itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

Finally get you now. And yes I worry about how things will be transposed but I don't think that means ignoring the regulatory debate that will strengthen our hand in negotiations and inform politicians about what they've been doing wrong. I still don't see what that has to do with 99% of lobbyists. And it's not just construction, it's anything. I just focused on construction because if you asked a question I could most likely answer it. I'd be happy to talk about CE markings, fishing, farming, renewable energy, milk production or anything if I can learn something. The Great Repeal Act meetings are as much about keeping legislation as they are about removing them.

Perhaps October, maybe sooner, I am hoping Labour are able to get into the nitty gritty of regulation before there's another election. Like Corbyn once did (posted workers directive). They would then be seen as more credible and perhaps win the Brexit and national policy vote. First time you've said that but still wouldn't offer any reasons in my specific cases. Meh, I got used to that over our many messages. If you don't believe that fewer burdensome regulations stimulate employment and new business - particularly for SMEs - then fair enough. Hopefully over your lifetime you can come up with other ways to support our rural communities and low paid who have been squeezed by the dominance of big business, or not big business. I literally haven't got a clue what your position is on anything...apart from 'op'position. Why not give examples/reasons why you believe they're not burdensome? Why not ask why I thought they were? You didn't, you took an opposing view from start to finish. Well fair enough if you're done. Some conversations are just too difficult.

Lobbyists, you, me, organisations, charities, media etc. drive the conversation and politicians that we all just voted in are the ones who have the loudest voices. Surely Labour's gain is a great example of that? I gave you examples of burdensome regulation, that was my point. Lobbyists are pretty open if people check their campaigns, especially as the Great Repeal Bill may see limited change. That's why when we have debates it's imperative all politicians understand the problem and produce solutions (better overall regulation) so the incumbent government are held to account. The louder and more coherently they shout, the more government falls in line. Eg - Corbyn bringing up the Posted Workers Directive and literally every politician giving a puzzled look. That's a major part of scrutiny and nothing to do with lobbyists behind closed doors.

Exactly, part of my job - like the majority of lobbyists - is to inform government and politicians; particularity where regulation is great of terrible. Therefore, it is completely right to recognise lobbying is not part of that open door/closed door discussion. Even if some of those conversations are held behind closed doors. Lobbyists, especially open ones offer a great level of scrutiny. And anyone can lobby, which is my point about industry vs. people. It was a genuine question because I was interested/engaged in policy many years before it became my job; definitely not a demand. But again, that's why it's phrased for industry, so govt gets a definite reply with realistic metric examples they can then take to the electorate who rightly don't believe promises. With scrutiny it is important that opposition politicians, the media, individuals, lobbyists can all scrutinise. Lobbyists hold meetings cross party in the hope of getting cross party support. Recorded recommendations by an opposition party on the intricacies or regulatory change is far more poignant than anything industry says or campaigns for. That's where the real level of scrutiny and influence is, particularly when you're talking about such a huge topic like the great repeal bill. I'm happy to talk about other EU regulation but I can - with certainty - talk about construction and give an informed opinion.I'd be delighted if others offered their perspective but surely to know what a bad deal is, you need to understand what you can and cannot move, or should not move. That's the intricacies of policy. Eg - VAT on renewables. Well before Brexit happened, remain were not willing to offer proper scrutiny of policy that leave were claiming. Policy doesn't sell....yet as saw with Corbyn, it persuades! On the Brexit campaign, whether that was ignorance or both parties not wanting to expose their previous failures, I don't know. But it meant we had a v poor level of scrutiny. before and after. A year on, literally nothing has changed and it feels like only government is bothering about these things...and that's not going all that well either!

Construction is one of the better paying industries with certain sectors delivering careers not 'jobs'. We also desperately need more homes despite your opinion that we don't. That includes tackling the empty homes problem. However, we need the right type of homes and a market which delivers a more diverse housing stock. Well exampled by how many families are living in studios/shared flats. That isn't achieved by opposing housebuilding - in fact that attitude over the last 20 years has made things many times worse - neither is it achieved by tarring the whole industry with the same brush. You nailed it when you said huge estates. It's the biggest housebuilders building 80% of the market and competing against....nobody. Local/regional builders used to build 65%+ of the market but opposition and regulation has squeezed out their opportunities. Now even Housing Associations struggle with the financial risk of development. You can thank local government for that. Wages need to rise but then the price of housing would too. You need wages and appropriate supply to increase so that increased salaries are complemented by more affordable housing.

Not in the slightest, I am just responding to a sentiment I often feel in here and have been told directly. If you can be bothered to offer discourse I'm happy to respond but to be honest it's become tedious replying to someone who cares less about policy than they do about opposition.

Isn't that politics worldwide? That's the environment we live in. I think you're too cynical about the lobbying process, but then I covered engaged MP's earlier on. I work with very many amazing people who fight and orchestrate brilliant things and they will be part of the process of informing cross-party what works, what doesn't and from our perspective, why. You make it seem so easy, so what EU regulation do you believe should be changed now/if we Brexit? Absolutely it's about getting regulation right and I wholeheartedly agree that it should defined that way; maybe in 2017 the media/population would care more! However, it's framed to interest industry because quite frankly the media, politicians and individuals don't care about let's say, CDM regulations. But a contractor does. So let's say CDM comes up, we'd send a contractor to discuss something so complicated, especially if they've seen the same process abroad. That's the point of being a trade association fighting for members interests! That's lobbying. Our sector didn't lobby against unsustainable increases in Part L (energy efficiency) for homes, we just asked for one standard and we'd all follow. We got that, and an uplift value if a local authority fancied it (thanks to green lobbying). An overheating seminar awaits me and many others. The greendeal is an interesting one for EU regulation. I wasn't around when it was introduced but because of the ECJ we were not able to use it as a mechanism for the industrial strategy, despite there being a natural opportunity for it. Therefore at this point it would be important to lobby for certain changes so we can support our renewable industries through a VAT reduction. That needs to come from many different sectors and not just the green guys. If it just comes from environmentalists it gets less traction, or more worryingly, you get burdensome regulation that must then be reviewed (wasted time) or even challenged in court.

It really is. And I can't imagine proposals such as doubling council tax would make enough of a difference in central London.

Yes, 100%! The practitioners we send can be anyone from the company. Directors, site managers, bricklayers etc; that's why I used that word. Tbh Directors typically don't attend, they prefer to send employees. It's the same with the board I run. Also do you think Directors are not employees too?....They are at our level. We are talking SMEs here, the ones hit hardest by burdensome regulatory change. SMEs train three quarters of apprentices, employ 60% of the private sector and a fifth are in construction. 13% of the overall construction Labour is foreign, 9% from the EU. Tbh we won't be that massively impacted by a loss of EU staff - we don't employ that many - until the big guys poach our guys. In the 1980's, SMEs built 65% of houses. 2007 - 29%, 2017 - 20%. We attend so we can actually achieve a pipeline of work to sustain employee investment...something lost under New Labour, the Conservatives and sadly the EU....though tbh I have always blamed govt more than the EU. They could just ignore the EU like other countries do! Though it didn't work for the SME milk industry.... Also these meetings have trade unions etc at them....strangely I get on very well with them all....perhaps they're all Villa fans because they surely can't like what comes out of my mouth?! Or maybe they just realise they are getting information they never realised existed....now that would be a problem eh! Without employers getting work there will be no employees! It makes a lot more sense to help SMEs employing locally that deliver careers (a big focus in the Labour manifesto though nothing about meaningful about regulation apart from late payments), rather than big companies employing for one or two jobs. This is especially vital in our rural communities and areas without commuter cities.....coincidentally, where Brexit had the most votes. With less burdensome regulation we may be able to support local employers more equally. And that's not just the developer, that's the entire supply chain from client, planner and investor to bricklayer, college and supplier. So yes, lets! Let's do it right bloody now! And that doesn't necessarily mean leave but it does mean convincing people there were legitimate and realistic reasons the EU is flawed. And when it's not (despite it being reported that it is), both sides learn something! Something remain didn't bother to learn/campaign on pre-referendum. I'm not trying to discredit anyone's opinion but some people do not ask questions or assess fact before replying. That's why I made that legitimate comment and followed it up with some examples.

100% correct, which is why I am extremely comfortable posting the meeting I was involved in if it is published. I am all about employees and have been fighting for changes that sustain our economy and careers and not just deliver 'jobs'. In fact we often send members and not advisors like myself to meetings so the practitioner POV is put across with more urgency. Obviously many of you (not saying you specifically) see me as the 'lobbyist' typically depicted by the media. Sadly those who do might as well show the same contempt for Natural England, Community Land Trusts, Environment Agency, LEP's, charities and many others because we're all singing from the same page on construction and in reality, it's industry which is solving many of our issues. Eg - Great Crested Newt protection. (btw, not endangered in the UK but is in some EU countries) If (and it's a big if) the good part of industry has support from opposition MP's, good policy and good conversation is delivered more quickly. However, many of us do not get that support and therefore wait until things are desperate or a general election is called until policy actually matters. (in housebuilding and skills at least...and others but I'm not a policy advisor in those fields) That's not opinion; that's fact. It's bloody important to have great MP's and a strong opposition and as we've seen this week; good council/councillors also help. The second reading of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill is a good example of the struggle industry faces.

Correct. That's what the EU has been doing to its less affluent long term members and trading "partners" for years.

It is a quick win because in many cases there are real problems with regulation in the EU and UK/England. I've listed a few of those in previous posts. I actually know what was on the agenda for the first meeting and clearly the article above didn't! I've attended two high level Brexit meetings and a cross-party housing roundtable was held this week. I wrote a briefing for it. I believe one of our meetings is going public after being held under Chatham a few months ago. I'm happy to post it when released. If anything , the 'Great Repeal Bill' meetings will highlight the priorities of those employing around the country; the guys keeping the economy sustainable. If you'd have looked at many of the pre-brexit briefings you'll see the HBF generally happy with remaining. That is because the HBF members are the largest housebuilders and profit from EU procurement which negatively impacts almost all small companies, cheaper transient labour (transient is imperative here), better bargaining power when buying materials (which in the past has allowed them to buy the majority of stock like bricks), energy policy etc.

Ha, I actually feel those tins may be headed to existing EU members who will be left behind by EU trade arrangements....our tins will more likely have lychee in them. I would probably change my vote though. Firstly, I think the bloody nose we gave the EU will smart for a while and secondly, many remainers have moved outside their bubble to understand why leave was so heavily supported. The media and politicans still don't have a clue but as long as the people get it, things will improve and they already have. The slightly protectionist Labour manifesto was a good example of that....but then Corbyn was an EU sceptic.

But then we would have to talk about policy in practice and that doesn't work with the anti-Conservative rhetoric.....also, if they talk about this in terms of practical delivery then different parties councils may find themselves exposed.

If you're basing that assumption on Brexit then I think you need to rethink it. Immigration did not play as big a part in Brexit as the average bozo in a forum seems to think (jokes). Corbyn may be a good example of that. The reason Labour did so well is because they finally changed the direction of politics in the country, something Blair/Brown/Miliband weren't willing to do. That message is not going away and it will chip away at the Conservatives because they might not be brave enough to embrace reality/change. I'm not sure if it's enough to win an election outright but the results in Scotland aren't discouraging if you're a betting man.

Not quite. Clearly in tall blocks of flats there needs to be legislative change. In Wales, where sprinklers are mandatory even in domestic properties, there has been a real issue with technical delivery. The installation and design process was not clearly thought out and more importantly sustainable water pressures barely featured in the solution. This has left many people with sprinklers that don't work properly, or at all, and consequently delayed the supply of homes and perhaps put people in danger. It's been lost in the whole conversation but local government (local politicians) can require sprinklers as a planning condition. LA's shouldn't always get away with picking and choosing what central govenment is blamed for.

We've needed to reform the NHS employment process/budgeting for at least fifteen years. (I don't know what is was like before then). The reliance on agency staff and external organisations is one problem. It may appear cost effective but the knock-on costs to care/consistency quickly wipe that saving. Another problem is the overall cost of becoming a nurse/healthcare professional. Many graduates are retraining but there aren't enough people being supported into nursing/training from an unqualified entry level hospital position. We can immediately begin tackling under-supply by employing full time and delivering more accessible employment opportunities. It doesn't solve the existing problem but like much of the 'skills crisis', we must first create the right environment to increase capacity.

That's a real shame. I'm also struggling with the whole tactical vote concept. Though perhaps that's the price we have to pay for change. I'm glad the Lib Dems were helped out in Scotland; they deserve more from the voter. I may have previously posted this but I thought Welsh Labour and Plaid offered a good approach to solving the Welsh housing crisis. In fact I felt Welsh Labour's attempt was better than the main Labour manifesto.

I supported Jerry Evans (Lib Dem) throughout his campaign and I feel the same about Godsiff, Jerry was trounced because of a swing (third time that's happened to him now) and Hall Green gets an apathetic, disinterested MP for another few years. My god do we need electoral reform!

Winning it is v tough. First thing they need to do as a party is understand the working class, whatever that now is. Imo that's the people who do not suit university but still want career training, the ones who need a home but will never access council housing, people with health issues that were previously affected by Labour and small business owners who are really worried about tax implications. Few others but these come to mind straight away. If they can attract those guys I think there's a good chance they can grab a few more seats in Scotland and the South, which might give them enough of a push to oust the Conservatives from being dominant.

I'm not entrenched enough to make this about one or the other. I work in policy, my focus is on robust delivery. Labour were the architects for many things the Tories then continued effing up, but Labour voters struggle to accept that....well, not Corbyn.... NHS computer systems, PFI, agency staff, levels of management, expensive procurement contracts, private provision of services all promoted heavily by Labour. Many of the same errors were made in employment services and benefits (including the mental health contract I worked on). The waste of money and talent was incredible. I'm not defending what happened after Brown/Blair but I'm not going to ignore what happened before. I also worked for the QEH while it was being built....what a mess of an opening that was! Those costs are horrific and in many cases the spend did little to nothing to improve care. In many cases care was made worse, especially when PFI built shoddy hospitals with plugs and even air conditioning in the wrong places (v important when you have multi-million £ very hot machines that work 13+ hours a day). Or schools built on large frameworks that electrocuted teachers and students....yup, it happened! I also think many patients in Mid-Staffs might disagree with that report...... Oh and I have never voted Labour because they might as well have been conservatives; but at least the Conservatives tell you from the start how they're going to shaft you! I'm a broken record but this is the first time in my voting lifetime that I genuinely feel the Labour party represents many of my values.

I live near a few safe seats and always talk to the guys handing out leaflets or campaigning. You never know who you're going to meet or how insightful people are! I had three different groups at the end of my road handing out 'Stop the Tories' flyers. Non-Labour campaigners (especially on TV) were going for 'stop the Tories'; heck even the 'Save our NHS' focused on Tories out and not what all parties got/get wrong....let's remember much of the NHS mess began under Blair/Brown. Then there's sites like this - http://therealsimonkirbymp.uk/ For the record and it's relevant to my previous post, I don't think Corbyn is the hate preacher that I'm used to with New Labour. If he can move Labour away from that position it will be fantastic for British politics and policy.

I don't see it as a problem. For the first time in my voting lifetime I think Labour might actually represent unity. We shall see over the coming months, We need to get used to coalitions because electoral reform (one day) will bring us many more. No reason why those four can't collaborate together now, even if it's been in the name of anti-Tory and not pro-policy......though that rhetoric might change with Corbyn in charge,

While it's true it would be extremely difficult, in a more representative voting system you have improved opportunities to go against your party and vote for good. The following link is for private members bills etc that got through. Makes for interesting reading. In fact Lucas put forward PR in the past but the following guys voted it down....just...

Pretty epic result. Plus, if we get another election, I get a crack at helping each party write a manifesto that might actually solve the housing crisis for all.