A survivor of the Grenfell Tower fire has called on Angela Rayner to reconsider her decision to demolish the west London tower block.

Bereaved family members and survivors of the 2017 blaze, which killed 72 people, have been critical of the deputy prime minister’s decision, which she delivered to them in a meeting on Wednesday night.

Speaking on The UK Tonight with Sarah-Jane Mee, Marcio Gomes, who escaped from his 21st-floor flat with his then wife and two daughters, called on Ms Rayner, who is also housing secretary, to “reconsider her decision”.

“There was not one person in the room who agreed with her decision,” he said.

“She didn’t really explain the decision, we just got told what was going to happen.”

He said Ms Rayner “wouldn’t really give any answers” to any questions asked by the bereaved families and survivors.

“I was shocked and quite frankly appalled by it. If you looked around the room, and it was packed, everybody was appalled by the decision – there was a lot of heartbreak, a lot of anger, a lot of tears.

“The consultation was, in my view, minimal. I can say, in the meeting, I think 90% were not consulted with, including myself.

“Nobody knew what was happening,” he said.

Read more:
Grenfell fire families sent letter about unidentified remains
Minister loses brief after complaint by Grenfell survivors

Other relatives of the victims have also hit out at Ms Rayner’s actions.

Karim Mussilhy, whose uncle died in the fire, said the decision was “unforgivable” and “disgraceful”.

“This conversation is so sensitive, so sacred. This is the last resting place of our families whose deaths were clearly avoidable and we haven’t been involved in these conversations.”

‘Very saddening and hurtful’

Meanwhile, Nabil Choucair – who lost six relatives in the North Kensington tower – said it was “very saddening and hurtful” and called for a “fitting memorial to be designed in its place or within in”.

“It’s about our 72 loved ones, it’s all about them.”

Mr Gomes said he would like any future memorial to maintain the height of the tower though admitted that “everybody is going to have a slightly different view” of the future plans for the site.

But one thing is certain for Mr Gomes: “Grenfell should have been the catalyst for change.”

“And nearly eight years on, not a lot has changed.

“We’re still going through the process, we still haven’t had justice. The victims aren’t being put at the centre of the decisions that are being made.

“It’s almost like they want to knock it down, out of sight, out of mind,” he added.

“This can still happen again. There’s so many buildings up and down the country with this type of cladding.”

Grenfell United, which represents some bereaved and survivors, said: “Angela Rayner could not give a reason for her decision to demolish the tower. She refused to confirm how many bereaved and survivors had been spoken to in the recent, short four-week consultation.

“But judging from the room alone – the vast majority of whom were bereaved – no-one supported her decision. But she claims her decision is based on our views.”

In September last year, the public inquiry into Grenfell found “systematic dishonesty” contributed to the fire.

Inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said the “simple truth” was all the deaths were avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were “badly failed” by authorities “in most cases through incompetence but, in some cases, through dishonesty and greed”.

The Metropolitan Police said last year that decisions on criminal charges for the blaze are not expected until the end of 2026.

Sky News has contacted the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government for a response.

Let’s start with the simple bit: interest rates have been cut – down by another quarter percentage point to 4.5%. But what happens next?

Not long ago, the answer was quite simple: the Bank of England would carry on cutting borrowing costs, one quarter point cut every three months, until they reached, say, 3.5%.

That, at least, was the expectation this time last year.

Money latest: First-time buyers warned over auctions

But things have become more complex, more unpredictable in recent months.

Instead there are two paths ahead of us. One of them, let’s call it the high road, sees those borrowing costs being cut only gradually, down to 4% in a couple of years’ time.

Down the other road, the low road, the outlook is quite different: rates will be cut faster and more. They go down below 4%, perhaps as low as 3.5%, perhaps even lower.

The funny thing about today’s splurge of information and forecasts from the Bank of England is that it’s not entirely clear whether we’re on the high road or the low road anymore.

Now, strictly speaking, the forecasts and fan charts produced by the Bank’s staff tend towards the former, more conservative view – the two cuts.

But then look at the voting patterns on the monetary policy committee (MPC), where two members, Swati Dhingra and Catherine Mann just voted for a full half percentage point cut, and you’re left with a different impression. That rates will go lower, and quickly.

And in truth, that’s what often happens when the economy is weakening.

When gross domestic product, the best measure of economic output, is flatlining or shrinking, when inflation is low (especially when you look beyond the temporary bump caused by energy prices) – that’s usually precisely the time the Bank slashes rates with abandon.

And that’s precisely the situation the UK finds itself in at the moment.

Read more from Sky News:
Tesco eyes delivery of Crown Post Office branches
Starmer to slash red tape to build nuclear reactors
Race to avoid Trump tariffs as US imports hit record high

But the problem is that a few things have complicated matters.

One is that the government decided to splurge more money in last October’s budget. That extra money sloshing around in the economy makes the Bank somewhat less willing to cut rates.

Another is that although the economy is weak, inflation is still high – indeed, the Bank actually raised its forecast for the consumer price index in today’s forecasts. Another is that the world economy has become a significantly more unstable place in recent months.

Germany is in recession. The US, under Donald Trump, is threatening tariffs on its nearest allies.

It’s not altogether clear whether the response to all this is lower interest rates.

Added to this, despite the chancellor’s best efforts, there is little evidence that her pro-growth policies are boosting economic growth – at least according to the Bank’s own forecasts.

These are tricky waters to navigate.

All of which helps explains why it’s no longer quite as clear as it once was what happens next.

My suspicion is that the Bank will end up cutting rates, probably more than those two cuts baked into its forecasts. But such forecasts are even more fraught than usual.

The government has been accused of “ignoring” the voices of people who lost family in the Grenfell Tower tragedy in its decision to demolish the building.

Grenfell United, which represents some bereaved and survivors, criticised the government’s conduct as “disgraceful and unforgiveable”.

The news was announced in a meeting attended by deputy prime minister Angela Rayner on Wednesday night.

Grenfell United said: “Angela Rayner could not give a reason for her decision to demolish the tower.

“She refused to confirm how many bereaved and survivors had been spoken to in the recent, short four-week consultation.

“But judging from the room alone – the vast majority of whom were bereaved – no one supported her decision. But she claims her decision is based on our views.”

“(The) meeting showed just how upset bereaved and survivors are about not having their views heard or considered in this decision.

“Ignoring the voices of bereaved on the future of our loved ones’ gravesite is disgraceful and unforgiveable.”

The government said the decision is a “deeply personal matter” for people affected by the tragedy and that Ms Rayner is “committed to keeping their voice at the heart of this”.

It has been almost eight years since 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower disaster, the UK’s deadliest residential fire since the Second World War.

There have been discussions over the years about how best to commemorate the tragedy for the decades to come.

Engineering experts have said that while the tower remains stable, and it is safe for people to live, work and study nearby, its condition will worsen over time and there is no realistic prospect of bringing it back into use.

Read more:
Grenfell fire families sent letter about unidentified remains
Minister loses brief after complaint by Grenfell survivors

Grenfell Next of Kin, which represents some of the bereaved families, described the move to demolish the building as a “deeply sensitive decision… after a thorough engagement process in person” following an “uncomfortable conversation with uncomfortable truths”.

In a statement on X the group said: “The lack of closure, the continuous discussions and consultations, the retraumatisation of a divisive and painful debate brings nothing to the table except pain and further division.

“We want a discussion about what will go in the Tower’s place so it can be seen and remembered forever. We need to reimagine a future and rebuild our broken shattered lives and our families.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “The priority for the deputy prime minister is to meet with and write to the bereaved, survivors and the immediate community to let them know her decision on the future of the Grenfell Tower.

“This is a deeply personal matter for all those affected, and the deputy prime minister is committed to keeping their voice at the heart of this.”

In September last year, the public inquiry into Grenfell found “systematic dishonesty” contributed to the horrific fire.

Inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said the “simple truth” was all the deaths were avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were “badly failed” by authorities “in most cases through incompetence but, in some cases, through dishonesty and greed”.

The report laid bare years of missed opportunities to prevent the catastrophe and how those responsible for fire safety were at risk of being compromised by commercial interests.

The Metropolitan Police said last year decisions on criminal charges for the blaze are not expected until the end of 2026.