Talk

Advanced search

to ask what you think about Corbyn and Lammy's suggestion that houses of the rich should be requisitioned to give to homeless Grenfell victims?

(609 Posts)
nutter19 Fri 16-Jun-17 12:34:48

I am not sure what to think about it. On the one hand I agree that there are a lot of very big houses in the borough that are empty and could be used to house the homeless rather than left empty.

On the other hand, it seems a bit sinister to think they would just take private property off those they deem rich.

What do other people think?

Saucery Fri 16-Jun-17 12:41:11

No. You can't just take over properties like that. By all means ask, encourage and support this would be unfair.

Southwaite Fri 16-Jun-17 12:44:58

No. not a good precedent.

It is not the fault of the "rich people" that this happened.

Hapaxlegomenon Fri 16-Jun-17 12:46:17

Very very sinister to start suggesting things like this

Sittinonthefloor Fri 16-Jun-17 12:46:41

It does seem unfair that there is such a divide and empty houses while people are homeless. But you can't just take things - how would you legally define the boundaries of who you could take stuff from? The legal objections would go on for years! It's a daft idea, Only option, if these houses were really needed, would be compulsory purchase order at full market value. Then they'd need conversation. Cheaper to build from scratch. Very irresponsible of Corbyn to suggest ideas that can't happen and won't happen.

Moanyoldcow Fri 16-Jun-17 12:46:44

Did you read the actual quote or just the reports in the more right-wing press?

He didn't state whose properties, did not specify rich people and did not specify the location.

'Homes must be found - requisitioned if necessary'

Pretty far from taking rich people's houses.

sashh Fri 16-Jun-17 12:48:43

It is not the fault of the "rich people" that this happened.

I think you need to do some reading.

jammyjamjamjam Fri 16-Jun-17 12:48:48

IT isn't a simple as taking the houses and I'm guessing Corbyn et al know that.

But it is a shame there are whole streets of fancy houses going to ruin because someone abroad got them as an investment 5 /10 years ago and hasn't maintained or lived in them. Plus by not living there I assume they don't pay council tax? If I'm right on that a tax on empty houses would be good. Could use it fund council houses.

Madbengalmum Fri 16-Jun-17 12:50:35

Marxism at its worst.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel Fri 16-Jun-17 12:50:38

I thought, 'Good for him for shifting the Overton Window a bit in the right direction.'
It isn't going to happen. But it is a useful reminder of the stupidity of the fact that so many houses in the area stand empty while people are crammed into overcrowded and unsafe accommodation.

If we suddenly did this it would crash house prices with very negative effects on the economy. But we do need to start thinking about a gentler solution to this contributing factor to the London housing crisis.

ShotsFired Fri 16-Jun-17 12:50:40

By inference though, that "requisitioning" is coming from richer people. Poorer people don't tend to have spare houses lying about anywhere, let alone in Kensington.

And he clearly states in his next sentence about "luxury flats left empty". Of course he's going after "the rich". He is who he is, that's what he does.

But I agree with pp - it is the thin end of the wedge and impossible to enforce at the snap of a finger anyway. Therefore it does seem a rather deliberately provocative and rather pointless thing to say.

Southwaite Fri 16-Jun-17 12:51:08

What, rich people just going about their business and living their lives? How's it their fault?

tiggytape Fri 16-Jun-17 12:51:52

If they mean forcing people to hand over their property to someone else then, no, I don't agree.
The people without homes are in a terrible position and need rehousing but how could a government simply step in and take property off of one person to give to another?
In this instance, it might be a popular swipe at rich investors and a popular move to help people caught up in the fire but it sets a bit of a worrying precedent if a government could just step in and do something like that.

I may have misunderstood though and if they mean longer term doing things to disincentive people from buying up London property as an investment and leaving it empty (higher council tax for those properties or some other financial penalty) then that's fair enough.
If you're going to buy property as an investment, at the very least don't compound housing issues by taking that property out of use completely. But of course that is a long term change that would need debating and law changes etc and wouldn't help the poor people made homeless by the fire this week.

user1471439240 Fri 16-Jun-17 12:52:30

They are Marxists, they believe all property is theft, (except their own)
Its what they do, the state takes over its subjects lives.
See Corbyns land tax idea for further insight.
Corbyn and McDonnell are telling you who they are, its not as though they hide the fact.

Cantseethewoods Fri 16-Jun-17 12:52:37

I agree with a tax on empty property but either you believe in private property or you don't. Once you don't, you can kiss goodbye to any investment in the country whatsoever.

Hermagsjesty Fri 16-Jun-17 12:53:11

He didn't actually specify "rich" houses ever. i think this is probably too complicated to put into practice in the short term. However, it is horrifying that in a rich borough of a rich city traumatised families are sleeping on the floor of a sports centre. There is historical precedent for requisitioning property during a time of national crisis, so, I suppose it depends on if this is a national crisis. And absolutely there needs to be a debate going forward about how it's okay for so many properties to be sitting empty when there isn't enough affordable housing. (I think empty houses already pay more tax - but maybe that needs to go up further.)

FinallyThroughTheRoof Fri 16-Jun-17 12:53:50

Marxism at its worst

Wanting to house homeless people.

How bloody awful

CardinalSin Fri 16-Jun-17 12:54:08

What Moany says - please actually read what people say before automatically believing the Daily Heil.

In fact, don't read the Daily Heil, as it will automatically be lying to you.

purits Fri 16-Jun-17 12:54:29

Did you read the actual quote

What did he say apart from a hand-wringing "something must be done". It's a sound bite with no actual solution.

They have already pledged that they are going to re-house locally.

Sittinonthefloor Fri 16-Jun-17 12:54:52

Moany - if he didn't mean taking them from rich people who did he mean? I have a feeling you do pay council tax on vacant properties as long as they are habitable.

Birdsgottaf1y Fri 16-Jun-17 12:57:49

There are people that lived in those flats for over 30 years and who are now priced out of the area, so they should be housed as close as possible so they don't have to change Doctors, Carers, Schools, Hospitals, Support Workers etc.

It doesn't have to apply to everyone, those that have been there less than two years, say.

Similar happened to my Grandmother and Mother, but via compulsory purchase to build Liverpool University. They built up the area a few years later, but they couldn't return because they were considered housed (in Kirkby some distance away).

It wasn't fair and there should be a pledge to re-housing people later on, even if they are housed.

Otherwise here is a form of social cleansing going on.

Cantseethewoods Fri 16-Jun-17 12:58:25

I have a feeling you do pay council tax on vacant properties as long as they are habitable.

Yes, but I think there should be an additional tax on homes which are not occupied for a certain number of days per year (i.e. kept as second/third/ fourth homes by people)

Birdsgottaf1y Fri 16-Jun-17 12:58:50

""I have a feeling you do pay council tax on vacant properties as long as they are habitable.""

You don't for a time period, then just a very reduced amount, if at all.

Cacofonix Fri 16-Jun-17 12:59:01

Don't be so naive that he isn't targeting rich people- it is plainly inferred in his second sentence that luxury property that is left empty is a target. Who owns luxury property ffs? Now I agree that second homes that are left empty should be taxed rigorously but that is another thread.

sashh Fri 16-Jun-17 12:59:12

What, rich people just going about their business and living their lives? How's it their fault?

The cladding was to improve the view for the rich people in another block. It did not benefit the residents and is probably why the fire spread at more than a floor a min.

Lots of residents tried to complain about the crap work and the fire hazards, they tried to go to court but couldn't get legal representation because they could not get legal aid.

To improve the view of the rich poor people's lives were put in danger.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now