Why did it go so badly for the Conservatives?

First topic message reminder :

So the election is over and what was predicted to be an easy election just 8 weeks ago where the tories had a 20 point lead which would have resulted in a 100 seat majority has in fact turned into a horrible night for the tories where they actually LOST their majority.

So what went wrong? Was it the election debates that May appeared on? Was it May refusing to debate Corbyn 1v1? was it the dementia tax? or the U-turns? What was it that made her lose a 20 point lead in the space of 7 weeks?


Or was it just that Corbyn ran a better campaign?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Samo wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't debate WUMs.

Thought as much.

You only ever have one argument and you're never able to expand upon it.

At least we have an argument, I suppose.

Back to the matter at hand, I assume they will be fitting sprinklers during the 343 million pound refurb of Buckingham Palace?

Like I said, these people died because they were poor.

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

No....If I had bought a 2/3 million property and thought I could get a better view by hustling local reps I would.....No blame in asking...The blame is for those that did the giving..

But consensus is in line with your view that appearance outweighed safety.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

No....If I had bought a 2/3 million property and thought I could get a better view by hustling local reps I would.....No blame in asking...The blame is for those that did the giving..

But consensus is in line with your view that appearance outweighed safety.

Not laying the blame squarely in that camp but its a factor. You're right, you've a right to enjoy your surroundings, its why someone needs to apply for planning permission before turning their house into an eyesore. However, combine that with the austerity and 'doing things on the cheap' culture these days added up to a massive disaster. The building wasnt safe to begin with, but they basically covered the whole building in petrol and kindling.

Also, Corbyn raised a motion a couple of years ago which would legally enforce private landlords to ensure their properties are fit for habitation. 70-odd of the Tory MP's who voted it down are - surprise surprise - private landlords.

Tensions are high. If this gets swept under the carpet we could be looking at a full blown class war.

Wasnt aware Cladding was developed in a flammable variant to be honest.

Have a public and independent inquest then pick the bones out of it. Do we even know the cause yet?

I've heard it was a guys fridge that shorted out and caught fire.

GSC wrote:Wasnt aware Cladding was developed in a flammable variant to be honest.

Have a public and independent inquest then pick the bones out of it. Do we even know the cause yet?

It won't be an independent inquiry, it'll be a public inquiry that May and Rudd will have control over the parameters.

Also, it's the lack of regulation surrounding this.

I'd love to hear one good reason why sprinklers are not mandatory.

Pr4wn wrote:Also, it's the lack of regulation surrounding this.

I'd love to hear one good reason why sprinklers are not mandatory.

Cost. It's a free country and people should be free to make decisions about what to spend for their safety. And this isn't a usual case.

Devil's advocate.

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Also, it's the lack of regulation surrounding this.

I'd love to hear one good reason why sprinklers are not mandatory.

Cost. It's a free country and people should be free to make decisions about what to spend for their safety. And this isn't a usual case.

Devil's advocate.

And what of the safety of others?

Pr4wn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Also, it's the lack of regulation surrounding this.

I'd love to hear one good reason why sprinklers are not mandatory.

Cost. It's a free country and people should be free to make decisions about what to spend for their safety. And this isn't a usual case.

Devil's advocate.

And what of the safety of others?

Those decisions are made every day too.

Sadly, yes. This is why we need regulation.

https://www.channel4.com/news/david-lammy-mp-remembers-friend-grenville-tower-fire-london

Worth a watch.

Pr4wn wrote:

GSC wrote:Wasnt aware Cladding was developed in a flammable variant to be honest.

Have a public and independent inquest then pick the bones out of it. Do we even know the cause yet?

It won't be an independent inquiry, it'll be a public inquiry that May and Rudd will have control over the parameters.

May hasn't got any power....She is a convenient water holder while the Tories work out the way forward...

My guess is Davis or Hammond by September....Then a GE while they are enjoying the honeymoon factor...

Not sure a tightly controlled inquiry works here...The Tories need to do better in London than last time...The Tories like Labour won in some surprising places by small margins..Hate to have to rely on those.

I agree with a lot of it, but this quote: "If you want to build these buildings, then let them at least be as good as the luxury penthouse buildings that are also being built." is a pipedream. Social housing in Kensington and Chelsea with the same costs as luxury penthouses?

Yes they should be built to safe standards, but not to the highest quality and probably not in the most exclusive areas.

I wouldn't be against David Davis but I also would not want to see anyone as Brexit secretary so the Tories have quite a quandary there Truss.

Scottrf wrote:I agree with a lot of it, but this quote: "If you want to build these buildings, then let them at least be as good as the luxury penthouse buildings that are also being built." is a pipedream. Social housing in Kensington and Chelsea with the same costs as luxury penthouses?

Yes they should be built to safe standards, but not to the highest quality and probably not in the most exclusive areas.

I thought the same, actually. I think he meant with regards to fire safety, though. These blocks should have sprinklers installed and they should, obviously, not be covered in flammable cladding.

Certainly wouldn't want to be Housing minister or Communities secretary rIght now...

Wouldn't mind shadowing though..

If Hillsborough is anything to go by I'll look forward to discussing the findings in around 2030.

Doc on the fire on BBC 1.

And wow. I hadn't seen it on fire.

I don't want to politicise the tragic event but as mentioned by other people, everything boils down to politics.

Why did the council decide to decorate the building in pretty coverings? Because they didn't want a massive eye sore in an incredibly wealthy part of London. That is fair enough but the politics involved is who in the council or in power decided that they should choose the cheaper materials that were not flame resistant? Why did they choose cheaper materials, was it due to austerity and councils having less money?

Who decided that a tower block 26 stories high should not have sprinklers? Clearly if there was a fire as the building is so tall it will be hard to rescue those at the top. A sprinkler system is a must.

What angers me is that these tragic events only affect the poor. It is the poor who live on the 26th floor of a block of flats where the building is surrounded by flammable material and there is no safety features such as sprinkler system in the building.

Clearly politics plays a role because the government could have created far more laws on safety standards in high rise buildings to prevent these incidents from happening, especially after there was a similer incident in 2009.

Too many people have died from this disaster and I have seen a video showing pictures of all the dead and it brought a tear to my eye seeing the faces of little children and old people and everyone else who would have died a horrible death by being burnt alive trapped in a building.

Samo wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

No....If I had bought a 2/3 million property and thought I could get a better view by hustling local reps I would.....No blame in asking...The blame is for those that did the giving..

But consensus is in line with your view that appearance outweighed safety.

Not laying the blame squarely in that camp but its a factor.  You're right, you've a right to enjoy your surroundings, its why someone needs to apply for planning permission before turning their house into an eyesore.  However, combine that with the austerity and 'doing things on the cheap' culture these days added up to a massive disaster.  The building wasnt safe to begin with, but they basically covered the whole building in petrol and kindling.

Also, Corbyn raised a motion a couple of years ago which would legally enforce private landlords to ensure their properties are fit for habitation. 70-odd of the Tory MP's who voted it down are - surprise surprise - private landlords.

Tensions are high.  If this gets swept under the carpet we could be looking at a full blown class war.

It was an addendum to the housing bill raised by the Shadow housing secretary and was to do with private landlords - grenfell tower is publically owned. It was voted against by over 300 MPs.

minsters advised to update fire guidance/legislation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40330789

guidance/regulations on sprinklers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40293035

Anyone looking to make political gains out of this is brave, there have been recommendations RE fire safety and legislation going back through 3 successive Governments with members of all the major parties involved.

KCTMO is interesting, 8/15 of the board are residents of the council owned properties i.e. a majority.

This was a tragedy and lessons should be learned from it, should it turn into a witch hunt or a political weapon then very few will emerge unscathed.

Ent

On the day after the fire, (iirc) the leader of the local council was being interviewed on the radio and was saying that they would not be hiding behind the TMO, as the relationship between the council and TMO is so close that the latter is de facto an extension of the former.

A couple of other comments, from someone whose job is as a consultant who investigates failures in buildings (typically materials or workmanship related rather than fire):
1 - The assumption that the buildings owned by the rich residents are built to a better standard does not necessarily tally with our observations. Indeed, we often discuss round the office how the biggest screw ups are in the most expensive properties.

2 - Concrete is non-flammable (other than clinker concrete), although will deteriorate in the heat of the fire. This fact is fundamental to the passive fire proofing inherent to the design of blocks like Grenfell Tower - fires were supposed to be contained within a single unit. Clearly something has gone seriously wrong in this case, and my suspicion is that it is more than just an issue with using the wrong sort of cladding, i.e. that somehow the redesign had bridged the fire breaks that should have been present to control the spread of fire across the façade (I note for example that the refit had the windows flush with the cladding, so pushed forward substantially from their original position fitted to the concrete structure of the tower - I'd be interested to know the detail around the modified window reveal)

3 - Issues with the flammability of insulation in composite panels (essentially the same as these cladding panels) has been known in respect of fires at a number of warehouse type buildings. Indeed, we have over the years undertaken a number of investigations to determine whether the panels at various sites include a (largely non-flammable) mineral wool core, more flammable PIR or PUR resin (my understanding is that the Grenfell Tower cladding had PIR resin insulation), or polystyrene. Insurers are very keen to know which type of panel is present because it greatly influences risk and hence premiums.

Ipsos has come out with some data that may explain the strange seat swapping at GE2017..

Tories were up 12 percent with Working class voters on 2015..
Labour were up 12 percent with middle class voters on 2015..

Tories went up with 55-64 age group but were down with the over 65s though well ahead of Labour with 61 percent..

Labour won every category up to the age of 44....

The BME vote was up 6 Percent and they went to Labour in big numbers..

60 percent of 18-24s voted Labour compared to 43 percent in 2015...

Strange I always thought Corbyn would be huge with working class voters...Seems he did little better than Ed....Though I dispute the fact I am anything but working class...it seems Corbyn appeal seems to be with the so called white collar idealists types.....Of which I am a proud member.

68 percent of Teachers voted Labour compared with 51 in 2015.

The middle classes who gain the most from free tuition fees, people tried saying it went further than that but it really doesn't.

An observation from you.....Rather than a statement of fact...

There really doesn't have to be anything in it for you...To vote for more equality and fairness...

Be depressing if everybody voted with their wallet...

You want to believe that it's for the right reasons but it really isn't.

Yougov poll

If Britain had a genuine Socialist government would it make It a better place to live ??..

Yes 43 percent..
No   36 percent..

Lends credence to the argument middle class voters weren't just interested in student fees....Non ??..

Not really Truss, it just boils down to whether there's anything in it for me; Socialism and free tuition fees go hand in hand in this instance.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The middle classes who gain the most from free tuition fees, people tried saying it went further than that but it really doesn't.

I voted Labour and I disagree with free tuition fees and I spoke to a lot of people who were the same. Don't be so simplistic (I know it's hard for you.)

I've spoken to a lot of people who voted for Labour because of free tuition fees but obviously I living in a middle class area wouldn't have a clue about that.

If free tuition fees were that big of a deal, you'd have seen Lib Dems in 2010 do much, much better.

Worth remembering that the Tories mocked the Survation poll that called the Election spot on because they had talked to a lot of people on the doors....They mocked the exit poll too.

Know from experience when my Father in law invited the Genghis Khan brigade round for a soiree I often agreed with a moron just to get rid of him.

Not really sure canvassing opinion on the doors means a lot.

I voted Labour for a variety of reasons but the tuition fee wasn't one, the cuts in spending on schools was far more important to myself. East Cheshire which is proper middle class Tory land has seen some of the worst cuts on schools in the country, the one my children will be going to will have £596 per pupil slashed off its budget, a loss of 12 teachers. The local Tory MP remained in his seat but his majority was halved.

Ipsos gender breakdown..GE2017

18 to 24

Men.........Con 36....Lab 52
Women....Con 18....Lab 73

25 to 34

Men.......... Con 30...Lab 54
Women.....Con 24...Lab 58

35-54

Men...........Con 40....Lab 42
Women......Con 37...Lab 46

55 plus

Men...........Con 47....Lab 37
Women .... Con 58....Lab 27

dummy_half wrote:Ent

On the day after the fire, (iirc) the leader of the local council was being interviewed on the radio and was saying that they would not be hiding behind the TMO, as the relationship between the council and TMO is so close that the latter is de facto an extension of the former.

A couple of other comments, from someone whose job is as a consultant who investigates failures in buildings (typically materials or workmanship related rather than fire):
1 - The assumption that the buildings owned by the rich residents are built to a better standard does not necessarily tally with our observations. Indeed, we often discuss round the office how the biggest screw ups are in the most expensive properties.

2 - Concrete is non-flammable (other than clinker concrete), although will deteriorate in the heat of the fire. This fact is fundamental to the passive fire proofing inherent to the design of blocks like Grenfell Tower - fires were supposed to be contained within a single unit. Clearly something has gone seriously wrong in this case, and my suspicion is that it is more than just an issue with using the wrong sort of cladding, i.e. that somehow the redesign had bridged the fire breaks that should have been present to control the spread of fire across the façade (I note for example that the refit had the windows flush with the cladding, so pushed forward substantially from their original position fitted to the concrete structure of the tower - I'd be interested to know the detail around the modified window reveal)

3 - Issues with the flammability of insulation in composite panels (essentially the same as these cladding panels) has been known in respect of fires at a number of warehouse type buildings. Indeed, we have over the years undertaken a number of investigations to determine whether the panels at various sites include a (largely non-flammable) mineral wool core, more flammable PIR or PUR resin (my understanding is that the Grenfell Tower cladding had PIR resin insulation), or polystyrene. Insurers are very keen to know which type of panel is present because it greatly influences risk and hence premiums.

As an expert, would you agree that it would have been good to have fire extinguishers around the building? Because there weren't any.

Worth remembering on here that with everyday that passes more kids who were too young to vote on June 8 are turning 18...and they are now twice more likely to vote than in 2010/15.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Ipsos gender breakdown..GE2017

18 to 24

Men.........Con 36....Lab 52
Women....Con 18....Lab 73

25 to 34

Men.......... Con 30...Lab 54
Women.....Con 24...Lab 58

35-54

Men...........Con 40....Lab 42
Women......Con 37...Lab 46

55 plus

Men...........Con 47....Lab 37
Women .... Con 58....Lab 27

Labour had more female candidates (258 vs 182) and Corbyn promised full maternity pay for 2 years.

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Ipsos gender breakdown..GE2017

18 to 24

Men.........Con 36....Lab 52
Women....Con 18....Lab 73

25 to 34

Men.......... Con 30...Lab 54
Women.....Con 24...Lab 58

35-54

Men...........Con 40....Lab 42
Women......Con 37...Lab 46

55 plus

Men...........Con 47....Lab 37
Women .... Con 58....Lab 27

Labour had more female candidates (258 vs 182) and Corbyn promised full maternity pay for 2 years.

Kind of seems strange Labour's vote comes down in the 25-34 category then....

Everybody that voted Labour seems to have done it out of self regard...Fancy that..

Must admit I do find it amusing seeing Blairite mps moaning Labour should have won the election when their hero did everything but endorse the Liberals...

Still a big split in their male/female vote.

Not surprised young women vote for a party with more female candidates tbh.

But they would rather have a Man in charge of the Country than a Woman....

Ok pal.

You could rival Alastair Campbell with the amount of spin you put on things Truss.

I don't think it's any coincidence that the longer people work the more likely they are to vote Conservative, which seems absurd considering Labour are meant to be the party for the working man so to speak.

Ent wrote:Still a big split in their male/female vote.

Not surprised young women vote for a party with more female candidates tbh.

This is pretty patronising tbh

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You could rival Alastair Campbell with the amount of spin you put on things Truss.

I don't think it's any coincidence that the longer people work the more likely they are to vote Conservative, which seems absurd considering Labour are meant to be the party for the working man so to speak.

The main group that vote Conservative are retired...

GSC wrote:

Ent wrote:Still a big split in their male/female vote.

Not surprised young women vote for a party with more female candidates tbh.

This is pretty patronising tbh

how so?

Ent wrote:

GSC wrote:

Ent wrote:Still a big split in their male/female vote.

Not surprised young women vote for a party with more female candidates tbh.

This is pretty patronising tbh

how so?

Girls vote for girls - like that's the only thing important for them in a candidate.

Maybe some girls do vote for girls but as one of the biggest targets of the Tories was Hove and that is now a Labour majority of just under 20,000 for Labour's Peter Kyle.

It tends to suggest many people were not just getting off their arses because of gender.

So Labour pleased every woman by having more female candidates and every young person through scrapping tuition fees.

Easy game this politics thing. Why didn't they think to appeal to every demographic?

My guess is they liked the Labour manifesto...10 pound an hour...Student fees etc... and also saw a guy that had been demonised for two years... up close for six weeks solid and thought he seems an ok guy...Chuck in a woman that could only spew out slogans and thought it ok to punish ordinary people with a dementia tax while ignoring corporations and offshore businessmen..

Only my guess...and it is ever so humble.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:My guess is they liked the Labour manifesto...10 pound an hour...Student fees etc... and also saw a guy that had been demonised for two years... up close for six weeks solid and thought he seems an ok guy...Chuck in a woman that could only spew out slogans and thought it ok to punish ordinary people with a dementia tax while ignoring corporations and offshore businessmen..

Only my guess...and it is ever so humble.

Labour would have won a landslide if that was the case

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:

GSC wrote:

Ent wrote:Still a big split in their male/female vote.

Not surprised young women vote for a party with more female candidates tbh.

This is pretty patronising tbh

how so?

Girls vote for girls - like that's the only thing important for them in a candidate.

When did anyone say that?

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

Erm...nope...

Grenfell tower was built in the 1970s. Why not ask why the Labour government from 1997 - 2010 didn't look into housing regs and take action.

Nothing to do with "austerity culture".

Also nothing to do with rich people not liking the way the flats looked either. You can gentrify buildings in lots of ways, using properly spec'd materials, that won't turn them into deathtraps.

Those people died because of the original poor design of the flats, the shoddy refurbishment that was carried out and the failure of the council / building management group to address the residents' repeated concerns over fire safety.

If you want to make a political statement about it, you could say those people died because they were poor / working class and therefore ignored. I feel this is at least partially true.

dyrewolfe wrote:

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

Erm...nope...

Grenfell tower was built in the 1970s. Why not ask why the Labour government from 1997 - 2010 didn't look into housing regs and take action.

Nothing to do with "austerity culture".

Also nothing to do with rich people not liking the way the flats looked either. You can gentrify buildings in lots of ways, using properly spec'd materials, that won't turn them into deathtraps.

Those people died because of the original poor design of the flats, the shoddy refurbishment that was carried out and the failure of the council / building management group to address the residents' repeated concerns over fire safety.

If you want to make a political statement about it, you could say those people died because they were poor / working class and therefore ignored. I feel this is at least partially true.

Agree with a lot of that, though hard to say they were ignored when the property management board has a majority of residents on it.

It is a tragedy in which the state (including at least 3 successive Governments) failed these people, I have little time for anyone trying to make political capital from it.