On holiday for a week but a few quick thoughts about the building safety bill- what it does do and crucially what it doesn't.
First of all in terms of space for litigation it goes further than many had expected.
Campaign groups have also cautiously welcomed the greater...
....accountability the new regulator might offer.
And reforms to building construction, incorporating recommendations made by the Hackitt review will be much welcomed.
But there are some key problems both in terms of the policy particulars and the philosophical approach.
Firstly on litigation
Extending rights on litigation for "substandard work" to 15 years (even though it's applied retrospectively) will do nothing for older buildings. Transport House, a building whose story I've reported on below, would not be covered.
Even when litigation might apply, the question is whether it's a realistic option. For many it simply won't be. The asymmetry of power and resources is simply enormous. The prospect of small groups of leaseholders successfully taking on massive developers is a remote one.
Even if they could muster a challenge, it would be a risk. Many developers will argue that the rules and regulations are vague. Sometimes they'll have a point. Courts may rule in their favour. Then what happens? Leaseholders have their original costs to bear AND legal bills.
Then there's the problem for companies which have become insolvent. Who do you sue then? Answer is no-one.
and EVEN if it were ultimately successful, it could take years. Leaseholders are in dire financial straits *now*. Their lives are frozen *now.* They can't sell their properties now. This is a problem *now*- and for non cladding issues there just isn't help now.
And that's the other asymmetry of all this. The government's response continues to be focussed on a) cladding b) buildings over 18m c) future buildings. There remains little (save litigation) for the many buildings which have different problems to a and shorter than b.
Likewise, as I say, the changes to the regulation and regulator will be much welcomed in terms of ensuring buildings in the future don't have these problems (or are less likely to). But that does nothing for leaseholders in this position right now.
And that adverts to the philosophical issue lurking at the government's response to all this. In saying the regulatory system needs to change, in accepting a new regulator is needed, that the buildings safety regime has to change, Robert Jenrick and the government are...
...tacitly accepting there's been a failure of the current system. He and they are right and it isn't one confined to one administration. As I've reported here, it goes back to poor building practiced and regulation over decades.
But in accepting that, logically it flows that the state has had a hand to play in leaseholders' woes. And if so, the question is, why isn't there something in the bill, or in the govt's response more generally, which recognises that and compensates leaseholders accordingly?
Government says developers should pay and they don't want taxpayers exposed. But a) often developers don't accept fault (see problems outlined above) and will not pay b) taxpayers will be exposed to destabilisation of property market c) leaseholders are taxpayers too and paid....
...tax to the state on their defective properties, the same state which didn't regulate the construction industry properly.
Will explore all of this more detail when I'm back. Tonight @BenChu_ will be holding the fort looking at the bill on tonight's show. And in the meantime, take a look at the last piece we made on this issue, broadcast last week. Produced by @jakemorristwbbc.co.uk/programmes/p09…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In terms of what's happened in the constituency, several things were at play
1) As reported a few days ago, Labour felt its GOTV had really worked this time. 2) Leadbeater was a good candidate and respected locally. Attracted Tory support.
3) Galloway was successful at eating into Labour Muslim vote but intriguingly Labour likely did better than expected solidifying more traditional support and potential waverers. Maybe even bits of Tory vote 4) Part of that may have been Galloway himself. Those who REALLY didn't..
While we’re waiting, some by - election trivia, because, let’s face it, up you’re up you are going to enjoy it
In modern British political history there have been four full calendar years without a single by election
1992, 1998, 2010 and 2020
(These were bad years)
Winston Churchill contested no fewer than five by elections
1899-Oldham
1908-Manchester North West
1908-Dundee
1917-Dundee
1924-Westminster Abbey
Labour might think it’s having a poor run at the moment but nothing by comparison to its longest stretch without a by election gain, 18 years between the 1939 Brecon and Radnorshire by election and 1957 in Lewisham North
But not long to find out! Will be on air later this morning on the BBC News channel as the results come through. There’s absolutely no world in which you shouldn’t stay up for it, frankly
As ever for those asking, no exit poll. Only done at general elections.