Corbyn wants to seize rich people's homes

[applecorped]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...mes-owned-rich-should-requisitioned-grenfell/


Jeremy Corbyn has called for the empty homes of rich people in Kensington to be seized for Grenfell Tower residents who have been made homeless by the fire.

 

[The Don]

I suppose it's one way to cost-effectively house the hundreds of people who would otherwise have to be put in hotels or bed and breakfasts. A lack of capacity could have families shunted all over the city or indeed all over the South East which would just add to the dislocation and difficulties they are already facing.

There is precedent for that kind of thing, but only during wars or other national emergencies. During both world wars, stately homes all over the country were pressed into service as military accommodation, hospitals, command centres and so on. That said, it's a ridiculous idea and one which wouldn't (and shouldn't) get off the ground at all.

Of course it is likely that this wasn't necessarily a serious suggestion but instead was a way of illustrating the chasm in wealth between the "haves" and the "have-nots" even in one of London's wealthiest boroughs. There's a chance that the government would then have to publicly shoot down the idea and as a result being apparently on the side of oligarchs and non-doms as opposed to Londoners in time of need.

 

[Darat]

As ever the details don't quite match the headline.

That aside, the government has stated that all those made homeless will be re-homed in the borough. How is the government going to re-home those people in the borough without either buying properties or requisitioning properties?

 

[MikeG]

As ever the details don't quite match the headline.

That aside, the government has stated that all those made homeless will be re-homed in the borough. How is the government going to re-home those people in the borough without either buying properties or requisitioning properties?

Dunno, but there is no way on this planet that they'll be requisitioning property. They don't have good enough lawyers to survive the legal onslaught that would follow that ridiculous notion.

 

[Darat]

Dunno, but there is no way on this planet that they'll be requisitioning property. They don't have good enough lawyers to survive the legal onslaught that would follow that ridiculous notion.

Why compulsory purchasing is a standard part of UK law, plus of course they could do it via a parliamentary instrument to make it legal?

 

[The Don]

Dunno, but there is no way on this planet that they'll be requisitioning property. They don't have good enough lawyers to survive the legal onslaught that would follow that ridiculous notion.

Why compulsory purchasing is a standard part of UK law, plus of course they could do it via a parliamentary instrument to make it legal?

I guess it comes down to the "how". The OP implies that the properties would be seized from their owners without compensation and pressed into service (regardless of what Corbyn may have been suggesting). That's a completely different thing to a compulsory purchase and even with compulsory purchase I presume that there is some kind of due process that needs to be followed and that's likely to be very time consuming.

Personally I'd be very wary of government promises to re-home people within the borough, not because the government are bad people looking to screw people over but because they may be making promises that it turns out they are unable to keep OR that families will eventually be rehomed within the borough but that'll take months or years and in the meantime they will be cast to the four winds.

 

[MikeG]

Not an instrument......Compulsory Purchase requires an Act. So good luck getting that through Parliament. And good luck with getting it through parliament on any sort of realistic timetable.

I suggest that buying up every property that is currently for sale in the borough is a much more likely alternative, along with perhaps looking at what buildings are in public ownership already and could be re-purposed.

And that isn't even beginning to look at the question of fairness. A government saying "You're entitled to live here, but you can **** off" isn't my idea of fairness. YMMV.

 

[Darat]

Not an instrument......Compulsory Purchase requires an Act. So good luck getting that through Parliament. And good luck with getting it through parliament on any sort of realistic timetable.

Yeah but think of the mischief...

I suggest that buying up every property that is currently for sale in the borough is a much more likely alternative, along with perhaps looking at what buildings are in public ownership already and could be re-purposed.

And that isn't even beginning to look at the question of fairness. A government saying "You're entitled to live here, but you can **** off" isn't my idea of fairness. YMMV.

You almost sound as if you think the government made a knee-jerk statement and has no idea how they are going to do it...

 

[MikeG]

........You almost sound as if you think the government made a knee-jerk statement and has no idea how they are going to do it...

Whatever gave you that idea? The fact that I don't know what they are going to do doesn't mean that they don't know what they are going to do.

 

[Tolls]

Whatever gave you that idea? The fact that I don't know what they are going to do doesn't mean that they don't know what they are going to do.

Me?
I'm not going to hold my breath...

 

[fagin]

Whatever gave you that idea? The fact that I don't know what they are going to do doesn't mean that they don't know what they are going to do.

If they do it'll be a first.

 

[baron]

It's unworkable, like most of Corbyn's ideas, but having said that there is a lot of foreign-owned empty property in London that is doing nothing but taking up space and pushing up prices.

Here's an idea: Maybe if every London-based leftist celeb luvvie who tweeted some empathetic emoji or went round giving 'hugs' allowed a homeless family to stay in one of their multi-room mansions, that would be a positive step forwards. But, as in the case of the refugees, we all know this won't happen.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Re the OP: I think you mis-spelled "unoccupied investment properties." A home is where someone actually lives.

Dave

 

[applecorped]

Re the OP: I think you mis-spelled "unoccupied investment properties." A home is where someone actually lives.

Dave

Justify it anyway you want

 

[Dave Rogers]

Justify it anyway you want

I'm not saying it justifies it. I'm saying that it needs to be understood before it gets discussed. There's a big difference between seizing occupied and unoccupied properties, even if you consider both unjustifiable.

Dave

 

[ddt]

It's unworkable, like most of Corbyn's ideas, but having said that there is a lot of foreign-owned empty property in London that is doing nothing but taking up space and pushing up prices.

Re the OP: I think you mis-spelled "unoccupied investment properties." A home is where someone actually lives.

And this is what Jeremy Corbyn seems to talk about in the Telegraph article:

“It can’t be acceptable that in London we have luxury buildings and luxury flats left empty as land banking for the future while the homeless and the poor look for somewhere to live. We have to address these issues.”

That's also the phenomenon that led to the rise in the squatting movement in the 1970s. Personally, I have no moral problems if the government would requisition such premises or if individuals would squat them. (I'm not touching on the question what the law currently allows; but what I think the law should allow).

Fun trivia fact: Corbyn's older brother Piers was active in the squatting movement in the 1970s.

 

[Darat]

It's unworkable, like most of Corbyn's ideas, but having said that there is a lot of foreign-owned empty property in London that is doing nothing but taking up space and pushing up prices.

Here's an idea: Maybe if every London-based leftist celeb luvvie who tweeted some empathetic emoji or went round giving 'hugs' allowed a homeless family to stay in one of their multi-room mansions, that would be a positive step forwards. But, as in the case of the refugees, we all know this won't happen.

You exempt the "rightest celeb luvvies" from this? Why?

 

[MikeG]

You exempt the "rightest celeb luvvies" from this? Why?

The same reason Noah exempted the unicorn from his list of animals to board the ark.

 

[Darat]

The same reason Noah exempted the unicorn from his list of animals to board the ark.

Come off it, you must know a ton of "celeb luvvies" who are right wing. I don't know many but out of the what say the 6 or 7 I've ever had enough of a conversation with to know their politics about half are reactionary right wingers.

 

[baron]

And this is what Jeremy Corbyn seems to talk about in the Telegraph article:


That's also the phenomenon that led to the rise in the squatting movement in the 1970s. Personally, I have no moral problems if the government would requisition such premises or if individuals would squat them. (I'm not touching on the question what the law currently allows; but what I think the law should allow).

Fun trivia fact: Corbyn's older brother Piers was active in the squatting movement in the 1970s.

I am totally against squatting but I'd welcome a change in the law to prevent people using property purely as an investment, i.e. leaving it empty.

The thing here is that Corbyn knows full well that his idea could not possibly be implemented now or in the near future, and even if it were it would not be anywhere near as extensive as he makes out. He came out with this statement with no regard for the plight of the people who need homes now, it was an opportunist political dig. Like his magic money tree, he's effectively saying, "If I were Prime Minister all you people made homeless would be living in mansions!" Despicable little man.