May's advisors.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 33931
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 33931

Guest
She's having some seriously bad luck with her choice of advisors, or could it be poor judgement? Or both.

Hill and Timothy have rightly jumped for their poor guidance over the election campaign, so then May took on the newly-ousted MP Gavin Barwell as her chief of staff.

Barwell was the housing minister in the last government and became the 4th housing minister in a row to fail to instigate the recommend safety review following the blaze at Lakanal House in Camberwell in 2009.
 
And in 2013 72 Tory Mp's who also happen to be landlords voted against a labour amendment that sought to force landlords into making their properties safe and fit for human inhabitation.

I'm not joining the party political point scoring bandwagon here, it would probably be easy to find examples of conflicts of interest with other parties...but I am pointing out that this sort of thing goes on....a lot.

IE the current system is not fit for purpose. There are far too many conflicts of interest.
 
There will undoubtedly be quite a few people who are feeling sick to the stomach and very guilty following this hellish incident.

The stories being told are almost too hard to bear.
 
P J Thompson said:
And in 2013 72 Tory Mp's who also happen to be landlords voted against a labour amendment that sought to force landlords into making their properties safe and fit for human inhabitation.

I'm not joining the party political point scoring bandwagon here, it would probably be easy to find examples of conflicts of interest with other parties...but I am pointing out that this sort of thing goes on....a lot.

IE the current system is not fit for purpose. There are far too many conflicts of interest.
Click to expand...
I wasn't happy taking your word for this without citation.

Here are the debates:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...34000003/Homes(FitnessForHumanHabitation)Bill
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-01-12/debates/16011271000002/HousingAndPlanningBill

So, before we tar and feather the Conservative MPs for this, it's only fair that we read their own words and justification for voting down the provisions in the bill.
 
btiw2 said:
I wasn't happy taking your word for this without citation.

Here are the debates:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...34000003/Homes(FitnessForHumanHabitation)Bill
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-01-12/debates/16011271000002/HousingAndPlanningBill

So, before we tar and feather the Conservative MPs for this, it's only fair that we read their own words and justification for voting down the provisions in the bill.
Click to expand...
I thinks it's only fair that you provide some kind of summary as to what the outcome was.
I did try reading the debates that you kindly provided, but unfortunately my eyes glazed over quite quickly.
Did you read them?
 
"Hundreds of aluminium panels called Reynobond are believed to have been fitted to Grenfell Tower. Reynobond makes three types of panel: one with a flammable plastic core and two with fire-resistant cores. It is thought that contractors chose the cheaper, more combustible, version for Grenfell.

A salesman for US-based Reynobond told The Times that this version, which has a polyethylene core and is known as PE, was banned in American buildings taller than 40ft (12.2m) for fire safety reasons. “It’s because of the fire and smoke spread,” he said. “The FR [variant] is fire-resistant. The PE is just plastic.”

Reynobond’s fire-resistant panel sells for £24 per square metre — £2 more expensive than the standard version. The Times has estimated that contractors could have acquired the fire-resistant version for less than £5,000 extra. No one can put a price on a life, but that £5,000 figure may well be cited again and again."
 
btiw2 said:
I wasn't happy taking your word for this without citation.

Here are the debates:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...34000003/Homes(FitnessForHumanHabitation)Bill
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-01-12/debates/16011271000002/HousingAndPlanningBill

So, before we tar and feather the Conservative MPs for this, it's only fair that we read their own words and justification for voting down the provisions in the bill.
Click to expand...
I've scanned those links and fair play to you if you've already got a good grasp of their reasons from them. A precy would be appreciated.
But...as I said, I wasn't attempting to make a party political point or trying to "tar and feather" any particular mps, I was commenting on the wide ranging potential for conflict of interest that exists within the system. This vote being a classic example.
 
longboat said:
I thinks it's only fair that you provide some kind of summary as to what the outcome was.
I did try reading the debates that you kindly provided, but unfortunately my eyes glazed over quite quickly.
Did you read them?
Click to expand...

Sure, I like reading Hansard.
You can press Ctrl+F to search for interesting words within a page (e.g. Cons, fitness, fire, safety etc) if you don't want to read the whole thing.

I didn't want to pick particular contributions as then I could be accused of bias e.g. searching Hansard for "fire flats" will find a contribution from Mr Corbyn in 2013 warning about checks not being carried out[1] (albeit in the private sector).

Obviously (I'm not sure why I assume this obvious) the Labour party were pushing strongly for an amendment to improve safety.
But PJ's point was attacking the Conservatives so I'll stick to their responses.

A couple of Conservative MPs made the point that they were "accidental landlords"[2] with just one property and thought the checks would be onerous.
The point was made that there was already lots of legislation and didn't see the need for more [3] (this was countered by pointing out it covered only the worst offenses).
There was a weird point from the conservatives about how a "plague of rats" as not making a house "unfit" [4]. I don't think he knew where he was going with that one!

The main debate (there were others too which I didn't link to) wasn't mainly focused on whether property was unfit.
The Conservatives wanted to keep the bill focused[5] and look to existing powers (there are long contributions that follow from Labour members explaining why this isn't the case).
Again, the Conservatives make the point that additional checks (electrical) would be onerous[6].
Again, the Conservatives wanted to pass what they had with the suggestion to look at safety another time [7].

It ends with:
"My hon. Friend is right; I could have extended the list. Tory Ministers and Back Benchers have voted against our proposals to reinforce councils’ hands so that they deal with such abuse from landlords and such exploitation of tenants, to require homes to meet standards that make them fit for human habitation and to mandate annual electrical safety checks. They rejected each and every one of those proposals, to which we will return in the other place."[8]

The vote was straight down party lines. All Conservatives, all DUP and all (one) UUP voting one way. Everyone else the other. [9]

That's my best summary with references for you to check my interpretation.

[1] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...istmasAdjournment#contribution-13121967000304
[2] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...anHabitation)Bill#contribution-15101634000549 and https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...anHabitation)Bill#contribution-15101634000553
[3] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...anHabitation)Bill#contribution-15101634000568
[4] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...anHabitation)Bill#contribution-15101634000575
[5] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ngAndPlanningBill#contribution-16011280001183
[6] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ngAndPlanningBill#contribution-16011280001291
[7] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ngAndPlanningBill#contribution-16011280001298
[8] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ngAndPlanningBill#contribution-16011280002016
[9] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...02779/HousingAndPlanningBill?outputType=Party
 
Still not really sure if there's a point you're trying to make btiw. Are you contending that conflicts of interest don't exist in government? That Mp's being landlords doesn't present such a conflict when voting on rented housing matters? What are you getting at?

But hey, there are references there to the legislation being "onerous". So were they saying that because it might be difficult to do something like have compulsory electrical testing it shouldn't be done?
 
P J Thompson said:
Still not really sure if there's a point you're trying to make btiw.
Click to expand...
I'm not really making a point other than it's helpful to look at the source data.
I like source data much more than opinion pieces. Wasn't that clear by now?

P J Thompson said:
Are you contending that conflicts of interest don't exist in government? That Mp's being landlords doesn't present such a conflict when voting on rented housing matters? What are you getting at?
Click to expand...
Nope. In fact, I think the data shows the opposite. At least two MPs said they had a conflict and didn't want extra checks to apply to them.

P J Thompson said:
But hey, there are references there to the legislation being "onerous". So were they saying that because it might be difficult to do something like have compulsory electrical testing it shouldn't be done?
Click to expand...
Yes. That's my interpretation of what they said (and sources were provided).

Oh, and according to one Conservative "plagues of rats" don't mean a house is "unfit", but probably should.
 
P J Thompson said:
Still not really sure if there's a point you're trying to make btiw. Are you contending that conflicts of interest don't exist in government? That Mp's being landlords doesn't present such a conflict when voting on rented housing matters? What are you getting at?

But hey, there are references there to the legislation being "onerous". So were they saying that because it might be difficult to do something like have compulsory electrical testing it shouldn't be done?
Click to expand...
Sooo.... now we've read (well, skimmed) the actual debates....

I'm not sure where to get feathers.
You may need to post in the roofer's forum whether this can be used instead of tar:
ae235
 
So yes, you don't have a point. Great going. :)

Would you have a point if I commented on just how many Mp's and lords have interests in private healthcare businesses? Farming?
 
P J Thompson said:
Would you have a point if I commented on just how many Mp's and lords have interests in private healthcare businesses? Farming?
Click to expand...
Nah.
I'd probably just point you to https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ so you can investigate whether their interests influenced their voting record.

I have a horrible MP. I know this from his voting record and contributions in the house.
I'm just try to encourage people to read what politicians actually say rather than what the papers say that they say.
Then everyone else can hate their MP too.
 
Is it true that the government have placed a D notice on the numbers of fatalities at the Grenfell Tower?
 
btiw2 said:
Nah.
I'd probably just point you to https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ so you can investigate whether their interests influenced their voting record.

I have a horrible MP. I know this from his voting record and contributions in the house.
I'm just try to encourage people to read what politicians actually say rather than what the papers say that they say.
Then everyone else can hate their MP too.
Click to expand...
Sites like that are great but hardly going to give us a definite answer on "did A vote for this because of B?". And to be fair, people, including Mp's can say what they like. Outright lie if needs be.
My contention is that the potential for conflict of interest is inherent to this system. That it's cross party, of huge significance and consequence and a gaping wound in the fabric of society.
 
P J Thompson said:
Sites like that are great but hardly you g to give us a definite answer on "did A vote for this because of B". And to be fair, people, including Mp's can say what they like. Outright lie if needs be.
My contention is that the potential for conflict of interest is inherent to this system. That it's cross party, of huge significance and consequence and a gaping wound in the fabric of society.
Click to expand...
I'd say no evidence for that suggestion. I think it was a poor outcome - but it was straight down party lines, not (just) on their personal interest. Conservatives all voted that way regardless of whether they were landlords. Still, seems a crappy way to have voted.
 
I'm just try to encourage people to read what politicians actually say rather than what the papers say that they say.


Fair point, and I agree with it.

But most people are set in their own mind how they will vote, regardless of how their MP acts.

I.e. The party is more important than its message and its representatives and their actions.

Probably always will be, even with PR voting system.

But I dont think anybody can deny the current (ancient) system is flawed. Look at the results of the Election, and the referendum. Whichever way you voted, around half the country is not represented correctly.
 
Btiw and Jack, I think you're right that largely Mp's vote on party lines and that pr wouldn't change that side of things. It would however mean that a broader spectrum would be represented in parliament. My view is that there then needs to be further reform. Direct democracy on major issues like; should we sell off the NHS, renationalise the railways or bomb Iraq? Yes, I know referendums get bad press and folk say people aren't equipped to take part in them but my view is that this is part of the current malaise. Ref the brexit campaigns...no facts were presented. The same in the general election, anything but facts, just playground squabbling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top