the snap general election thread

GreatApe

Herzlos wrote: »

I disagree, I think your numbers are hugely wrong.

Given we have a good estimate of £1500/flat.
Assuming it needs replaced every 50 years, that's a monthly cost of £2.50. On a flat with a monthly rent of £2000.

Add in few quid annually for an inspection, and you're still an order of magnitude out.

Anyway, legislation has changed in 2007 requiring sprinklers, so we'd only need to retrofit any high-rise built before then.

The time value of money means you can't just divided the cost over the 50 years.
£1500 over 50 year life at 4% discount rate means the cost is £5.79 per month + say another £2 for inspection and maintenance plus a few days unconvinced. That all sounds absolutely perfect cheap and a great idea if it saves you fr a fire.

The actual consideration though has to be that fewer than 1/3,000 of all deaths in the country are from fire. So 2,999 people need to pay a lifetime of £7-8 per month for no benefit.

You need to look at it that way. You can't just say it costs £7-8 per month without saying what that buys you. You need to say it costs £7-8pm to save

. You need to say it Costs £7-8pm to reduce your monthly risk by about 1 in 1,000,000 which is the same thing as saying it costs £7-£8 million to save one life

steampowered

Sapphire wrote: »

Probably, but the FTSE 250 companies are not subsidised by taxpayers. Having worked in private companies (small, then big), I do feel that big corporations tend to be massively inefficient. I remember, for instance, 'important' meeting upon meeting, with people droning on for hours just so that they could stand out from the crowd, and with an enormous amount of time being wasted just in this activity (especially when you get to managerial level). Small companies were much, much better (to their employees and in terms of the work they produced), but unfortunately the successful ones were mostly taken over by large global corporations from the 1980s onwards, or they just couldn't compete with them. Shame, as far as I'm concerned. OT, yes, but interesting.

Sadly, I completely agree with this!

We may well be reaching a point where the public sector is more efficient and more careful to control costs, than most of the largest private sector companies.

On the largest companies is probably where I would focus efforts to raise cash, as there is an enormous amount of fat in the system these days which could be cut before the additional costs are passed to consumers in the form of price hikes, but that's just me.

Herzlos

GreatApe wrote: »

The time value of money means you can't just divided the cost over the 50 years.

What do you mean "the time value" of money? The opportunity cost, where you can do something else with the money? What the same money would be worth after 50 years of inflation?

ThinkingOutLoud_2

CKhalvashi wrote: »

How do you expect to ensure that councils do that unless you have legislation in place to ensure councils aren't failing?

"The council has to fix urgent problems in council owned homes which could affect the tenant’s health, safety or security within a certain period. This is known as the Right to Repair scheme."
https://www.gov.uk/repair-council-property
You could add to this of course, but it is not like there is nothing there now. That is not to say councils being held to account for failings?

If you mean social housing / housing associations should / could be regulated better - that may be so. If so - what is needed is genuine detailed AND viable legislation proposal - not some bill that says "everywhere must be nice" - this will not work as it is unenforceable, vague and open to interpretation.

Any threat of jail for non-compliance needs absolute clarity in law or it will fail.

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I'm sorry you don't feel that those living in social housing are important enough to warrant legislation in the same way as private tenants have.

Can't see anyone said that?

steampowered

CKhalvashi wrote: »

How do you expect to ensure that councils do that unless you have legislation in place to ensure councils aren't failing?

Personally, I don't think there is much point passing a law which simply says "housing must be habitable".

It is really just declaratory legislation that is so vague it is effectively unenforceable. It doesn't change the situation.

Also, funding is key. you can't just work magic by passing a law. It would be the same as the government passing a law which says "we will provide an excellent NHS".

Councils can only do this if they have sufficient funds - if the government cuts their funding by 40% in real terms, that is going to impact service provision no matter what the law says.

Another point is that the government forced through a rent freeze for council tenants. While that sounds nice on the face of it, if the government forces money to come out of council housing budgets, councils are going to struggle to provide an appropriate level of maintenance.

GreatApe

Herzlos wrote: »

What do you mean "the time value" of money? The opportunity cost, where you can do something else with the money? What the same money would be worth after 50 years of inflation?

The lost return on the capital or the cost of the capital if borrowed.

I used 4% as a reasonable figure.

Chrysalis

steampowered wrote: »

Personally, I don't think there is much point passing a law which simply says "housing must be habitable".

It is really just declaratory legislation that is so vague it is effectively unenforceable. It doesn't change the situation.

Also, funding is key. you can't just work magic by passing a law. It would be the same as the government passing a law which says "we will provide an excellent NHS".

Councils can only do this if they have sufficient funds - if the government cuts their funding by 40% in real terms, that is going to impact service provision no matter what the law says.

Another point is that the government forced through a rent freeze for council tenants. While that sounds nice on the face of it, if the government forces money to come out of council housing budgets, councils are going to struggle to provide an appropriate level of maintenance.

That rent freeze probably has an ulterior motive such as been a means to keep LHA rates down.

chucknorris

GreatApe wrote: »

The lost return on the capital or the cost of the capital if borrowed.

I used 4% as a reasonable figure.

It was a reasonable estimate, the public sector usually uses 3.5% for life cycle cost planning, which is their opportunity cost of providing public sector pensions.

I have a few things to say about the £1,500/per flat cost:

- Hasn't Granfell got 120 flats? so the unit price is higher, ie. £1,666/flat.

- From the link that I originally provided, which showed that estimate of £200k, what exactly did that price include?

- I know from experience that sub contractors tend to only focus on their costs/prices, and will often ignore the main contractors's overheads and profit and general attendance.

- What about the very expensive 'special attendance' i.e the internal scaffolding that the main contractor would have to provide to allow the installation of the sprinkler system.

- What about any special adaptions that might be necessary to fit the sprinkler system, e.g. there might not be sufficient headroom.

- With the works being to the only stairwell, they might well have to be phased, meaning that continuity of work is not guaranteed, this would increase costs, was this considered in the £200k price mentioned?

If the person quoting the £200k was a QS (unlikely) or someone who has a grip on 'total costs to the client, again equally unlikely, then the £200k might indeed be an accurate ball park figure to use. But I have my doubts.

Fella

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/grenfell-tower-families-to-be-given-68-flats-in-luxury-apartment-complex

"Sixty-eight flats in a luxury apartment complex where prices start at £1.6m are being made available to families displaced by the Grenfell Tower fire."

Strangely although he was at pains to criticize the Government at every opportunity, Corbyn has yet to applaud them for this announcement.

If his concerns for the Tenants are genuine he will presumably remedy this shortly with a glowing commendation of this move.

I just checked his Twitter feed but no mention of this, he seems more concerned with criticizing the Queen's speech.

Perhaps some people care more about actually doing something to help the residents of Grenfell (as opposed to just politicizing their tragedy) than others?

Perhaps he's more concerned with hoping there'll be another snap general election?

antrobus

chucknorris wrote: »

..If the person quoting the £200k was a QS (unlikely) or someone who has a grip on 'total costs to the client, again equally unlikely, then the £200k might indeed be an accurate ball park figure to use. But I have my doubts.

The British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association
http://www.bafsa.org.uk/news-events/sprinkler-news.php?id=00002229