All disasters can be politicised, but it does not always help. When emotions run high, the craving is for someone to blame. When lives are lost, if not through malice then possibly through negligence, we want to point the finger. But making us somehow feel better must be beside the point. The priority is to do everything to assist a neighbourhood hit by an appalling catastrophe, and then do everything to stop the same thing happening again.
In the case of the Grenfell Tower disaster, there appears to have been a woeful lack of leadership and information on the ground, as the fire swept through the building and in the immediate aftermath. Disaster relief is hardly a novel science. In this case, the response seems to have been left to neighbours and local charities. There has to be an authority present, or feelings are bound to be raised. That remains a danger.
The cause or causes of the Grenfell Tower tragedy have yet to be discovered. The scale of the disaster was clearly due to the cladding used to refurbish the building. But finding someone to blame must be more complicated. Is it the manufacturer, the subcontractor, the commissioning agency, the council that certificated the building, the officials who wrote the regulation or the politician responsible for the officials? Does blame lie in the fundamental unsuitability of high-rise buildings for residential use, especially for families? Does this indicate some deeper cruelty in the divisiveness of modern urban communities?
The use of high-rise blocks for social housing adds to the risk. Tenants cannot afford to look after maintenance, and councils are under pressure to cut costs. That other high-rise towers – and low-rise terraces – in London stand empty only adds to the sense of frustration. There may be an unlimited demand for cheap housing in a booming capital, but that so much of its accommodation is unoccupied or under-occupied is understandably the cause of anger.
That said, to imply that general policies are to blame for specific disasters risks deflecting attention from the causes primarily responsible and those whose decisions may have precipitated them. There are degrees of responsibility as there are degrees of blame and perhaps degrees of penalty. The danger now is that millions of pounds are spent and years wasted as lawyers argue over grading those degrees. It is not just property management but public administration that is now on trial.
