Much recrimination going on over Kensington building fire.

[Phil Perry]

John Redwood. Now this is a very thoughtful and incisive British Politician. Doesn't appear much on the MSM, but is a very intelligent chap.

 

Here is his latest Diary Entry.

 

Who is to blame? Where does the power lie?

 

Posted: 26 Jun 2017 10:07 PM PDT

 

There is little limit to what you can achieve in politics as long as you are happy for others to take the credit. Some people have considerable influence but are happy to let others take the starring roles and to decide and implement the new ideas. Some with influence are civil servants, some are consultants, some are serving politicians. Much of government is a slave to the ideas of old economists and other thinkers. Much of modern government is driven by consultants who come in to recommend courses of action, design media strategies, and then take on the role of helping implement the decisions. The public never knows who they are.

 

Some politicians define their roles by the media. This became an acute preoccupation with New Labour, and has continued with many in government since. Some politicians have the strange idea that they can manage the media. They get upset when their agenda is displaced by events or someone else’s agenda. Too much concentration on the media can divert their attention from the day job. Often the reason they are doing badly in the media is not media mismanagement, but mismanagement of a part of government which then attracts justified pubic anger. They need to spend more time trying to fix the real problem, and less time trying to fix the media.

 

Advisers advise, and politicians decide. The media reports decisions and reactions to them. That is the constitutional theory. Sometimes it works out like that. There are frequently other models.

 

Sometimes officials decide and politicians do not realise what is going on. Sometimes officials recommend strongly and politicians acquiesce. Sometimes politicians do query an approach but are told it is the only technical, legal, practical or safe way to proceed. It then takes a strong minded and well informed politician to insist on a different way of proceeding. Sometimes the media have their own agendas and want to make the politicians follow them.

 

There are government Ministers who take a Manifesto or political agenda and drive it through, using officials to improve and implement. There are other Ministers who are but actors and actresses voicing the lines of departmental officials, both within and outside government.

 

We see in the questions about who is to blame for the Tower inferno these same issues of responsibility, knowledge and advice in local government. Is an elected Councillor allowed to rely on the technical expertise of his Council’s Building Regulation Department and the Fire Department? Does he or she ever need to challenge their technical advice and decisions? If he is told of what they are doing does that make him to blame if it is wrong? Or is he to blame even if he was not informed and it was handled as a delegated matter? Should a Councillor approving expenditures to improve the thermal insulation and look of a building have to do enough research to satisfy himself of the safety, or can he rely on the professionals designing and procuring the building to do that? The Councillor wants to take the credit for the improvement, so should he therefore take the blame if it goes wrong?

 

These are difficult issues. I would be interested in your views. The danger is we make the role of the Councillor too difficult so no-one good will want to take it on. The other danger is we expect too little, and the Councillors’ collective power to challenge and to improve the work of professionals and officers lapses or fails to do its job. In the worst cases in the public sector no-one is to blame. They all become good at laying off the risk, because they can claim that no one person ever took the decision. It just happened.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

On a completely different tack. . .I am feeling extremely esulient.

 

I shall therefore, cease from $hitposting on various blogsites,. . . . and sally forth to my now Unnoccupied Kitchen area, whereupon I shall throw several, but an even number of thickly sliced, goodly sized rashers of back bacon into the pan, and whilst these are suffering from increasing thermal runaway,. . chuck a couple of Free Rnge eggs from my OWN Chooks. . . and a handful of sliced fresh mushrooms, into another large frying pan, and with the other hand,. . .insert four slices of very fresh, medium sliced wholegrain bread into the mutlitoaster and shortly thereafter,. . . avail myself of a couple of beautiful, lightly toasted Bacon, Egg and Mushroom sarnies.. . . .might even add a dash of 'Daddies' brown sauce for seasoning. . .

 

Yeah, Yeah, That's Breakfast food I hear you bleat,. . BUT. . .at my time of life, . . .ask me if I really GIVE a damn what everyone else thinks. . .! ! ! !

 

 

[Bruce]

Thanks Phil, I have learned more here than all the news stuff put together.

 

 

[Marty_d]

John Redwood. Now this is a very thoughtful and incisive British Politician. Doesn't appear much on the MSM, but is a very intelligent chap.

Here is his latest Diary Entry.

 

Who is to blame? Where does the power lie?

 

Posted: 26 Jun 2017 10:07 PM PDT

 

There is little limit to what you can achieve in politics as long as you are happy for others to take the credit. Some people have considerable influence but are happy to let others take the starring roles and to decide and implement the new ideas. Some with influence are civil servants, some are consultants, some are serving politicians. Much of government is a slave to the ideas of old economists and other thinkers. Much of modern government is driven by consultants who come in to recommend courses of action, design media strategies, and then take on the role of helping implement the decisions. The public never knows who they are.

 

Some politicians define their roles by the media. This became an acute preoccupation with New Labour, and has continued with many in government since. Some politicians have the strange idea that they can manage the media. They get upset when their agenda is displaced by events or someone else’s agenda. Too much concentration on the media can divert their attention from the day job. Often the reason they are doing badly in the media is not media mismanagement, but mismanagement of a part of government which then attracts justified pubic anger. They need to spend more time trying to fix the real problem, and less time trying to fix the media.

 

Advisers advise, and politicians decide. The media reports decisions and reactions to them. That is the constitutional theory. Sometimes it works out like that. There are frequently other models.

 

Sometimes officials decide and politicians do not realise what is going on. Sometimes officials recommend strongly and politicians acquiesce. Sometimes politicians do query an approach but are told it is the only technical, legal, practical or safe way to proceed. It then takes a strong minded and well informed politician to insist on a different way of proceeding. Sometimes the media have their own agendas and want to make the politicians follow them.

 

There are government Ministers who take a Manifesto or political agenda and drive it through, using officials to improve and implement. There are other Ministers who are but actors and actresses voicing the lines of departmental officials, both within and outside government.

 

We see in the questions about who is to blame for the Tower inferno these same issues of responsibility, knowledge and advice in local government. Is an elected Councillor allowed to rely on the technical expertise of his Council’s Building Regulation Department and the Fire Department? Does he or she ever need to challenge their technical advice and decisions? If he is told of what they are doing does that make him to blame if it is wrong? Or is he to blame even if he was not informed and it was handled as a delegated matter? Should a Councillor approving expenditures to improve the thermal insulation and look of a building have to do enough research to satisfy himself of the safety, or can he rely on the professionals designing and procuring the building to do that? The Councillor wants to take the credit for the improvement, so should he therefore take the blame if it goes wrong?

 

These are difficult issues. I would be interested in your views. The danger is we make the role of the Councillor too difficult so no-one good will want to take it on. The other danger is we expect too little, and the Councillors’ collective power to challenge and to improve the work of professionals and officers lapses or fails to do its job. In the worst cases in the public sector no-one is to blame. They all become good at laying off the risk, because they can claim that no one person ever took the decision. It just happened.

He may be an intelligent chap, but he seems to be making a dangerous point. If I'm reading it right, he seems to imply that elected Councillors should "challenge technical advice and decisions" from the subject matter experts within building regulation and fire departments.

 

Elected politicians are not experts on anything. They can't afford to be. They are a representative of the public. Their job is to make the best possible decision based on the information available to them from experts in the field. They do have to have enough basic knowledge of all the areas of expertise that their decisions are based on, in order to make an informed decision, but certainly not enough to override or ignore the advice of experts in the field.

 

In this particular case (the apartment building fire), there'll be plenty of blame to go around, but the following questions need to be considered.

 

• Was the building compliant in every way with the fire safety regulations for a building of its age and purpose, including modifications (which may have required compliance with current regulations if the building was substantially altered)? If that is the case, then the owners have very little responsibility, and the council's regulations are obviously not good enough.
   
  
• If the building was not compliant (most likely), then much of the responsibility falls on the owner, but questions have to be raised about whether the council knew about it (and if they did, what action was underway to force compliance?) - or if they didn't, why wasn't the building subject to regular inspections?
   
  

 

Far from being a case where the experts in the fire department said "Nah, buildings of this size don't need sprinklers and more than one fire escape, and it's a waste of time to do inspections twice a year"... I find it far more believable that lobbying from greedy building owners who don't want to spend the money to make their buildings safe, or at the very least cost-cutting measures by elected officials contrary to the advice of the experts, has led to a lack of inspections and watered down compliance enforcement.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Yeah, Yeah, That's Breakfast food I hear you bleat,. . BUT. . .at my time of life, . . .ask me if I really GIVE a damn what everyone else thinks. . .! ! ! !

I say go for it Phil. You never know at our age if we wait tomorrow we might not wake up for breakfast.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Had some 'Shredded Wheat' with hot milk and a spoonful of fresh honey for supper last night. . . . . Since I retired,. .I find that the body 'Eatery' clock has gone weird mate. . .