and there may be others), being outsourced to their trade bodies, who also validate all the professional tickets.
When government aims to undermine regulatory systems, there is little the practitioners can do, except fight a rearguard action.
Indeed. Cf Ofwat, et al.
On the morning when the headline news on BBC is about tougher penalties for water company bosses who are responsible for polluting our rivers while paying themselves huge bonuses together with and the lack of enforcement by the regulator it is clear that neoliberalism is also the root cause of this national scandal. Will the perpetrators in both the Grenfell and the Water industry ever face justice?
Unlikely
And that’s the problem, more regulation wont make any difference without being able to being people to justice.
Well said.
Corrupt politics deregulated or did not regulate (derivatives) in the finance sector and look what happened?
Corrupt politics gives us toothless regulation – look at our water companies.
Corrupt politics gives us more cost – look at the railways, whose budget is larger than than that of the previously nationalised railway.
And with Grenfell, corrupt politics gave us manslaughter. Directly.
I remember a rather corpulent Yorkshire-man bursting on the political scene in 2010. I’d never heard of him before but I could see exactly what he was straight away: a reactionary – a Right wing one – made rancid by his deep seated opposition and contempt for rules. What was worse was that like a lot of them back in the day, he actually seemed to enjoy himself. What a swine.
Grenfell is a reminder of what we are living under.
I’ve read Emma Dent-Coad’s book ‘One Kensington’ (2022) – it is worth reading. The resident’s association at Kensington & Chelsea once had a peerless reputation in resident association circles and social housing. This disgusting episode teaches us that even such a representative body as this (representing the user) can be captured as well and become a handmaiden for bad things.
I’ve seen a lot of this in the tenant representative apparatus in social housing over the years, with tenants and residents being used simply to justify and legitimize service policies that actually offer a worse service because of cost cutting under the guise of ‘Best Value’ and efficiencies – all imported of course from ‘the market’ which is so, so superior to the public sector (sarcasm warning).
It is the same ruse as that we have seen for tax payers – getting them all wound up about the cost of their tax or rent; getting their consent therefore to make changes under the promise of something different which actually works out as less. The needy, cutting their own throats again.
How they must laugh at us in the Treasury.
Well said. When I think of neoliberalism, it seems like nothing but a set of rhetorical devices developed to work on behalf of wealthy and powerful interests, they can assert them as needed. For instance “small government is good”, is just some words, there’s no evidence underpinning it. In fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary. Similarly with claims that the private sector is “innovative”, “efficient” and so on, and the state is “bloated”, “sluggish” and “unresponsive”, these are just repeated phrases, and again run counter to much evidence (PFI, outsourcing, internal pseudo-markets). Anyone who’s ever had a contractual problem with a corporation will have experienced the Kafkaesque nightmare of trying to get it resolved. This is by design (as noted by Mark Fisher in Capitalist Realism, when you phone a call centre what you get is capitalism in action). In a recent post you also noted how the private sector is wasteful and inefficient, the exact opposite of the neoliberal message. Any philosophy has to connect to an underlying reality, so neoliberalism cannot count as a philosophy. In my view, neoliberalism is simply propaganda, myth-making, marketing. It has no substance, but it does offer very easy, simplistic depictions of a world that is actually messy, complex and often inexplicable. Government as household is a particularly pernicious one, perhaps one of the deadliest. Neoliberalism leads to nonsense ideas “like bonfires of red tape” and freeing business from “stifling regulation” and so on. The media are willing promoters of this poisonous guff, never analysing what this will do systemically, especially who will lose. The media never seem to examine the systemic consequences of political decisions. The most obvious failure here is the paucity of understanding of economic consequences, for instance, govt “belt-tightening” is never examined in terms of impact on the size of the economy (govt spending seems just to disappear into a black hole), so everything seems instead to be disconnected from everything else – how it all fits together is neglected. But Grenfell is a stark example, unfortunately one of so many, of just how dangerous and destructive these ideas are.
Thanks
I blame neoliberalism for the weather..
I know you’re trolling
But the reality is, you should
@ray –
Buckle-up your seatbelt as the weather is going to get a whole lot worse and an expensive state-of-the-art umbrella and high-end Macintosh from Harrods or M&S will not protect you.
I live in Florida so I see and experience this “changing” weather every day.
Most major disasters do not derive from a single point of failure but rather from a concatenation of failures at several points. In this case almost every party bears some fault. The central government weakened building regulations and provided insufficient funding to regulatory bodies including local councils, the architects had no prior experience of this sort of structure, the specified materials were swapped for cheaper and more flammable materials in “value engineering”, everyone thought someone else was responsible for safety but it seems no one checked that the work had been done, the company producing the materials knew they failed safety tests but they were marketed on the basis that similar but different types had passed, the installation was defective, the “stay in place” response from the fire service was mistaken for a fire of this sort because the building was defective and maintained for too long, and they did not have the training or all the equipment they needed.
As you say, systemic failures for the last 40+ years. Systems that seem designed to fail, and to create such complexity that everyone can evade and deny responsibility. The purpose of the regulations is to keep people safe and they failed.
And the response has been inadequate too – so many years later we still have hundreds of similar dangerous buildings that have not been remediated. Mainly because the builders have taken the profits and walked away, but also because the landlords say it is not their problem, the tenants can’t afford it, and the government won’t step in.
It is shameful.
Thanks
“but also because the landlords say it is not their problem”
In the USA it WOULD be the landlords problem.
Cameron, Clegg, and Osborne’s infamous “Bonfire of red tape”
Factories Acts – early 19th century stuff. Done to stop workers dying – on the job. It would seem that markets and assorted neo-libtards believe that markets can do for buildings what they self evidently could not do in factories.
2 centuries of factory regulations cos markets/owners don’t (make environments safe) – but apparently markets are ok to make sure appartment blocks are safe cue arm waving by assorted neo-libtard apologists – we need more markets etc. Utopian nonesense – but supported by assorted grooming organisations collectively called the UK media.
Yes.
A distain for regulation.
But also systematic starvation of regulatory and other bodies.
For example, a friend used to be a child psychiatrist. The service was starved of resources (e.g. they got rid of consultation rooms and suggested the psychiatrists consulted in McDonald’s or similar venues. Can you believe it!). Then they suggested year on year efficiency savings of several percent. This is not possible when the service is about talking to patients! And many similar cuts. The waiting list increased. A lot. So only critical patients could be seen. Those who were merely seriously ill went on a long waiting list (and got worse).
When you have lots of seriously ill patients on a long waiting list some are going to die! Who will be blamed (scapegoated)? The doctor of course. It’s no good saying you were starved of resources, somehow you’re supposed to do the impossible (Lucy Letby comes to mind). The professional is at serious risk of serious allegations, possibly criminal allegations, for events beyond their control. The only rational thing to do, to protect yourself, is to get out.
If the good, caring, professionals are forced out, who is left? People who are either incompetent (and don’t see the dangers), or who simply don’t care and are just box tickers.
That, it seems to me, is what has been happening for the past decade or more. Our regulatory, caring, and public services have been filling up with people who are incompetent or don’t care (though, of course, there are still many good and caring people left).
Such is the consequence and legacy of neoliberalism, with results we have seen in too many scandals and public inquiries.
I also recall that a number of people who were called to give evidence would only do so if given immunity from prosecution. I don’t know if they were granted that request. I thought at the time that they must know what corners were cut.
“immunity from prosecution”
That is how you get mid-level and lower-level “paperwork pushers” (which I am one) who have seen and reviewed ALL the documentation to testify.
“Mid-level and lower-level “paperwork pushers” (which I am one) KNOW where the bodies are filed.
Fox Street Village Liverpool has long-since been an accident waiting to happen. In particular, the investigative journalist Matt O’Donoghue published a series of articles digging into the situation for Granada Reports as far back as 2018.Echo is still at it, trying to take credit for other people’s investigations. The latest concerns the dreadful Fox Street Village, a Death trap development similar to the Paramount building off London Road. The Echo jumped on the bandwagon again after two years sitting on it
Even within the pervading neoliberlism – what we optimistcally used to call ‘late capitalism’ – some countries do better than others.
Given Grenfell, Infected Blood, Postmasters, Windrush, Cash for Questions, Cash for honours etc etc suggest our whole system – our ‘good chaps’ constitution is broken. There are efffectivley no rules. And what rules there are arent enforced.
It seems it will only be possible for UK to become one of the ‘better’ countries if there is a root and branch refform of the constitution – with one underlying principle being the explicit separation between – the ‘private sector’ and the public sector – providing the rules and enforcing them
One draft – here – needs more –
1 Money will be removed from politics – corporations cannot make political donations
2 Political parties – will be regulated for basic democratic procedures – funded by members, ban on large donations, MP’s will swear an oath to vote their conscience not their party
3 Govt contracts to be awarded only by an independent body after open competition, not by the government.
4 Public bodies to be made genuinely independent, managements appointed by an independent body, not directly by the government (BBC,NHS etc.)
5 All public officials (& MPs) will be bound by Nolan principles of integrity & accountability- backed by legal redress.
6 Referendum rules – require 65% majority , with the question validated by independent body. There should be a strict referendum test. They are not appropriate for most situations.
7 Public information – will be free of disinformation – media standards strictly regulated SM, MSM, PSB , with limits on oversees or special interests ownership
8 Elections – PR voting system, fixed 5 year term, regulated by an independent election commission
9 Parliament’s second chamber – elected , limited to 200 members
10 Supreme Court – appointments only by independent legal commission, not by govt.
11 Bill of Rights – freedom of association . of peaceful assembly , of expression, of privacy, from discrimination, freedom from detention without trial by jury, privacy,
12 Honours & preferment – not awarded by govt or parties, They can no longer be bought
I confess I am not sure about the practicality and even desirability of some of those proposals
Yes indeed – just a list of possiblities to be explored
Seems to me, the best way to combat these problems (both in the USA & UK) is to get rid of FPTP and get the right people elected to government so the media will listen to their voices even if it just to sell newspapers.
For Every Rupert Murdoch and Paul Dacre, we need Richard Murphy and Danny Blanchflower X10 to help get the correct people elected.
I reckon we’re both getting past being elected…
Sorry, my Yank to Brit English failed again.
I did not mean to suggest you and Danny need to get elected to anything, though I have no problem if you both did. (Remember the new Prime Minister of France is 73 years old so being a young pensioner is a cop-out, Please come up with a more entertaining excuse! LOL! LOL!.)
I meant to state people NEED you and Danny plus others X10 in the media to fight-the-good-fight against each Rupert Murdoch and Paul Dacre type person out there spewing misinformation and outright lies.
Understood
I could not be a politician. I would lose the whip in less than a day….
@Richard
Then we just get rid of the Whip.
We do not have a “Whip” in the USA and struggle along just fine.
You could just forget the Whip, follow Danny to the USA and get a teaching position or research chair at South Florida University!
I’m not moving again
I’ve had enough of that – even for Florida sunshine
As the Grenfell inquiry shows, the responsibility for this disaster is spread over several sectors and their CEOs and senior staff including corporations, national government, local government, fire service al.
However, a major responsibility lies with RBKC council and their planning officers, senior management and the Leader of the council. It has been pointed out that the combustion tests on the cladding were unsatisfactory even to the extent that a commentator said it was like cladding the tower with a ‘layer of fire lighters’! Penny pinching was the order of the day and in this case the devil took the hindmost despite RBKC having huge financial reserves compared with other cash strappped councils. This doesn’t exonerate the cladding manufacturers and distributors from taking responsibility either. The CPS must rigorously in follow up and initiate prosecutions in every case.
I think you overstate your case
There were failings by RBKC – but I will believe the inquiry on the apportionment of blame
“As the Grenfell inquiry shows, the responsibility for this disaster is spread over several sectors and their CEOs and senior staff ”
No! The responsibility for this disaster rest with the the senior inspectors and their bosses who “passed” the Grenfell Tower remodeling project inspections and allowed the tower to keep its Certificate of Occupancy.
One of the problems of neoliberalism is regulatory capture, “a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
We see it in the government-approved regulatory authorities such as Ofcom,Ofwat and Ofgem, which all appear to be run for the benefit of the industry as public relations companies, rather than for customers.
Think Tanks are another obvious sign, organisation which are often run by anonymous donations with no effort or interest from anyone to make them more transparent.
I would also argue that capture now extends into the political parties, and the mainstream media including the newspapers and (gasp!) the BBC.
Thatcher created this crony form of quasi-regulated capitalism
“the tacitly implied idea within neoliberalism that tokenistic regulation is all that is necessary is very obviously false.”
Noe Schitt Sherlock!
I have worked in the construction design-build and engineering industry for over 20 years. Many knowledgeable people I work with followed the Grenfell Tower Housing failure-disaster (just like the one in Surfside, Florida) with academic interests into pin-pointing what exactly went wrong. The common conclusion was that the installation of the purely decorative cladding affected the structural integrity of the building allowing the fire to spread like a very virulent strain of Typhoid.
Plan reviewers and building inspectors not “catching” this problem (if I am correct in my theory) proves that plan reviewers, building inspectors, building codes and/or inspection codes are not fit-for-purpose.
Construction (which is different from the development process) needs more regulation not less in both the USA and UK
I think that’s just a symptom. The UK has indifferent politicians due to its horrible FPTP voting system.
I hear what you’re saying Stephen, but a small warning.
Here in the Netherlands we’ve reached the end of coalition politics as a viable option.
It’s come as far as this: parties write their manifestoes when an election comes around secure in the knowledge that they will drop most of their commitments ‘in the name of coalition-forming’
Geert Wilders was prepared to drop 80% of his manifesto pledges in order to cobble together a minority government here. It’s nothing but a pure lust for power.
How else could you explain a Turkish-Dutch (second generation) politician going from Socialist Party membership to taking over leadership of Mark Rutte’s conservatives at the last election.
“Incompetence, dishonesty and greed”.
These words were used by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, Chairman of the Grenfell Inquiry, to describe the contribution of the principal, named responsible parties; beginning rightly with the Government (and over the two Part Inquiry Report that is both Parties – Conservative and Labour). All damned by one or more failure of dishonesty, incompetence and greed; in fact there is another term the Chairman uses in the Report: “unscrupulous” (three times). The three chosen words have come to define the report, although as far as I can see (from a hasty search) – this is the only place the Chairman appears to use the term “greed”. It is a summation, prerhaps of the purposely poisoned air of entanglement he discovered). But the Inquiry Chairman sticks to the letter of his task, and spreads the blame no further.
The execution of policy, private or public, from central government, through local authorities and other public institutions, that end in such a damning indictment; ‘dishonesty, incompetence and greed’ goes much further than Grenfell. It is a description of Britain’s real culture and its real values, shorn of the fog of deception, unscrupulousness used to enforce its hold over us; not the lofty claims to high standards, the blowhard rhetoric of politicians; but how we actually behave, for advantage, or weakly because so many are so easily led, or out of fear of exclusion, or unemployment. The worst fate is always reserved for whistleblowers; however virtuous. This is Britain; a country of abusers (one way or another), bullies and pirates. They never go away and they are never finally defeated. Everyone else comes far behind. too often we call it the “buccaneering”, or the “entrepreneurial” spirit. It covers the sin so amply and so well.
Sir Keir Starmer said this in Parliament: “I want to start with an apology on behalf of the British state to each and every one of you and indeed to all the families affected by this tragedy. It should never have happened.
The country failed to discharge its most fundamental duty. To protect you and your loved ones. The people we are here to serve. And I am deeply sorry.”
Note this statement. “The country failed to discharge its most fundamental duty”. The State failed. But it is not just Grenfell. It is the Blood Scandal. Yet unfixed. The Post Office. Yet unfixed – and the Post Office – The Post Office! – is still involved in the management of compensation (it beggars belief that the culprit is still hands-on compensation). The Waspi Women – yet unfixed. The list is endless, and nothing is ever resolved, Inquiries come and go. They gather dust. They are never fully implemented. In Britain, the “Inquiry” is the solution. It ends the state involvement. The job is done. We have said “NEVER AGAIN”. And we mean it. And we will be shocked when it happens again.
It will happen again. The outraged Press will fulminate against “red tape” (all socialist muck), and nobody will dare challenge them. It will happen again. Here is an example. The Building Safety Act 2022 is post-Grenfell, and. creates a new regulator. The problem is, the Act is believed not to be well drafted to achieve effective, sufficiently fast results (from the experience of users so far), and the Regulator is adding to delays – allegedly adding 12 weeks to delays in implementation. There is insufficient evidence I found to hand to explain the problems; but this is classic Government-private vested interests spirit of collusion; classically British regulation never works, because it isn’t intended to work. Legislation is typically drafted to evade the central difficulties; and the regulator is under-resourced, in case the legislation accidentally works; but it doesn’t matter, because the regulator is either overwhelmed with work, or succumbs, to become the creature of the industry it regulates.
You wonder why? The reason is four hundred years old. It is perhaps best understood (not a discovery, a description based on an established complacent assumption. There is only one real religion in Britain that possesses the total conviction and devotion of its followers, possesses real dominant political power in the country; and expresses its liturgy in politic; and has but one place of worship: Parliament in Westminster. Britain’s religion is property, and nobody dare challenge it. They never have, and they never will. Lat me end with a complete transposition of the wisdom of Blackstone: Property can do no wrong.
Governments may fall. Blame who you will. Exact what you will of the delivered scapegoat. Property can do no wrong. Ever.
Thanks
The Building Safety Act (BSA) 2022 is now in force and I have to contend with it on the sites I am developing.
I agree that it is much better at determining what will come than dealing with what has been built and needs remediating.
So, already I have to have – under the Construction Design & Management Regs of 2015 – a principle designer for BSA 2022 alone, to ensure that its requirements are met or at least dispensed. It’s quite onerous to be honest but – as per usual – it is reliant on people doing the right thing. As a client under CDM, I have to verify skills, knowledge, experience and training (SKET) of those who deal with the Act as I do with everything else we appoint as contractors and designers. The Act is still emergent really.
The new fire safety review side of it seems to be rather detailed and ropes in design, escape and fire-robustness rather well. But I work for a local authority with a direct labour organisation and I know for a fact that our standards are higher.
The other issue is just how few construction and building service providers are set up to deal with the BSA 2022. The firm I appointed as a contractor was appointed because we asked for it in the spec of the procurement and it had to be a qualifying capacity to be appointed.
Four out of six who submitted bids did not have any capacity for BSA 2022 at all but they submitted anyway. I find that troubling.
I agree with other posts here though – we need better paid people checking things and we need more of them. So many excellent building control officers have retired this last few years. That is a lot common sense, experience and ethics going out the door for good.
Allied to that, standards in construction since BREXIT seem to have nosedived – everywhere I go site managers are being ran ragged by poorly trained contractors. They need eyes in the back of their heads.
Our economy is not set up to deliver the sort of quality that will stop a Grenfell or worse from happening again.
As a result of the Philpott fire in 2013, my org started to put sprinklers into all new build rented properties, but now because of inflation, austerity and also rampant charges for an increasingly privatised water supply, we have had to stop that and reserve sprinklers for adapted homes and high rise only. It has been a very unpopular decision and does not feel right.
As usual, my thanks
A great tragedy for the victims and their relatives, who expect justice.
Regrettably the law does not deliver justice, it delivers a verdict based on the law.
The ethos imposed by central government on local authorities is, as Richard and other commentators have said, only the private sector can deliver and the cheapest quote wins.
Local authorities and/or their companies are not brilliant ( neither is the private sector) at running tenders.
Add in the gaming of the system, the claimed meeting of required safety standards and there is every chance of a disaster.
Local authority Building Control officers cannot be on a site 24/7 and have to believe the contractor when they are told ” here is the compliance paperwork”.
Will more controls from central government help? Probably not unless there a punitive sanctions on companies and individuals for failure to comply.
Is this likely to happen? Again probably not due to the sanctity of “limited liability”.
Somehow we have to move away from the fallacy that a small state coupled with the power of markets is best.
Do I see the Labtory party tackling this? Nope.
Allow me to turn to Scotland, where Grenfell pales into insignificance for Labour, given the opportunity by BBC Radio Scotland GMS to turn the Inquiry fall-out into an opportunity to bash the SNP. Labour put forward a hack propagandist to accuse the SNP of failure over cladding. No doubt the SNP did fail adequately to respond; they have completed remedial work on only 2 of 105 buildings. The SNP I leave to account for themselves, for their slow response and the reasons for it; I am not their apologist. But the weasel wording of both interviewer and interviewee (a cosy set up by Labour and the BBC) fails to rise to the serious occasion.
A little context is required here. Perhaps the 105 buildings in Scotland are not the final number out there; nevertheless the scoping of the interview and the propaganda of Labour are themselves dishonest. In England there are currently remediation works ongoing on 1,088 of the 4,374 buildings identified in England with dangerous cladding, leaving 3,286 buildings yet untouched. Make whatever adjustments you like for comparison here; the scale of unremediated fire hazard clad buildings in England is on a quite different scale to that in Scotland. At the same time, the failure in Scotland, however serious and culpable, is principally a matter of remediation of an event that visited Scotland, but did not begin in Scotland or could be entirely or readily controlled by Scotland, if at all. The SNP did not make the big decisions that created the disaster. The SNP was not responsible for the long chain of events that was the real subject of the Grenfell Inquiry Report; that put the cladding on the buildings in the first place.
Here, the problem is, in most cases a Reserved matter for Westminster. It isn’t a Holyrood or SNP responsibility. It goes right back to shocking failures, including the Labour Government in the 1990s. Did the BBC challenge the Labour interviewee on Labour culpability for Grenfell? No. Of Course Not. This was a scandalous misuse of the BBC for political propaganda that effectively disguised Labour direct culpability in a disaster in which its hand can be seen, in order to take the opportunity to turn it into another SNP Government failure spin story. Do they really think we can’t see the conniving, editorialising policy at work?
Has anyone in politics or media noticed? Of Course Not.
And that is how it is done. Forget the incompetence and greed. After the event, all you need is dishonesty – and a complete lack of either conscience or shame. Winning the next election is all that matters.
Much to agree with John
I posted exavtly the same on FB today. The imperfect neoliberal storm
Corporate greed & fraud
Aided by a lack of genuine regulation
Abetted by compliant politicians/councillors
This ongoing Democide by a governing class captured by the false promises of neoliberalism looks set to ratchet up to a new level of unaccountability:
https://europeanpowell.substack.com/p/brexits-race-to-the-bottom-corporate?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-restack-comment&r=i28j5&triedRedirect=true
Firstly, the systematic reduction of resources available to regulators (central and local), weakening of regulations and the very limited powers to penalise the offenders has been the result of deliberate government policies. From construction to finance to water – the list goes on. Blaming the regulators is a cop out.
Then there is a link between ethical standards and regulation. In a world of perfect ethical standards there would be little need for regulation and it could truly be ‘light touch’. Organisations (as it’s not just businesses) who have no desire to hurt or rip off their customers/clients/partners. Equally where ethics are fundamentally rotten, no amount of regulation will solve the problem. The banking sector being a glaring example – they complain bitterly about the enormous amount of regulation but their behaviour has let to more fines than any other sector – with minimal changes in behaviour. Construction might be another such sector along with some of the utilities.
Both reflect neoliberal politics and economics.
Personally I think that this requires extraordinary penalties to be inflicted on the directors and senior management of offending organisations, and they’re being banned. Their current behaviour (in the private sector at least) is mostly driven by extraordinary rewards. Who cares about the damage you are doing when the rewards can set you up for life. Im reminded of Harry Lime on the big wheel in The Third Man. Regulatory bodies need real teeth with resources to match.
https://transformativefuturelearning.home.blog/2022/10/24/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-swallowed-the-world/
[…] Cross-posted from Richard Murphy’s blog […]
The related issue of why we have spent hundreds of millions on Inquiries – for all these disasters – as noted by Simon Jenkins
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/sep/05/justice-victims-grenfell-public-inquiries-not-answer
as he says – they serve to delay any redress until many of the perpetrators have disappeared or enriched themselves – along with the lawyers in the Inquiries and long after many of the victims could benefit from comopensation.
The police investigation can and should go alongside the Inquiries – and the inquiries should take half or a third the time – as they do in other countries.
Corrupton existed long before neoliberalism – those with power and money corrupting politics and civil society and business… but constiutional change could make it less possible – by enshrining overarching rules of public conduct backed by legal force.
There will be a blog on this in the morning….
Significant delay and expense are fairly recent things. The Aberfan enquiry was convened on 26 October 1966, just five days after the disaster on 21 October, sat for a (then) record 76 days until 28 April 1967, and published its report on 3 August 1967.
Perhaps this enquiry was more complex, and Covid got in the way, but the Grenfell fire was 14 June 2017. Can it really have taken over seven years to reach conclusions?
No
A blog is coming on tbis, very soon
Legislation should as a rule, require that it is accompanied by a Schedule that establishes the resources that will be applied to enforce it; and specifying the initial annual cost to fund it.
For those who say this is not possible, and has never been done; look at the 1833 slavery emancipation Act, 1833. It set up the extremely well resourced organisation, which would establish the local asset value of circa 800,000 slaves owned over many different plantations, across the West Indies, and beyond; identified the slave owners, both local and absentee, all round the world; funded it at vast cost to the Treasury (the debt was finally paid off in 2015 – most of you reading this have, in effect been part of the payment process), and over around five years, paid for their manumission. It was a colossal exercise for early nineteenth century British administration. It changed Britain, and the direction of Empire in profound ways, although most markedly in unintended ways (it transferred capital resources into slave owners hands; and the largest beneficiaries invested most typically away from sugar plantations to other opportunities – in industrialisation, notably railway construction in Britain); and the slaves, technically were manumitted but in many cases their condition and the abuse of power in plantations did not change. It reduced the underlying naval difficulties Britain had, protecting militant and recalcitrant slave colonies; with a background of violently repressed slave uprisings; and the fear established for colonies and Britain, presented by the precedent warning to the imperial power, by the Haitian Revolution.
Had emancipation not been done with this thoroughness, it would never have been accomplished. It would have foundered; but it happened, because Britain was determined, lavishly to compensate the slave owners. and ensure its success (for British policy, not the slaves).Our legislation today provides nothing like this level of accomplishment. The reason is simple; government is more intent with legislation on fixing a political difficulty with a show of resolute action; but generally, it is not intent of accomplishing anything that changes the status quo, or over the long term (once the cameras are switched off, and the press have written their editorials); frankly intends to change much at all. Legislation, on its own usually just produces court cases, and makes money for lawyers.
Much to agree with
“ overarching rules of public conduct backed by legal force” are certainly a necessary component of a constitution. I would suggest also necessary would be some fundamental principles enshrining the purpose of government and its policies.
For example, it may be a truism, but it is one that no government has observed in its entirety , which is that the purpose of government is to provide for the needs of all citizens – not wealthy citizens, not clever ones, or ones from high status families, but all, whatever their circumstances. This could be measured by subjecting every piece of legislation etc to Rawls Difference Principle: “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged”. Applying that test to such policies as scrapping the WFP or the instituting the 2 child cap would kill them off at conception.
Richard mentioned Robin Cook and his promotion of an ethical foreign policy, and of course he resigned over Blair’s Iraq War. More than ever we need an ethical domestic policy as well and a constitution that put ethics at the heart of politics and government would go a long way towards achieving that.
Thanks
This is a case where a known large risk is buried among a large number of people and organisations, thereby reducing any one individual’s responsibility and liability, while the rewards are great (for those at the top) or the punishment for speaking up is great (for those on low wages with little agency). The incentives to go with it outweigh the incentives to do the right thing.
I think neoliberalism is one route to that, but the Aberfan disaster, infected blood and Subpostmaster scandals were similar to this but with state institutions.
There was a very interesting interview with Phil Burton-Cartledge on Politics Theory Other podcast recently, discussing the first weeks of Starmer’s government and what he sees as their ideas of governance.
“We talked about why Phil characterises the Starmer project as a case of ‘authoritarian modernisation’, the relationship between Labour and the unions, and why the government seems so sanguine about the crisis in higher education. We also talked about Starmer’s response to the recent racist and Islamophobic attacks in England and Northern Ireland.”
Sadly its subscribers only, but the first link should give you a preview.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/authoritarian-on-110957432?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_fan&utm_content=web_share
https://www.patreon.com/posts/authoritarian-on-110957432
Also on Apple Podcasts.
Duncan MacInnes posted this link about authoritarian modernisation on this blog on September 2:
https://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2024/09/a-note-on-authoritarian-modernisation.html
Thanks
Richard
Very many thanks for everything you do. Since leaving the Labour Party ( for obvious reasons) I have lost connection with local people that take an interest in progressive politics and economics. I suspect that they have all gone their separate ways to indulge in various distraction techniques and throw darts at images of Labour Politicians
In order to expand influence, how about getting your supporters to provide their post codes so that people in local areas can get together – possibly as a WhatsApp group to start with. This could mean that your ideas move from being on-line only to locality groups with more potential for personal and community influence.
The neoliberal transformation of the Labour Party has left a political hole that needs to be filled locally.
What do you think?
Martin
For GDPR reasons that might be very hard
Excellent take-down of neoliberalism by Ian Dunt
https://open.substack.com/pub/iandunt/p/the-grenfell-report-is-a-tombstone?r=qshi&utm_medium=ios
Agreed
Very good