Snap reaction:

1. The loans offer will be a big problem for potentially millions in blocks below 18m. Not for repayment (if the cap works) but because it risks plunging them into negative equity on resale. https://twitter.com/PeteApps/status/1359484585487327232

2. It does appear from his wording that this will "pay for the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding". The remainder of costs are, as we all know, very large. Without something on those, leaseholders very much will still be paying.

3. Jenrick justifies this based on reference to the 'expert panel' view. I feel this assessment should be made public so it can be scrutinised. I've never seen an adequate justification of the 18m rule and fire risk would appear to be far more complex.

A note on the expert panel: it's chaired by Sir Ken Knight, a long time govt advisor and has two other members: Roy Wilsher, chair of the National Fire Chiefs Council and Colin Bailey professor from Queen Mary University. There are other experts and views out there.

I mean, this for example just dropped into my DMs from someone who could certainly be called an expert. It's not a unique view.

4. The levy announcement is a substantial step forward, but the government really needs to make this more than a token gesture. Clear that Jenrick's view is still that his choices are taxpayer or leaseholder for the lion's share of the bill.

5. The point overall is this doesn't really change the position: we need buildings to be assessed on the basis of risk, fix those which are death traps and put whatever measures we need in place to make those in the grey area safe. Done right that would change...

... the overall cost of the crisis and ensure we are preventing a repeat of Grenfell. But it's still not what the govt is doing: we remain chaotically trying to fix all buildings at once, but now with a bit more government cash + loans.