Who can forget that fateful night when the horrific images of the tower ablaze flashed across our screens. Almost four years on from the tragedy of Grenfell Tower calls for the Government to address the issue of unsafe cladding stills rages on. On the 1st February 2021 a vote in the House of Commons on this issue resulted in all of the Conservative Government abstaining.
Why?
How do Government decide whom or what to prioritise when governing the country?
Firstly, the Governments response is totally predictable, why? Because they are adhering to the dominant ideology that shapes their actions, and apparent inaction.
In short ideology determines the nature and limits of the state, who should be supported by whom, and how it should be paid for.
In this context the dominant ideology underpining successive Governments over the last 40 years, since Thatcher, is neoliberalism.
There are a number of strands to neoliberalism which are, arguably, as relevant as the cladding on Grenfell Tower in understanding why this issue has dragged on. In political terms this has resulted in Government dis-investing in public services with the aim of privatising services such as health care and children’s social care, to promote open unregulated markets to transfer public services into the free market.
This has resulted not only in the deregulation and privatisation of publicly owned assets, such as housing, but also arguably the transfer of responsibility for those requiring public services away from government, so that when, as in the case of building regulations, there is a failure in the system, holding someone to account is almost impossible due to a diffused chain of responsibility government has put between it, and the individual, by creating a host of intermediary layers of officials and organisations , such as management companies, contractors and sub-contractors.
A key tenet of neoliberalism is the role of free market in delivering everything from baked beans to iPhone’s to children’s social care. The free market is highly valued by neoliberals because it is viewed as a more efficient system in providing goods and services and promotes individual liberty by empowering society through consumer choice.
In the case of Grenfell Tower, and the ongoing ‘cladding’ debate, the extremes and limitations of these beliefs are starkly revealed. Not least in Brandon Lewis’s comments who, following the Grenfell Tower disaster, was criticised for having rejected calls to increase fire safety regulations in his former role as housing minister in 2014.
Mr Lewis had declined to force building developers to fit sprinklers, even though a coroner’s report into 6 deaths in a block of flats at Lakanal House in 2009 had recommended regulations be updated, and called for developers refurbishing high-rise blocks to be encouraged to install sprinkler systems. However, five years later, Mr Lewis told MPs:
“We believe that it is the responsibility of the fire industry, rather than the Government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation.”
He said the Tory government had committed to being the first to reduce regulations nationwide, pledging a one-in-two-out rule. He added:
“The cost of fitting a fire sprinkler system may affect house building – something we want to encourage – so we must wait to see what impact that regulation has.”
Even after the controversy when these comments were publicised Micheal Gove’ still held the neoliberal ideological line when interviewed in respect of Grenfell Tower, suggesting that it is a matter for “debate” that government should regulate so that people could have safe housing conditions.
Whilst some might find such comments incredulous, these responses are wholly consistent with neoliberal ideology, which promotes the commodification of everything from children’s social care to housing to education to health, and more worryingly clearly includes the commodification of ‘risk’. This combined with limited regulation of the free market and an unshakable belief that all consumers can exercise free choice to control, or eliminate, risk is concerning.
Those in power do not seem able, or willing, to recognise there are flaws within the neoliberal ideology they so zealously adhere to, that authentic consumer choice is often a facade in important areas of life such as housing, health and children’s social care. The fact is individuals cannot always eliminate risk because of the governments hand in creating systems that perpetuate structural inequality, which then restricts the individual autonomy and consumer choice they purport to support, unless, of course you are very wealthy.
The powerlessness of the residents of Grenfell Tower, and current leaseholders of property effected by dangerous cladding, to exercise autonomy and choice is seen in their inability to challenge the decisions being made by Government.
Peter Weatherby QC suggests a key action of government that compounded the Grenfell Tower tragedy was the swingeing cuts to legal aid. Residents of Grenfell Tower had sought to challenge decisions being made, and residents did try to get a lawyer, however, they could not get a lawyer because of cuts to legal aid according to campaigner Pilgrim Tucker, speaking on BBC Newsnight
“These are poor residents – or they’re ordinary residents. They’re not
the wealthy. They’re not the Camerons. They can’t afford private
schools, they can’t afford lawyers. They tried to get lawyers but,
because of the legal aid cuts, they couldn’t get lawyers. ”
However, again, this is consistent with neoliberal ideology, why should the state fund legal aid?
Arguably, this is actually structural abuse. Structural abuse is defined as ‘the process by which an individual is dealt with unfairly by a system of harm in ways that the person cannot protect themselves against, cannot deal with, cannot break out of, cannot mobilise against, cannot seek justice for, cannot redress, cannot avoid, cannot reverse and cannot change’ (https://www.encyclo.co.uk/meaning-of-Structural_abuse)
I think this sums up the plight of the residents of Grenfell Tower pre and post fire, along with those leaseholders now seeking support, along with many other marginalised groups within society.
Albert Camus wrote “We must mend what has been torn apart, make justice imaginable again in a world so obviously unjust….. ”, going onto suggest mending a broken world is ‘steadfast, often unglamorous work – it is the work of choosing kindness over fear, again and again…’
Nearly 4 years on let the fate of the individuals of Grenfell Tower be a lesson to us all, and lets ensure their tragedy is never forgotten. We need to change the ideology driving Government and the decisions they make for all our futures.
Di Galpin 