Questions Of The Day (Politics)

[Mick Harper]

As is unavoidable, human advance always involves risk. Human beings naturally try to minimise those risks by all manner of means but since the human mind is not infinitely capacious residual risk will always remain. What that great thinker Donald Rumsfeld calls the ‘unknown unknowns’. When tower blocks were first proposed (in Mesopotamia c 3000 BC) it was pointed out that fire would be a real danger, over and above normal house fires where people can usually get out quickly.

For five thousand years building regs coped well enough to the point where, by the time really massive tower blocks were technically feasible, c 1900 AD, it was actually safer to live in tower blocks than in houses because building regs could be enforced collectively and therefore more effectively than in ordinary houses. We know this because, following Grenfell, we have discovered that the last, and I think only, significant fire fatality in a tower block was in Southwark eight years ago. Significant house fire fatalities, by contrast, are a constant.

But one thing all tower blocks had in common 3000 BC to 2000 AD was that they couldn’t ‘go up like torches’ and therefore people could get out even if a few individuals died in a fire in a part of the tower block. We know this because nobody has produced an example of a 'torched tower block' except Dubai and now Grenfell. It would seem that the cause of tower block ‘torch fires’ is because of a particular technical advance – cladding of the exterior walls.

Can anyone be criticised for the resulting torch fires? Well, we know ‘they did the tests’ but we also know (from the Twin Towers) that basically you can’t ‘do the tests’ when it comes to tower blocks for the simple reason that nobody, not even Dubaians, are rich enough to build a number of tower blocks with the sole purpose of applying every kind of cladding, setting them on fire and seeing what happens. It has to be done that way because small scale and computer models cannot reproduce the effect of fire on a large 'self-generating' scale ie when the fire itself is of an intensity that it overcomes all (human) barriers to its uncontrolled, rapid and exponential spread. In fact nobody even knew about 'self-generating fire' until Hamburg in 1943 and there have been very few examples since.

Maybe we should do some experiments on old tower blocks we were going to demolish anyway but, as we have just found out, it costs ten million pounds to apply the cladding, never mind the rest of the experiment, so we probably won't. Maybe we will just have to abandon cladding as per se inherently dangerous, I don’t know. Meanwhile we’ll have to make do with shouting at the leader of Kensington Borough Council.

[Mick Harper]

And so we come to the last (hooray) aspect of this sorry story. The Response. This is gradually becoming the chief trope as it gradually dawns on everyone that this is in effect a natural disaster. The same sequence occurred with Hurricane Katrina -- first it was the negligent criminals responsible for the New Orleans levees but gradually, and oh so reluctantly, the focus shifted to Louisiana's inadequate assisting of the survivors and above all, literally, President Bush flying over the floods rather than wading about in them.

The underlying message in both cases is: they just don’t care about the poor whereas we do. The ‘we’ in this case being the Sky News reporter, the spokeswoman from the local action committee, the thousands storming the Town Hall, Jeremy Corbyn, even, by a truly bizarre development, the Queen herself. It is of course complete nonsense as every AE-ist knows. Nobody cares about the poor unless you are reminded to do so in which case everybody cares about the poor. That's the human condition for you. The true AE question is always ‘Can you do anything to help the poor, and if so, what?’ We also ask the really dangerous question, 'Should we help the poor?'

Kensington council are, by any measure, off the hook. Like all local councils they have the statutory responsibility and the local resources to rehouse and assist people that find themselves suddenly homeless. They do it every day when families get evicted. If one family had been burnt out by the fire – as one family was burnt out by the previous tower block fire in Lambeth – they would have coped splendidly. Well, actually begrudgingly and inadequately, but that is because it is public policy not to encourage people to become intentionally homeless and is very sensible.

When a thousand families have been ‘evicted’ one can do no more than open the leisure centre and wring one's hands. Even that was not straightforward since the leisure centre has been privatised and my daily swim went from one pound to five pounds. End of my daily swim. Thank the lord. Who said privatisation was a bad thing? No, we are talking here of a response that is more Unicef than borough council. More central than local government, and their response was much more interesting. And for British politics much more significant.

[Mick Harper]

Politicians love disasters. It is the one time everybody can see the point of politicians as they don the hard hat and stride purposefully about, stopping only to listen head bowed to a careful selection of victims. Lessons will be learned and everything will be done that humanly can be done. It is completely routine and never fails. Even when it goes wrong it just goes to show that they care not one jot about their ‘image’ when an emergency looms. So why did Theresa May muff it? Rhymes with muppet? Well, only sort of.

There is what AE calls ‘Sick Man syndrome’. In Great Power systems one of the five members must be in the Sick Man position -- named for Turkey, the ‘Sick Man of Europe’. When a country is in the Sick Man position every action it takes is the wrong action. This is because of its position, not because any given action is technically right or wrong, The only right action is to cease being the Sick Man. If you are Prussia in 1849 you fight your way out of the Sick Man position to become Hegemon; if you are Austria-Hungary in 1914 you fight your way out of the Great Power system altogether. That is the only choice facing the Sick Man.

Thus, observe Mrs May on the night of the fire. If she had done what technically she is meant to do and in fact what she did do -- co-ordinate the emergency services at both the highest and the immediate local levels -- she gets slaughtered for not comforting the victims. If she had done what routine politicians do – comfort the victims -- she would have been slaughtered for getting in the way of the emergency services for the sake of a photo-op. If she had done both in perfect synchronisation she would have been slaughtered for ... goodness know what – being a hyper-active bossy-boots, having a magpie personality, acting from a pre-prepared script .... it doesn’t matter. She’s the Sick Man, everything sticks.

The question before us is ‘Was Mrs May always a Sick Man?' Is she Prussia or is she Austria? We know the answer to that from the Dementia Tax.

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

[Mick Harper]

Some baffling omissions from the experts. They do not seem to be examples of 'careful ignoral', just plain stupidity.

1. There is no such thing as non-flammable material. Everything burns, it is merely a question of at what point they ignite. This is critical when dealing with super-generated fires to which tower blocks are always theoretically vulnerable. There is no obvious way round this contradiction.

2. Cladding for insulation purposes in high rise buildings must by definition contain vertical, flat cavities over huge areas -- whether they are filled cavities and whether there are 'fire-breaks'. Fires are super-generated by vertical cavities over huge areas. There is no obvious way round this contradiction.

3. The Volkswagen Factor. When manufactures send in their samples for testing, the materials are of the very highest standard and are installed by expert fitters. When cladding is applied to high rise buildings they 'come off the truck' and are fitted by people on minimum wage, possibly on piece-work. Not only can the cladding not be tested on the necessary scale (the test I saw was one panel and a bloke in a white coat holding a lighter under it) but the cladding tested will bear only a passing resemblance to the cladding on the wall. There is no obvious way round this contradiction.

Cladding was an excellent idea and long overdue because of problems of heat maintenance and condensation in high rise blocks. It was expensive, but effective. Alas, they will all have to be removed, not only for the theoretical reasons above but because nobody will sleep easily in a cladded block. That's just the way we are.

[Grant]

According to the Guardian one of the residents said "I refuse to move into another tower block and I refuse to move out of Kensington." In other words, just give me a two million pound house, you miserable poor-hating plutocrat

[Mick Harper]

You are being overly harsh, Grant. For a start even the least expensive family residence in Kensington would be in the region of two million. In the second place if anyone is entitled to favoured treatment it is is surely the ex-residents of Grenfell Tower. Thirdly I never blame people who want to better themselves and their families. Though I sometimes blame those who would better them at other's expense.

[Mick Harper]

Another example of absurd over-sentimentality affecting public policy. The benchmark is the Hutton enquiry (into the death of David Kelly) which was not televised because 'it might upset his widow'. Well, it was news to me that the widows of suicides specially need cosseting -- and she could always watch another channel -- but anyway a whole anxious nation was left to the tender mercies of the partial recollections of journalists. No wonder conspiracy theories abounded.

Now we have this bloke dying shortly after being returned from incarceration in North Korea. We are not to have an autopsy 'to spare the feelings of the family'. Wh-a-a-at! This is practically a question of war or peace. OK, you commie bastards, do what you like with who you like. We ain't going to investigate.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Your journos are continuing to have a field day on Brexit.

Nothing much has actually happened. Still both sides have now issued negotiating papers on the "Freedom of Movement" issue. There really is not a cigarette paper between them.

The EU nats in Britain will be allowed to stay.

The Brits in the EU will remain part of the EU community.

Yet both sides are crying foul, as neither can agree on who decides what on those thousands of cases where, eg Sancho and his Brazillian wife move from Spain to Brazil to Scotland. Currently it's easier for Sancho to get his wife into the UK than it is for you or I (which is a bit unfair given the great beauty of Brazilian women)...but there you go, EU law just happens to be more liberal on spouses. This apparently is an insurmountable roadblock, as it's "racist" to take away Sancho's EU rights to have a Brazilian wife, while Wayne has to content himself with a Bristolian.(unless, that is, he has the time and money to go and organise a spouse visa).
So, unable to agree who will decide on Sancho rights (the wife has no say, no name, as she is not from EU, she is dependent entirely on Sancho), will it be the European courts or the British courts?

Of course it would be sensible for it to be Europe until BRexit...but no..... Europe wants to decide even after Brexit, because they are worried about Sancho's rights, err....but not his wife's. So when Sancho splits with his wife both the EU and UK will happily boot her back to Brazil ...but of course not Sancho out. (Which of course will not be racist at all)

[Mick Harper]

The North Korean situation is easily resolved. You admit defeat. This is not always the correct strategy when confronting a Mad Dog but it is generally the only available solution when, for whatever reason, the Mad Dog cannot be destroyed. Remember, the Mad Dog gets its power from making threats and, knowing it cannot be destroyed, will simply carry on making threats. Even no doubt escalating the threats. Unless you give in to it. Then the situation is transformed because essentially there's no point in making threats. The Mad Dog is after all now Top Dog.

North Korea knows perfectly well that if it ever either a) invaded South Korea or b) used its nukes, it would be destroyed. Mad Dogs might be mad but they are not stupid. So, just let them have their nukes. Let them develop their missiles. Let them threaten to incinerate Washington D.C. So what? Lots of countries round the world can incinerate Washington DC. Are any of them ever going to do it knowing they will be incinerated themselves?

And while you are about it, knock off all the sanctions. Grant North Korea 'most favoured nation' status for trade purposes. Treat them like any other country with a weird regime. Like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela or Upper Volta or Nepal. Live and let live, it's the one thing the Mad Dog can't handle. The regime wouldn't last five minutes.

[Grant]

Or just tell his top 1,000 supporters that if they depose him they will be given $10m each, granted an amnesty and allowed to live in the USA. Then drop a MOAB on the nutcase.

[Mick Harper]

After the Vietnam War it was pointed out that it would have been cheaper to give every Vietcong a million pounds and relocation to anywhere in the world (the USA for preference since they have turned out be one of the more successful of American ethnic imports). But, Grant, you forget that Great Power behaviour is not primarily about problem-solving. My own solution included.

[Mick Harper]

As you know, the AEL operates on the führerprinzip, a management technique associated with Adolf Hitler. This is not to suggest that we are Nazis -- though we are not, by the principles of Applied Epistemology, necessarily anti-Nazi either. This needs restating because Donald Trump is clearly now operating on führerprinzip lines

[Mick Harper]

This week's Guardian Insanity Competition
Complete this tagline from Saturday's Review