the snap general election thread

GreatApe

Herzlos wrote: »

You also can't try and claim it's acceptable for people to live in unsafe housing, because some money may be better spent in the bigger picture. Individual people matter, too.

sure people matter but you need to put a figure on it, the NHS put a figure of £25k-£30k per quality year of life so thats a start. Risks that can be mitigated that cost less than that should be mitigated, risks that cost more need to be accepted

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

Depends on how much pressure you're under to keep the costs down. Every penny helps and all that.

Builders charging for expensive material and swapping in cheaper stuff isn't a thing anymore, right?

We have no idea if they did that. I think it much likelier that the whole project was legally carried out to a standard that is far too low.

Let's not forget that Titanic had many more than the legally required number of lifeboats. It was just that the legally required number was insufficient. I don't know why, but possibly the thinking was that modern liners all travelled well-used routes so none would sink at all, or so fast, or so far from help that passengers could not be taken off first. You only needed enough lifeboats to achieve that in relays.

It probably seemed very unlikely until it happened.

GreatApe

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

That is a better way to start thinking - but again you need the experts to tell you that is the best way to spend money - e.g. those without smoke detection or hardened exits should get those first surely - a fire that a sprinkler system cannot stop and no way out ...

Then you also need to do the numbers as GreatApe has been trying to (but criticised for) because like you he simply calculated what if we do them all! Then you need that money.

If we stick to just flats - I have seen so many numbers but going with 4,000 tower blocks as cost of £200k to fit sprinklers (ignoring ongoing maintenance and the kids setting them off for fun as happens) = £8Bn right?

That 8Bn has not been costed by labour or anyone but would need a new source of money or for other money to be diverted. And then we still have cladding to take off and replace and everything else that is neglected like stairwells and so on....

No small answers here...

The cost isnt just £8 billion its the interest on that and the replacement too. So if they last 50 years and you use a discount rate of 4% that means to fit those 4,000 blocks with sprinklers would cost £370 million annually in perpetuity. + testing + maintenance + false triggers by the local yoof flooding properties costing lots of damage etc etc

But why stop there, if we are willing to spend £370 million in perpetuity to fit sprinklers to flats (which look 1/3rd as likely to suffer fire damage that spreads according to USA data) then why not fit sprinklers to all house since they are at more risk? That is then a £7.8 billion annual cost in perpetuity to reduce a small number of fire deaths and injuries


By comparison in the UK some 3 x as many people die annually from falling down stairs.
Therefore why not ban stairs? we could in theory get rid of them an install lifts to every home but just like with the sprinklers its not a worthwhile risk to mitigate

chucknorris

Herzlos wrote: »

Builders charging for expensive material and swapping in cheaper stuff isn't a thing anymore, right?

Of course it is a 'thing', in fact, a huge thing, the PQS (private quantity surveyor) would not recommend payment for such items in interim valuations, and the contractor would have to replace the said item, with what was originally specified at his own cost. If the works have been covered up, the procedure is usually to expose the works, and only if the contractor has carried out the work correctly would he be paid.

Additionally, if any contractors had done that on any of my jobs, I certainly wouldn't have supported them being included on future tender lists for other projects.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

GreatApe wrote: »

The cost isnt just £8 billion its the interest on that and the replacement too. So if they last 50 years and you use a discount rate of 4% that means to fit those 4,000 blocks with sprinklers would cost £370 million annually in perpetuity. + testing + maintenance + false triggers by the local yoof flooding properties costing lots of damage etc etc

But why stop there, if we are willing to spend £370 million in perpetuity to fit sprinklers to flats (which look 1/3rd as likely to suffer fire damage that spreads according to USA data) then why not fit sprinklers to all house since they are at more risk? That is then a £7.8 billion annual cost in perpetuity to reduce a small number of fire deaths and injuries


By comparison in the UK some 3 x as many people die annually from falling down stairs.
Therefore why not ban stairs? we could in theory get rid of them an install lifts to every home but just like with the sprinklers its not a worthwhile risk to mitigate

GA - a few things

I said above ...(ignoring ongoing maintenance and the kids setting them off for fun as happens) There are costs but a big enough number is already established to merit consideration.

You lose focus when you over-extrapolate everything - there is not the same payback fitting sprinklers to low rise homes where people have multiple exit routes, hoses can reach, people can be rescued on ladders from or even jump and survive. It is pretty different when you have 20 floors of multiple flats above you.

You lose gravitas when you cite a stupid impratical example like removing stairs to reduce risk. A better example would be to focus on education for those who cook after drinking when per London Fire Brigade's commissioner, Ron Dobson in 2021, "many Londoners will go straight from work to the pub... Our research shows cooking after having one too many plays a massive part in house fires and, sadly, one in every four fire deaths involves alcohol." (nothing to do with Grenfell's issues but at least an alternate focus on saving many lives...)

kabayiri

westernpromise wrote: »

If the alternative material was only £6k more then it seems very unlikely to me that cost cutting was the basis for not choosing it. The idea that a saving of 0.06% on a £10 million refurbishment was thought worthwhile is nonsense. I've priced up EPC projects and anything less than about 5% would be considered invisible.

It is much likelier that the supposedly slightly more expensive material was either unavailable or uncommon or better for greenhouse targets.

I honestly think we could learn a lot about this incident in a short period of time.

There are plenty of questions; plenty of lines of enquiry.

I heard one guy on the radio who has a business supplying this and other cladding.

He said there was a better alternative which was something like 16 times better at insulation. When pushed he estimated the price to be something like 3 times the stuff actually used.

It's not just the material. It's the application too. Everything has limitations, and if something is to be used with specific attention to fire breaks, then that guidance must be followed.

I'm not keen on knee jerk reactions like ban all cladding.

Joe_Horner

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

Agreed - there is a huge risk every available resource is put to a single highly sensitive event, hence my support for a broader, more balanced strategy above.

That would be a broader strategy such as Labour tried to initiate last year with an amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill to require let properties to be fit for habitation?

Or perhaps the similar initiative that a labour MP tried to start in 2015 with the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation Bill) which was filibustered by a Tory landlord?

Fella

Considering how pious the Corbynistas like to act, the speed with which they've abandoned "innocent until proven guilty" has to be seen to be believed.

It's actually worse than that, since they are openly speculating & in some cases accusing guilt where not only have the parties involved not been proven guilty, but there is no reason yet to believe they might be.

Almost as if they're pushing an agenda.

antrobus

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That would be a broader strategy such as Labour tried to initiate last year with an amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill to require let properties to be fit for habitation?

Or perhaps the similar initiative that a labour MP tried to start in 2015 with the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation Bill) which was filibustered by a Tory landlord?

We do we need legislation to ensure that council housing is fit for human habitation?

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That would be a broader strategy such as Labour tried to initiate last year with an amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill to require let properties to be fit for habitation?

Or perhaps the similar initiative that a labour MP tried to start in 2015 with the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation Bill) which was filibustered by a Tory landlord?

Sorry Jo - I am missing something here - we are talking about a broader strategy that actually has specific actions and costs and sources of funding with prioritisation of what to do that would have quickly prevented Grenfell?

The bill has a noble aim - but reading that there is no detail at all and turning to the manifesto - it talks about bad (private) landlords and building new homes ... notting explicit about refurbishing existing council stock.

I watched the first video and aside the usual Westminster bluster from both - I learned little except the Conservatives had build more council homes than the 13 years of Labour.

If you wish to claim Labour had this all mapped out - where is a plan, a costing, a source of the funds, any detail?