There is no shortage of parties blamed in the final report of the Grenfell inquiry: “dishonest” companies, the “indifference” of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and every government from 1991 to 2017. But no administration is subject to fiercer criticism than that of David Cameron.
The inquiry, chaired by the former court of appeal judge Martin Moore-Bick, states that by 2016 the Department for Communities and Local Government was “well aware” of the risks posed by flammable cladding but “failed to act on what it knew”. Instead, “the government’s deregulatory agenda, enthusiastically supported by some junior ministers and the Secretary of State, dominated the department’s thinking to such an extent that even matters affecting the safety of life were ignored, delayed or disregarded”.
What was this deregulatory agenda? Cameron prided himself on his crusade against red tape with the government introducing a “one-in, two-out” rule on new regulations in January 2013 and a “one-in, three-out” rule from March 2016. The former prime minister routinely hailed this mission. In a speech in January 2014, he boasted that his would be “the first government in modern history that at the end of its parliamentary term has less regulation in place than there was at the beginning”. In another address in 2012 he declared that he wanted to “kill off the health and safety culture for good”.
But this dogmatic mindset – endless talk of “bonfires of red tape” from allies – had consequences. The Grenfell report states that “the government determinedly resisted calls from across the fire sector to regulate fire risk assessors and to amend the Fire Safety Order to make it clear that it applied to the exterior walls of buildings containing more than one set of domestic premises”.
In his sober response to the report in the House of Commons, Keir Starmer cited the criticism of Cameron’s government and spoke of “a moment to reflect on the state of social justice in our country”.
Of the five Conservative prime ministers over the last 14 years, it is Cameron whose government has had the most significant afterlife. The former prime minister held office for longer than any of his counterparts and had the most developed policy agenda (aided by years of preparation in opposition).
One way to view Starmer’s premiership is as a challenge to Cameronism. Though the Prime Minister has moved Margaret Thatcher’s portrait from her former study, he is not abandoning the Thatcherite settlement. That would entail reversing the privatisations of the 1980s, raising the top rate of income tax and re-regulating the City of London.
But on numerous fronts, Starmer is confronting Cameron’s legacy. Public-sector pay, which was frozen by George Osborne, is rising in real terms once more. Public ownership – through GB Energy and the renationalisation of the railways – is being restored as a legitimate tool of economic policy. The onshore wind ban imposed in 2015 has been reversed (by Cameron’s former opponent Ed Miliband). The 2016 Trade Union Act, which imposed dramatic restrictions on the right to strike, will soon be repealed. Workers’ rights are expected to be transformed through the Employment Rights Bill (see my interview this week with the Trades Union Congress general secretary Paul Nowak). Regulation is no longer a dirty word.
In a 2013 speech, Cameron declared that it was his mission to build “a leaner, more efficient state… not just now, but permanently”. Though questions remain over whether Labour will truly break with austerity, Starmer is unashamedly expanding the state. The Grenfell report is a reminder that small government, as much as big government, has consequences.
[See also: Grenfell inquiry: failure on an industrial scale]
Content from our partners
Related
