Yup.
Reading the article, one would think the idea of using lower cost materials on a construction project was a cunning idea conceived by Margaret Thatcher in 1979. It isn't, people substitute cheaper materials on their own very expensive properties all the time, and if councils are really preoccupied with saving money over all else they wouldn't have spent £9m on refurbishing Grenfell in the first place. (If you've ever lived in a comparable building, you'll understand why fitting insulating cladding was thought to be a good idea...)
There are serious questions to be asked about an architectural design which apparently involved flammable lining products in close proximity, a chimney of air and no firegapping between stories should or could have been identified as a fire hazard, there are questions about how it was installed, and questions about whether the council's poor communications with the residents over fire safety contributed to fewer evacuations (one of their big concerns was apparently concerns over a gas pipe in the stairwell which appears to be one of the few things that didn't go seriously wrong). And there are wider questions about whether standard instructions to stay put are appropriate for the building are appropriate and whether regulations ought to be changed to require mineral wool insulation and/or sprinklers on tall buildings in future.
It's also not a bad time to raise questions about cutting firemen numbers in London even though it isn't thought that lack of manpower to tackle the blaze was a problem.
But crudely reducing it to a "bad neoliberals hate poor people" to score opportunistic political points actually works against learning those lessons. Poor implementation Grenfell's refurbishment programme is no more a scathing indictment of "neoliberalism" than Ronan Point's collapse was a scathing indictment of the desire of the government to take the lead in housebuilding following WWII. The construction industry did learn from that one.
(Ironically, to the extent that "neoliberalism", or Thatcherite housing policy, was particularly relevant to this tower block, it was in having the effect of passing some of the leases into the hands of relatively wealthy private owners who had every interest in the building surviving to make a fortune on selling the flats in a few years' time)