The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[HanoiVillan]

Further lessons in 'you don't get your Brexit, you get a Tory Brexit':

Home Builders Federation set to quiz members on post-Brexit reform of regulations

'A cross-party drive to identify EU regulations that can be quickly amended as part of the Brexit process will make housing construction its initial focus, it has emerged.

Former Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin (pictured) last week launched the Red Tape Initiative, which aims to find “quick wins” that can be implemented to help UK business improve productivity as part of the Brexit process.

In a subsequent interview with Whitehall magazine Civil Service World, former minister Letwin said he envisaged the programme would conduct around 10 sector-specific inquiries over the next two years, with the first looking at lifting burdens on the housebuilding sector.

That inquiry is set to begin in June, and will feature input from the Home Builders Federation, as well as other industry groups, Letwin said. The second inquiry will look into burdens on infrastructure construction and is due to start later in the summer.

The HBF told Building that it was too early to be specific about EU regulations that it wanted to see removed in the interest of helping the industry, but said members would be consulted.

Director of external affairs John Slaughter said: “‘We will be looking at a range of EU financial, technical and environmental requirements to see how unnecessary rules for achieving public policy objectives can be cut back for the future.”

Letwin told CSW that the Red Tape Initiative was designed to sit between the proposed Great Repeal Bill, which will repatriate EU law when the UK formally leaves the European Union, and future trade deals that will be negotiated to underpin a new relationship with the remaining 27 member states.'

http://m.bdonline.co.uk/5087364.article?mobilesite=enabled

Interesting in light of this week's events that slashing red tape related to building standards was considered a 'quick win'. It's not directly relevant to the fire, but it certainly illuminates the priorities of those running the place. 

[mjmooney]

Anybody looking for a job? 

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

11 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Further lessons in 'you don't get your Brexit, you get a Tory Brexit':

Home Builders Federation set to quiz members on post-Brexit reform of regulations

'A cross-party drive to identify EU regulations that can be quickly amended as part of the Brexit process will make housing construction its initial focus, it has emerged.

Former Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin (pictured) last week launched the Red Tape Initiative, which aims to find “quick wins” that can be implemented to help UK business improve productivity as part of the Brexit process.

In a subsequent interview with Whitehall magazine Civil Service World, former minister Letwin said he envisaged the programme would conduct around 10 sector-specific inquiries over the next two years, with the first looking at lifting burdens on the housebuilding sector.

That inquiry is set to begin in June, and will feature input from the Home Builders Federation, as well as other industry groups, Letwin said. The second inquiry will look into burdens on infrastructure construction and is due to start later in the summer.

The HBF told Building that it was too early to be specific about EU regulations that it wanted to see removed in the interest of helping the industry, but said members would be consulted.

Director of external affairs John Slaughter said: “‘We will be looking at a range of EU financial, technical and environmental requirements to see how unnecessary rules for achieving public policy objectives can be cut back for the future.”

Letwin told CSW that the Red Tape Initiative was designed to sit between the proposed Great Repeal Bill, which will repatriate EU law when the UK formally leaves the European Union, and future trade deals that will be negotiated to underpin a new relationship with the remaining 27 member states.'

http://m.bdonline.co.uk/5087364.article?mobilesite=enabled

Interesting in light of this week's events that slashing red tape related to building standards was considered a 'quick win'. It's not directly relevant to the fire, but it certainly illuminates the priorities of those running the place. 

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.

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

the guys keeping the economy sustainable

One might put that as much down to the employees as the employers.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

39 minutes ago, snowychap said:

One might put that as much down to the employees as the employers.

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.

Edited June 16, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[snowychap]

29 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

100% correct

Why say the 'Great Repeal Bill' meetings will highlight the priorities of those employing around the country, then?

Are you really suggesting that, just because you 'often send members and not advisors like you [changed to reflect it being quoted] to meetings so the practitioner POV is put across', the priorities of employers are shared by employees or even that the priorities of employers are in the best interests of employees or anyone else (they might not even be in the best interests of other employers)?

I think everyone who isn't an employer ought to be very worried that there will be these 'Great Repeal Bill meetings' where you claim it is the priorities of employers that will supposedly be highlighted.

Still, let's take back control, eh?

Edited June 16, 2017 by snowychap

[snowychap]

41 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Obviously many of you (not saying you specifically) see me as the 'lobbyist' typically depicted by the media.

I am taking the words you have used on here and the posts you have made as the indication of what you are lobbying for and how you are doing it. No 'media depiction' - just what you have said.

Edited June 16, 2017 by snowychap
Taken out first sentence in case it came across as antagonistic.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Then why say the 'Great Repeal Bill' meetings will highlight the priorities of those employing around the country?

Are you really suggesting that, just because you 'often send members and not advisors like you [changed to reflect it being quoted] to meetings so the practitioner POV is put across', the priorities of employers are shared by employees or even that the priorities of employers are in the best interests of anyone else (they might not even be in the best interests of other employers)?

I think everyone who isn't an employer ought to be very worried that there will be these 'Great Repeal Bill meetings' where you claim it is the priorities of employers that will supposedly be highlighted.

Still, let's take back control, eh?

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.

Edited June 16, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[snowychap]

48 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Yes, 100%!

I think you're talking cobblers if you're really trying to suggest that.

48 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Also do you think Directors are not employees too?

You're not seriously trying to use a line like that to suggest that the interests of a Company Director align neatly with that company's employees?

Edit: In some (probably most) cases, they are. In others, they may not be.

48 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

With less burdensome regulation

The issue in a nutshell, for me. It isn't about getting the regulation right, it's about a demand to reduce regulation. The argument is virtually always: regulation is burdensome, we need to lessen the burden.

48 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

So yes, lets! Let's do it right bloody now!

I'm assuming that you're referring to the 'take back control' line? If so, the process that you have described is not about people 'taking back control', it's about a small subset of people and interests having control given to them behind closed doors in a manner that only casts a cursory glance in the direction of accountability.

If you are or represent one of the voices that will get heard then I imagine it seems like a good deal. Perhaps it isn't that good a deal for those who don't get in to these backrooms?

Edited June 16, 2017 by snowychap

[snowychap]

46 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

I'm not trying to discredit anyone's opinion but some people do not ask questions or assess fact before replying.

You were trying to create a straw man about 'media depictions' of lobbyists. It's a bit rum to be having a go at the thought processes of others.

Edited June 16, 2017 by snowychap

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

18 hours ago, snowychap said:

I think you're talking cobblers if you're really trying to suggest that.

You're not seriously trying to use a line like that to suggest that the interests of a Company Director align neatly with that company's employees?

Edit: In some (probably most) cases, they are. In others, they may not be.

The issue in a nutshell, for me. It isn't about getting the regulation right, it's about a demand to reduce regulation. The argument is virtually always: regulation is burdensome, we need to lessen the burden.

I'm assuming that you're referring to the 'take back control' line? If so, the process that you have described is not about people 'taking back control', it's about a small subset of people and interests having control given to them behind closed doors in a manner that only casts a cursory glance in the direction of accountability.

If you are or represent one of the voices that will get heard then I imagine it seems like a good deal. Perhaps it isn't that good a deal for those who don't get in to these backrooms?

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.

Edited June 17, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

17 hours ago, snowychap said:

You were trying to create a straw man about 'media depictions' of lobbyists. It's a bit rum to be having a go at the thought processes of others.

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.

[snowychap]

27 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

so what EU regulation do you believe should be changed now/if we Brexit?

13 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Isn't that politics worldwide? That's the environment we live in.

Yes and no.

Of course I accept that the reality of politics is that small numbers of people have a disproportionately loud voice when it comes to forming public policy. I don't accept that it needs to be that way and I will certainly criticize this reality and most definitely the people who appear to take advantage of it.

16 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

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.

With the rider that the process for 'The Great Repeal Bill' may not be quite as suggested before the election because of the result and the precariousness of the government position, I am being cynical about this because we were told by the government what to expect (should they get their way). We are to expect lots of secondary legislation with the apparent claim that this will be limited according to parameters set and agreed upon during the process of the primary legislation. I don't give much credence to this claim and have already indicated (either in this thread or elsewhere) that it's worrying that we have effectively been told that changes to regulations will take place in this way (via statutory instrument).

I think the cynicism is well-founded given the way in which statutory instruments have been used (increasingly used) over the past couple of decades and even more so when the ministers concerned told us that there was plenty of parliamentary oversight of SIs and therefore substantial accountability which doesn't really tell the whole story (numbers of SIs that have been overturned and the process whereby SIs can't be amended only rejected - though I can't, off the top of my head, remember whether that applies to all of them).

25 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

You make it seem so easy,

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're on about here. I make what seem so easy?

I hope I haven't made anything seem easy. If anything the underlying theme to any comment I make about politics is that it's far from easy.

27 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

so what EU regulation do you believe should be changed now/if we Brexit

I have no idea. Why do I have to? I don't think that's at all pertinent to the discussion about process, about who is involved, about the issues with vested interests driving policy, about the potential/probable lack of accountability, &c.

28 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

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!

Perhaps then, those that 'lobby', could make the case in these terms rather than repeatedly returning to a theme of 'burdensome' regulation as you did in your previous post (or as was pointed to in the article posted the other day by @HanoiVillan?

Indeed, as these people (whatever industry they may be in) are the ones with the loudest voice and the ones driving policy formation from the industry and expert perspective, they would appear to be the best placed to change this thinking and maybe have a responsibility to do so as they have been afforded the privilege of having their voices heard above everyone else (the pesky 'population').

 

[snowychap]

51 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

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.

I really think this shows your lack of comprehension of the discussion you entered.

It is not a 'building industry' thread. You appear to want to talk about the minutiae of building industry regulations and policy and continue to litter your posts with comments about 'CDM regulations' and other such stuff that you, obviously, know a great deal more about than I do (something I've said on more than one occasion) and probably more than all but a few reading this board. I can understand that this is where you feel most comfortable, where you can display your expert knowledge and I am in little doubt that this is of importance when discussing policy and advising policy-makers.

What we are in is the EU thread where one of the most important things, aside from Brexit negotiations, is the process of transition for laws and regulations after we actually leave. It is therefore important to talk about this process which is supposed to be revolving around the Great Repeal Bill. I think it's very important that people talk about this process. It is much more important to talk about it and the generalities that perhaps can be taken from the specifics that you have valuably brought up about your particular industry because the population is concerned with more than just the building industry and because the same process is likely going to be applying across the board.

To be clear, I don't have an issue with people who are experts in a field being consulted - I am not Gove. Policy makers must absolutely hear opinion from those people but they ought to have consideration for everyone and not just these people and their interests or demands when formulating policy.

My problem is with this Great Repeal Bill process and how it may well be used as a means of stripping away all sorts of regulation without proper parliamentary oversight and under a false claim (from government) of the lock stock transposition of EU law (where directly applicable) in to UK law.

Edited June 17, 2017 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

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.

I don't see why this process, as described in your own words, should be viewed anything but cynically. The process is, you say, 'framed to interest industry' because 'media, politicians and individuals' don't care. I dispute this. I'm absolutely certain that most people don't know what a CDM regulation is (and I'm happy to admit to being one of them) but I know that people and politicians care whether they can live in a house that's safe or not. You mistake a lack of interest in industry jargon for a lack of interest in the subject generally. 

As @snowychap has said, the context for this discussion is the Great Repeal Bill in which people like yourself are going to be given enormous power as huge changes will be enacted with little scrutiny via secondary legislation. The idea that lobbyists and Conservative politicians will not take the opportunity to creatively remake and reword and redefine regulations during this process in a manner that suits them strikes me as very naive. Lobbyists might wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and tell themselves that what they are lobbying for that day is in the national interest - and they might even mean it - but I'm happier when important changes are scrutinised by our elected representatives first. 

Finally, on the topic of 'what EU regulation do you believe should be changed' - I don't know. It's not necessary to my further discussion in this thread to have read every EU rule about housebuilding. This stuff is obviously your job; it isn't mine. I have a full-time job, and I don't have the time or inclination to read through EU legislation in my limited hours of free time. But this thread is for general discussion of the politics of exiting the EU, and I was making in my last post, and will continue to make, a basic point: we should be suspicious of people in the Conservative party who want to roll back regulation without scrutiny, because doing so can have profound effects and because these people are planning to create a legislative process in which many changes can be enacted without sufficient scrutiny. These people have made their priorities clear over many years, and their priorities (less environmental protection, less food safety, less worker protection, more regulations 'framed to interest industry') are not those shared by many people on this thread. By demanding that people tell you what they feel about individual regulations, you seem to hope to narrow down the number of people who are allowed to discuss the topic to yourself only. But it's not necessary to be an expert to see a bad deal. I can't make a great soup, but if I go to a restaurant and order one and there's a turd floating in it, you better believe I'm sending it back to the kitchen. 

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't see why this process, as described in your own words, should be viewed anything but cynically. The process is, you say, 'framed to interest industry' because 'media, politicians and individuals' don't care. I dispute this. I'm absolutely certain that most people don't know what a CDM regulation is (and I'm happy to admit to being one of them) but I know that people and politicians care whether they can live in a house that's safe or not. You mistake a lack of interest in industry jargon for a lack of interest in the subject generally. 

As @snowychap has said, the context for this discussion is the Great Repeal Bill in which people like yourself are going to be given enormous power as huge changes will be enacted with little scrutiny via secondary legislation. The idea that lobbyists and Conservative politicians will not take the opportunity to creatively remake and reword and redefine regulations during this process in a manner that suits them strikes me as very naive. Lobbyists might wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and tell themselves that what they are lobbying for that day is in the national interest - and they might even mean it - but I'm happier when important changes are scrutinised by our elected representatives first. 

Finally, on the topic of 'what EU regulation do you believe should be changed' - I don't know. It's not necessary to my further discussion in this thread to have read every EU rule about housebuilding. This stuff is obviously your job; it isn't mine. I have a full-time job, and I don't have the time or inclination to read through EU legislation in my limited hours of free time. But this thread is for general discussion of the politics of exiting the EU, and I was making in my last post, and will continue to make, a basic point: we should be suspicious of people in the Conservative party who want to roll back regulation without scrutiny, because doing so can have profound effects and because these people are planning to create a legislative process in which many changes can be enacted without sufficient scrutiny. These people have made their priorities clear over many years, and their priorities (less environmental protection, less food safety, less worker protection, more regulations 'framed to interest industry') are not those shared by many people on this thread. By demanding that people tell you what they feel about individual regulations, you seem to hope to narrow down the number of people who are allowed to discuss the topic to yourself only. But it's not necessary to be an expert to see a bad deal. I can't make a great soup, but if I go to a restaurant and order one and there's a turd floating in it, you better believe I'm sending it back to the kitchen. 

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!

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

3 hours ago, snowychap said:

Yes and no.

Of course I accept that the reality of politics is that small numbers of people have a disproportionately loud voice when it comes to forming public policy. I don't accept that it needs to be that way and I will certainly criticize this reality and most definitely the people who appear to take advantage of it.

With the rider that the process for 'The Great Repeal Bill' may not be quite as suggested before the election because of the result and the precariousness of the government position, I am being cynical about this because we were told by the government what to expect (should they get their way). We are to expect lots of secondary legislation with the apparent claim that this will be limited according to parameters set and agreed upon during the process of the primary legislation. I don't give much credence to this claim and have already indicated (either in this thread or elsewhere) that it's worrying that we have effectively been told that changes to regulations will take place in this way (via statutory instrument).

I think the cynicism is well-founded given the way in which statutory instruments have been used (increasingly used) over the past couple of decades and even more so when the ministers concerned told us that there was plenty of parliamentary oversight of SIs and therefore substantial accountability which doesn't really tell the whole story (numbers of SIs that have been overturned and the process whereby SIs can't be amended only rejected - though I can't, off the top of my head, remember whether that applies to all of them).

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're on about here. I make what seem so easy?

I hope I haven't made anything seem easy. If anything the underlying theme to any comment I make about politics is that it's far from easy.

I have no idea. Why do I have to? I don't think that's at all pertinent to the discussion about process, about who is involved, about the issues with vested interests driving policy, about the potential/probable lack of accountability, &c.

Perhaps then, those that 'lobby', could make the case in these terms rather than repeatedly returning to a theme of 'burdensome' regulation as you did in your previous post (or as was pointed to in the article posted the other day by @HanoiVillan?

Indeed, as these people (whatever industry they may be in) are the ones with the loudest voice and the ones driving policy formation from the industry and expert perspective, they would appear to be the best placed to change this thinking and maybe have a responsibility to do so as they have been afforded the privilege of having their voices heard above everyone else (the pesky 'population').

 

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.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

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.

When are they going to 'take this to the electorate'?

1 hour ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

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.

The 'deal' that is of import is the process by which the government intends to transpose EU law in to UK law.

I believe it's going to be a bad deal due to the way it was laid out in the White Paper. I don't need to know the intricacies of any specific EU regulation on construction (or anything else for that matter) to make a judgement on the process and whether it is sufficiently accountable.

Having read your input on these meetings, I think it's going to be an even worse deal.

58 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

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.

I'm sorry but that's claptrap especially when If anything , the 'Great Repeal Bill' meetings will highlight the priorities of those employing around the country.

Quote

I gave you examples of burdensome regulation, that was my point.

No, you gave me examples of regulation; regulation which you describe as burdensome.

 

This is utterly pointless so I'm done.

Edited June 17, 2017 by snowychap

[Chindie]

'Taking everything a lobbyist says with a shovel full of salt' would effectively be a synonym for common sense.

Lobbyists having input into 'the Great Repeal Bill' isn't necessarily a bad thing, it should be a good thing, but needs to be balanced with non-partisan input and debate.

Unfortunately, the entire point of 'the Great Repeal Bill' is to shoo away that very important second part, so you'll forgive anyone who isn't jumping for joy at lobbyists salivating at the opportunity next to politicians drooling likewise at the power on offer.

That Bill is terrifying.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

19 hours ago, snowychap said:

When are they going to 'take this to the electorate'?

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. 

19 hours ago, snowychap said:

The 'deal' that is of import is the process by which the government intends to transpose EU law in to UK law.

I believe it's going to be a bad deal due to the way it was laid out in the White Paper. I don't need to know the intricacies of any specific EU regulation on construction (or anything else for that matter) to make a judgement on the process and whether it is sufficiently accountable.

Having read your input on these meetings, I think it's going to be an even worse deal.

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.

19 hours ago, snowychap said:

I'm sorry but that's claptrap especially when If anything , the 'Great Repeal Bill' meetings will highlight the priorities of those employing around the country.

Quote

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. 

19 hours ago, snowychap said:

No, you gave me examples of regulation; regulation which you describe as burdensome.

 

This is utterly pointless so I'm done.

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.