This is the second of a three-part series. See Part 1 here.
The Grenfell Fire Inquiry Panel report was very detailed. However, it was limited in its scope by its terms of reference.
This is probably just as well as it would otherwise have taken considerably longer than seven years to complete, bearing in mind the painstakingly detailed research done.
In my view, though, the seeds of the problem lie further back and are manifest in wider societal attitudes. Otherwise, the various organisations discussed in Part 1 would never have been able to ‘get away’ with what they did.
But where did these societal attitudes come from? Let’s start with
Company law
A limited company is an artificial ‘person’ whose objects and allowable actions are set out in their articles and memorandum of association. Companies vary, but on the whole, companies exist solely to make a profit.
For example, in 1970, the economist Milton Friedman wrote that:
the one and only social responsibility of businesses is to use their resources and engage in activities designed to increase their profits, so long as it stays in the rules of the game and engage in open and free competition, without deception or fraud.
The increase of profits, by the way, is for the benefit of its shareholders and directors. Not for the benefit, for example, of its employees or society at large.
This is starting to change, and some companies are converting to B Corporations or B Corps. The B Corps’ purpose is not limited to making money for itself but to benefit all stakeholders – customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and investors.
There are now some 2000 B Corps in the UK, but needless to say, this does not include any of the companies mentioned in the Grenfell Inquiry Report!
The fact that a company in law exists solely to make money for its directors and shareholders, makes it more likely that they will have the sort of culture we see in the companies supplying materials for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment.
Laissez faire and Neoliberalism
This section of this blog is going to take us into the murky waters of philosophy and economic theory, but bear with me!
- Laissez-faire means ‘allow to do’ and originates (so I am informed by Google) with a group of 18th Century French economists who believed that ‘government policy should not interfere with the operation of natural economic laws.’
- Neoliberalism is an economic philosophy which originated in the 1930s. We are informed by Wikipeida that it is used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as “eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers” and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy.
Another useful definition of neoliberalism is given by Prof Richard Murphy, who defines it as
a political and economic ideology that emphasises the importance of free markets, individual liberty, and limited government intervention in the economy.
He goes on to say that the key principles include the promotion of
1) Free markets: Neoliberalism advocates for the liberalisation of markets, allowing for the free flow of goods, services, and capital. It promotes competition as a means to increase efficiency and economic growth.
2) Privatisation: Neoliberalism supports the transfer of state-owned enterprises and services to the private sector.
3) Deregulation: Neoliberalism calls for reducing government regulations and removing barriers to entry in order to foster competition and innovation.
4) Fiscal austerity: Neoliberals emphasise the importance of fiscal discipline, advocating for balanced budgets, lower government spending, and reduced public debt.
5) Individualism: Neoliberalism places a strong emphasis on individual liberty, personal responsibility, and the belief that individuals should be free to pursue their own economic interests. As a result it promotes low or no taxes on wealth and views tax havens favourably.
6) Globalisation: Neoliberalism promotes free trade and globalisation, seeking to remove barriers to international trade and investment.
There is also the view that the Market will regulate itself. This is often the justification rolled out for laissez-faire type policies. Although Google AI tells me that “some say that it runs counter to practical experience and reflection … Some say that there is no self-regulating mechanism in capitalism to reduce income inequality.”
So this all sounds to me very like:
- A justification for companies to be allowed to do what they like – and sadly, what they like is often to increase their profits by giving public safety a low-priority
- Government offloading responsibility for running essential public assets and services to the private sector (including foreign companies who have little interest in the safety or otherwise of the British public). Either because they (i.e. the government) can’t be bothered, or because they don’t want to pay for the staff and administration, or both, and
- A low-tax economy which inevitably tends to favour the wealthy rather than the poor – as low tax means that there is less money available to support public services.
Why am I writing about all this in a blog post supposedly about the Grenfell Inquiry report?
Well, it seems to me that many of the problems referred to in the report, are down to a culture in business and government fostered by the ideas and policies of laissez-faire and neoliberalism.
These were, I understand, first introduced by Margaret Thatcher, but have since been enthusiastically embraced by
- The Conservative Party
- Businesses who prefer to operate unshackled by the constraints of regulation and ‘red tape’ (including much of our national press) and
- All those sinister Tufton Street ‘think tanks’ which supported Liz Truss and the policies which crashed the economy in 2022
It’s the ideas and philosophy of laissez-faire and neoliberalism which underlie many of the attitudes and actions (or failures to act) which are so criticised in the Grenfell Inquiry Report.
- Reducing regulation to allow companies to operate unimpeded by the burden of red tape
- Reducing state spending so money is no longer available for the regulatory bodies who should exist to keep us all safe
- Reducing funding for Local Authorities so they are no longer able to afford the in house experts who would formerly have advised Councils (and whose advice could have prevented the dangerous cladding being used in the first place). I discussed this in a post I wrote shortly after the Grenfell fire.
What about the Tenant Management Organisation’s negative attitudes towards the Grenfell residents?
There is something deep in the human psyche which likes the idea that we are superior to other humans.
This reached its unpleasant height in the slave trade, where slave traders and owners often viewed their slave ‘possessions’ as little better than animals. Indeed, their animals were sometimes treated better.
However, this tendency is still manifest today.
- Landlords viewing tenants as ‘scum’ (remember Hoogstraten?)
- Men viewing women as ‘stupid’ (not all men!), and
- The ‘anti-migrant’ views of far-right activists
I am sure you can think of others.
The attitude of the Grenfell TMO towards residents was another example of this type of thinking. It is not, clearly, something that should have been allowed by the Council and its leaders.
And finally
Nothing in this post was directly discussed in the Grenfell Report, but in my view these are the underlying reasons why the conditions which allowed the Grenfell fire to happen developed.
The laissez-faire/neoliberal policies have been developing over a very long period of time. But the damage these ideas and philosophies can do is now becoming clear. Grenfell is just one sad example.
Another I would suggest, is the general malaise which is infecting society. The most serious is the climate crisis and the potential destruction of our living conditions on this planet. Caused largely, I would suggest, by greedy industrialists operating unfettered under conditions created by laissez-faire and neoliberal policies and thinking.
In Part 3, I will have a go at suggesting some solutions.
The post Considering the Grenfell Fire Inquiry Report – Part 2: The wider picture appeared first on The Landlord Law Blog.