UK government won't promise help to remove highly flammable high-rise cladding


Originally published at:


On the one hand, it was the local councils that were responsible for renovations. On the other hand, it was the central government that decided on COMPLETELY insufficient fire safety regulations. I don’t think any other industrialized country allows single stairways on high rise buildings. I admit that I am completely unaware of how the local/national government divide works in the UK. One suspects that it is not as deep a divide as it is between the Federal and State governments in the US.

Edited to add. The fact that EVERY SINGLE TEST of cladding around the country has failed fire testing shows that from a practical, if not theoretical, standpoint the problem is national, not local.


Jesus, it’s like they’re trying to build death traps to kill poor people.


Why would insurance companies insure any of these buildings? If there’s an actual problem, then high premiums should make removing the cladding the economical thing for building owners to do.

If the problem falls into the category of possible but not probable and insurers are willing to cover damages, maybe removing the cladding doesn’t make sense economically.


That is quite an accusation! When has England ever done such a thing before? :wink:


Tories hate social housing and couldn’t give a shit if these buildings are rendered unusable. It’s exactly what they want to happen.


Which would mean that despite the horrific danger, they won’t be removed soon, since economic sense is the only kind of sense that makes sense in Toryland.


I believe council flats are owned by the governement, though that is not a strongly informed opinion. I’m not sure how the insurance is applied there really.

I know that a lot of safety code here in the US is enforced, de facto, by insurers and banks. They hold the gold, you don’t get any until you can prove you’ve met the regs.


Yes, I was wondering about that – why would publicly owned buildings be privately insured?


Seems like a great time for an ambitious lawyer or firm to sue the central government. I’d love to see the current leadership defend the danger to the public they’ve created.


I’m fully expecting Westminster to approve a publicly funded bail out for all Landlords, public and private (but mainly private… okay, really only private) to improve property prices make buildings safer.

Edit: Hey, its my Boing Boing Birthday! I’m beginning to think that the cake is a lie.


I don’t like when life hands you symbols of ugly truths. The image of that building, that towering burnt cinder at the heart of a neighborhood, is pretty damn symbolic of that danger.


This is all part of the larger debate about “what is government for anyway?”

If you want to believe government exists only for protecting the nation from outside attacks, fine, but some of us believe it can be a force for good, and that if we pool our resources it makes it better for all citizens.


It is kind of ironic that the building was given a new cladding because the rich neighbours didn’t want an eye-sore ruining their view.


I would settle for a government that doesn’t actively encourage outside attacks by being beastly to folk around the world. :frowning:


To me, the cladding didn’t improve the appearance in the first place. I don’t think that we should totally discount the importance of improved insulation and energy efficiency in the decision. People were really only starting to worry about insulation and the cost of heating in the 70s.


Makes me think of this:


Oh WOW. That hits more than a little close to home.


You shush now! Don’t you know that’s the Big Secret that no one (important) is allowed to talk about?


Note that in the sketch it really wasn’t only the lack of secret society membership that got Cleese’s plan nixed. I feel that, today, it would be the sole reason. They’d be looking into integrating the rotating knives into the other tower.