Forum Topic

Tory Party Funding....

https://www.ft.com/content/c5737fbb-2893-4a5a-be5e-965785f1a37b

Philippa Bond ● 999d29 Comments

And neither really "For the people".More "For ourselves".

Rosco White ● 993d

Both desperate for or to stay in power.

Philippa Bond ● 993d

It's the curse of the Western World, in many/most first world democratic countries there's virtually only two Parties to choose from.No wonder both are usually an appalling crock.

Rosco White ● 993d

To be honest I think it's party politics which is the toxic cancer in this countries declining society.All the parties are consumed withy politics of the most infantile level and the institutions and hangers on they all nurture - and too many seem to be associated with one way or another.

Raymond Havelock ● 993d

The Conservatives are simply the lesser of two horrible evils.But, I mean .................... Labour?REALLY?!    😂

Rosco White ● 994d

Vis-a-vis credit cards. No government can legislate for people's greed and stupidity. There is a a pervasive want now culture. Chickens will come home to roost that's for sure when interest rates rise. Any sympathy? - absolutely not, no one forces you to take credit and for generations people simply didn't acquire that which they could not afford.

N V Brooks ● 994d

You didn't read the FT article.Whenever the Tories are in power they reduce the amount spent on public services.Absolutely right - everything rises under the Tories.  Just look at the food bank numbers and homelessness rates and child poverty which shows the success of Tory policies.  The good people of the former red wall are unanimous in wanting the Tory party to accept donations from very rich people for their intimate meetings with the Prime Minister and Chancellor for the very small fee of £250,000 apiece - mere peanuts to the people of the former red wall who will be stunned by the selfless devotion to their interests by this group of Tory supporters.BTW credit cards were introduced in 1966...  Don't tell me that that hasn't changed the way that people live - it doesn't mean that they are better off though and when the rates all go up there will be an awful lot of people who are juggling payments who are likely to be in trouble.

Philippa Bond ● 994d

Who cares how they are funded if they keep us better off than the opposition parties.You only have to look at worker's wage levels. Wilson/Callaghan/Healey left us with Public Sector strikes over poverty wages, Dead bodies not being buried, Road Sweepers and dustmen on Strike with rubbish mountains in the streets and parks.By the time Thatcher/Major left office we were were having holidays abroad, new cars, many owning their homes and real spending pocket money.Then at the end of the Blair/Brown years wages were back to poverty levels. This time with legal poverty minimum wage legislation of little more than £3ph, same wages as when they came in.Now steadily those in work are enjoying pocket money again, with the young buying I-pads and enjoying life in pubs/clubs and bars without too much poverty.Why would people want to go back to what labour always give? It is clear Labour needs you to be poor so they can have a reason to fight for better conditions.Every time they knew they were going to lose they destroyed wages.Who cares how parties are funded if they keep us in food and pocket money.There is a reason those former Labour heartlands in the North will never go back to Labour again, they simply cannot afford too.

Leslie Bailey ● 994d

Sadly, building regs will never do anything to counter the 'fly by night' developers. Dodgy directors will find ways to circumvent business regulations (using family members, trusts etc.).  Ruddy difficult to legislate against such behaviour.

N V Brooks ● 996d

Friends have said they were happier using the Scottish Building Regulations than the English ones.  I believe they had been updated more recently and were clearer.The London Building Acts worked well.  They were much more comprehensive than the Building Regulations.  They were very clearly expressed and were administered by District Surveyors who were highly qualified engineers who could interpret those regulations. The District Surveyors were approachable and could interpret the regulations to design teams in a way which is not really available to Building Control officers these days.The problems with Grenfell and other buildings are far greater than just the cladding - which is why there has been such an outcry because even if the cladding is taken off and changed there are also a lot of other building faults which relate to fire safety.Even with the new Bills I don't remember seeing anything that will deal with the problems caused when the companies deliberately created just for the building of projects are closed down long before any building defects become obvious.

Philippa Bond ● 996d

You have to go back to the Wilson/ Callaghan and Heath Governments to find the roots of such poor planning and building standards.The Poulson / Clay Cross scandal did not prompt the then government to go far enough is reforming the system.But you have to go even further back to the end of WW2. The need to build and build fast, and use innovation and modernisation asap put opportunity the way of building companies and whilst testing was well supported by the state, short cuts and fiddles along with scarcity of materials, did not manifest till decades later.Then we have the very aged housing stock. Every home owner knows how much cash maintaining or upgrading an older home can be, but the build quality of most pre war stock is so good that the end result if done properly far outlasts the efforts of social building quality.In our variable and damp climate, concrete, insulation, ventilation have been continual problems, weight and efficiency ( of various modes) have been poor.Solutions farcical. Tiny windows for efficiency, yet require a light to be on even on a sunny day!Homes still being built in the 1980s under flight paths not with double glazing but secondary glazing.  Whilst in European countries of similar climate, Triple glazing and ventilated windows were almost standard.It's impossible to blame anyone government. It's been all of them. Some in the earlier years because of an urgent need, others from sheer avoidance of issues ( like that of self employed pensions which has been avoided for over 45 years)And those of sheer influence over all political parties. Far too many contracts and deals and money involved to let a bit of shoddy materials of workmanship to be a hindrance.The Fire services need to be less party politically controlled and have a say in urban planning applications as they do in, for example, New York.Testing and type approval of materials needs to be tougher and under one umbrella - Like VOSA is with vehicles.Building inspectors must not be commissioned privately to side step regulations, and must be fully answerable.

Raymond Havelock ● 996d

England has updated/introduced changes to the building regulations in the aftermouth of the Grenfell Towe fire. During the Blairite/Brownite Axis government,in 2006, changes to UK building regulations, intended to facilitate greater energy efficiency at lower cost, arguably made combustible cladding and insulation in buildings over 18m legal, and opened the way to its widespread use. This included the use of aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding, that was used on the Grenfel Tower.Shortly after the Grenfell Tower fire of 14 June 2017, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) established the Building Safety Programme. In the short term, this scheme sought to identify and remediate buildings with unsafe cladding. The problems that it variously exposed, compounded, and remedied constitute the cladding crisis. The programme is, longer-term, leading to a new regulatory framework for building safety, a Building Safety Bill, and a new Building Safety Regulator. In 2018 a number of regulations were amended or created to introduce a restriction on the use of combustible materials within external elevations and specific attachments in certain types of buildings with storeys over 18m - this applied in England only. England has a greater problem than the other countries within the UK with combustible cladding after the 2006 building regulations changes. It was more widely used in England than elsewhere in the UK. Personally, I think this sort of cladding should be removed from all buildings, not just over 18 metres.

Anthony Hawran ● 997d

They are simply not fit for purpose and the problem goes back thirty years to the time of Thatcher when Heseltine was involved with the BRE and the rework of the regs. Labour had eleven years to reverse them and did nothing. The current mob have had the same amount of time and have,equally, achieved nothing.

N V Brooks ● 997d

So why when other countries in the UK had updated the Building Regs hadn't the Tory Govt?  The RIBA had been calling for it to happen.

Philippa Bond ● 997d

As Mr. Brooks stated, in the early years of the Blairite/Brownite Axis government (1997-2010), of which John Prescott was a member, the system of 'controls was relaxed. The Blairite/Brownite Axis government sowed a wind and now the People are suffering the resulting whirlwind.

Anthony Hawran ● 997d

Very true, he was however in role when the rules were relaxed to the point where they were not fit for purpose.

N V Brooks ● 997d

I don't think John Prescott was ever a member of the Thatcher Government that part privatised Building Control in the mid eighties.

David Burke ● 997d

Agree, it's not fit for purpose, a system of 'controls' first relaxed under Two Jags Prescott.

N V Brooks ● 997d

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/london-building-control-officers-call-for-post-grenfell-renationalisation-56095"current system is like having a restaurant employ its own food hygiene inspector"

Philippa Bond ● 997d

In the meantime, what did the Blairite/Brownite Axis governments (1997-2010) do? Apart from relaxing building regulations and approving Grenfell Tower type cladding on hundreds of towers, under them even less council housing was built than under the previous Conservative government. In the 13 years of the Blairite/Brownite Axis governments less council housing was built than in one year of the Thatcher government.

Anthony Hawran ● 997d

Over 40% of former Council homes in London now in the hands of private landlords , a result of Thatcher's "shareholding democracy"

David Burke ● 997d

Selling off Council homes and not allowing all of the money to be used to build more caused a lot of problems. They did not have to be run in the same way being handed on for generation after generation but they needed to be there and be safe.

Philippa Bond ● 997d

Yes Labour Councils are not blameless and Croydon with the ITV news highlighting issues was disgraceful. But within that they will claim about government cutting money to them however they have a basic duty to residents that they are failing in. But the big corruption is the direct influence of the recent donations to the conservatives to ensure that the developers were not made liable in a recent bill. This is clearly a Kleptocracy. also there have been clear financial links between the minister and developers. We have always had corruption but currently we have a pandemic of corruption. We saw in  Trump's government with a cabinet of greedy billionaires who ripped off the taxpayer. We are the taxpayers and we need the greedy to be exposed. Whether we vote Tory or Labour or LibDem we deserve better

Peter Chadburn ● 997d

Take a look at the LAs that have gone belly up with corrupt relationships with developers and by trying to muscle in on development contracts. Croydon is a case in point and there are many others. Croydon is resolutely Labour BTW.  The Tory corruption reeks but all of the mainstream parties have more skeletons than ever before.

N V Brooks ● 997d

Actually we see the Tories taking a fortune off builders in order to leave the burden on the residents/owners of unsafe flats. But for example have Ealing made local developers clean up their problems? If a developer wants to build a tower block are they ensuring that the developer has taken responsibility for blocks with cladding and other safety issues. I guess not. If councils refused permission to all developers in these cases then we might see real action. The watered down building regulations are all part of this corruption. as for the Labour mps and leaders I have seen no evidence. We have some union people trying to bully the part like Howard Beckett with threats. But in pure scale of individual corruption the current Tories are in a league of their own. The One nation tories no longer exist unless that nation is the Cayman Islands

Peter Chadburn ● 997d

Yes, councillors and officers of all parties with their snouts in the trough.

N V Brooks ● 997d

And then you wonder why there are so many high rises.

Philippa Bond ● 997d

The deeply hypocritcal Labour Party are worse, Angela Rayner recently anyone?It's the Tory cuts!

Rosco White ● 998d

And......?Why keep posting links without comment?Have a dig around Labour party funding why don't you, it's almost just as riddled with corruption and the buying of influence save that Starmer's mob have virtually no influence.

N V Brooks ● 999d