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?

[nutter19]

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?

Horrible as it is, the dead cannot be identified immediately. This came up after the Manchester and London terrorist murders - people have to be listed as missing until a positive identification can be made.

Yes, of course everyone wants to know. But that doesn't make it happen faster.

Why would you make that assumption?
Would you be happy to told to budge up in your own home. Or is that rule only for other people?

Indeed. And of course consider the fact that these are for the most part extraordinarily expensive homes, furnished to the highest standard, opened up to people who are entirely unvetted.

Regardless of whether one might have sympathy for this pitfall, the insurance issues alone make this entirely unworkable. Of course anyone with any sense would know this, but the idea of putting displaced Grenfell residents in empty rich people's home's plays too well amongst the far left to consider the practicalities.

I get that, special. Totally. I was just taken aback by a poster's lack of empathy for the survivors, whose desperation for immediate answers is pretty understandable.

Yep 'property rights' that's what we should really be concerned about. Investor confidence that is the big issue of the day.

We need to prioritise what really matters and make sure we don't upset the rich people. "Gosh that building is ugly" say the rich people and we can't upset them.

Why would you make that assumption?
Would you be happy to told to budge up in your own home. Or is that rule only for other people?

But it isn't a home. They don't live there or have any intention of doing. It isn't a holiday home, it has been bought just as an asset. I am rofl at the idea that this being wrong is akin to socialism. It should not be allowed.

It's just bizarre when you consider the rough ride that landlords get on MN that anyone can honestly argue that lots of empty houses owned by foreigners is fine as long as they've paid for them. It just beggars belief to me.

Quickest way to totally fuck the economy would be to requisition houses as most aren't owned by British nationals and we need that investment in the country.

It's traumatic,sad, beyond imaginable and horrific but to think that local housing on that scale can just be magicked up is beyond unreasonable. The residents have been promised new homes, have adequate food and water and are safe now. A public inquiry and a criminal enquiry are promised and the fire service is at present clearing the scene. Only then will the process of identifying remains be able to start.

To put things into context 100k people are currently trapped in Mosul without adequate food or water or a roof over their heads whilst being shot at.

'We'd lose a lot as a society if property rights weren't respected. The consequences would be far reaching.

That said the empty "investment" properties in London are grotesque, and the tax system in our country needs to be changed to discourage this phenomenon.'

^ This

If JC becomes PM and the following week there is a similar tragedy - with or without a convenient scapegoat - in Islington I take it he will not wait for his home to be requisitioned, he'll just hand over the keys?

To be honest the people who own homes but are doing nothing with them and leaving them empty shouldn't need encouraging. After such a terrible tragedy, the images we've all seen and the terror those poor residents felt and still feel, if the owners had an ounce of empathy or goodness in them they would offer. What is the point of having houses sitting empty anyway? Especially when so many have nowehere to go. It highlights the greed of some people and their utter unwillingness to help those in need.

If JC becomes PM and the following week there is a similar tragedy - with or without a convenient scapegoat - in Islington I take it he will not wait for his home to be requisitioned, he'll just hand over the keys?

I'm sure he'd find a convenient way to 'other' himself from other property owners, much as he did when he managed to work himself out of the 'rich' category despite being just that, according to the Labour manifesto.

My MIL is one such champagne socialist. We had dinner last Sunday and she was full of praise for Corbyn- she told me that people on 80K actually don't need that much of their own money if they have great public services.

Fast forward to last night, and she's horrified at the prospect of the requisitioning and full of respect for the rule of law, probably because they have an empty flat in Knightsbridge.

ComputeUser

No I'm criticising the demand for it to be available now, immediately regardless of the facts.

Empty houses, those built but not yet occupied, if they are near to Grenfell Tower and allow families to continue work, school etc then yes, as a measure for a few months. Without it being a precedent. I think that the nearby accommodation talked about may be nowhere near in reality, perhaps five to ten miles away.

In parts of Switzerland foreign peopleareonly allowed to buy in certain areas. These areas become very expensive. But property remains affordabl for local people. I think this is a good solution

puff in Austria (or parts of it - I'm not sure, it was DH who lived there) foreigners who want to buy must apply for a licence applicable only to a particular property, which takes a while to come through - slows the whole thing right down, and makes them less desirable than locals.

I don't even have a problem with non-residents buying here, per se, but I have a major problem with properties being marketed abroad first. Why not require developers to market to locals first? They have the funds, they want to buy, the foreign investors aren't voters so no negative political consequence... I don't understand it.

I take it he will not wait for his home to be requisitioned, he'll just hand over the keys

Oh FFS this is such a shit strawman, and it's been done about eighty times on this thread already.

Quickest way to totally fuck the economy would be to requisition houses as most aren't owned by British nationals and we need that investment in the country.

It isn't investment in the country, as the homes can't be used and the profits will go back to China or wherever. That sentence is utter nonsense and shows zero understanding of simple A Level economics.

On a very positive note even talk of requisitioning will put some future investors off anyway. Then crank up the costs, don't allow anyone without indefinite leave to remain or citizenship/ EU citizenship buy them in the future.

And I imagine that Corbyn's property empire is tenanted anyway.

Hundreds of people have died or are suffering immensely as a result of the incompetence and probably greed that caused the Grenfell disaster. And people are worrying about people many, many times wealthier than themselves possibly having to give up a bit of their property portfolios

champagne socialism, those that can afford to give back and are happy to do so. So stop using it as an insult. It's a rather cheap and pathetic jibe now.

Many people have been made homeless.
None of them will be in a position to use alternative homes whilst theirs are being refurbished. Emergency accommodation will be poor quality and spread far and wide.
Hundreds of families and individuals will be dispaced, will be separated from any support networks they have.
They will still have to go to work (many of them will have been provided the low paid services within the Capital)
Their children will still have to go to school.
Aside from the tragic physical and emotional devastation caused by this fire there is a huge logistical problem of rehousing to be solved.
So I can see where Corbyn is coming from. It's vital to highlight the problem and the need to respond effectively at the front end. Because the measures in place for rehousing people will be woefully inadequate.

"Providing", not "provided".

I take it he will not wait for his home to be requisitioned, he'll just hand over the keys

Oh FFS this is such a shit strawman, and it's been done about eighty times on this thread already
But so enjoyable.

So after placard after placard of the socialist worker and communist brigade last night, now the Grenfell residents group have had to cancel their planned march

They do this time and again. The end result is that people with valid concerns end up being perceived as "anarchists" and "troublemakers", and the wider public turns against them.

I loathe the SWP. Over twenty years, I've seen them wreck numerous organic grassroots movements for change by infiltrating them and attempting to turning the groundswell of support towards their idiotic revolutionary goals.

It was getting so bad in the early noughties that a number of activists I knew began to be convinced the SWP were some sort of psycho-capitalist asset, designed to take down popular movements through subversion and the association of violence and destruction with said movement's campaigns.

After yesterday, we now have a situation where public opinion is souring towards the plight of the tower's inhabitants because of the actions of these idiots.

computor I don't think anyone is worrying about foreign property investors.

Posters are worrying about how such emergency powers would come into being. What affect they will have beyond this current tragedy. Are they practical or even legal under international law.

These are perfectly legitimate concerns.

I thought this was a good twitter thread on the subject
twitter.com/Daniel_Sugarman/status/875647385204006912

Daniel Sugarman‏ @Daniel_Sugarman Jun 16
Here follows a quick thread on the proposal that some of the empty homes in Kensington should be seized to house the homeless from the fire
(1) This idea is catnip to some people. It sounds so good. "How can any1 decent oppose the rehousing of those affected? The houses r empty!"
2) To the people who say it's against the law, others bring up the concept of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs), which are used by councils
3) Except that these are among the most expensive properties in Britain. Even at CPO rates, we're talking hundreds of millions of pounds
4) Oh, & owners (wherever they are) must be notified, & there's a notice period (by law) of a few weeks in which they can make objections
5) That's the law. You can talk about changing that law, sure. But in the meantime, that's the law.
6) "But what about all the cases where poor people are taken advantage of by councils via CPO b/c they don't have access to legal counsel?"
7) Yes, that is DESPICABLE. But that's the point. You're talking about taking houses from people who have very, very good lawyers
8) And when all this has died down, & Corbyn, Lammy, Harman etc go away, the lawyers are still there. And they'll sue the council. And win
9) The council will lose millions in civil suits, and who will suffer then? Not the rich, but the poor who need council services desperately
10) It would cost the council a million times less to house all those affected in a Hotel & pay for it, than it would to take those houses
11) There's no way Corbyn et al don't know all this. Notice, they aren't suggesting brand new legislation to change these laws
12) No, they're just suggesting that these houses be seized NOW, and damn the consequences
13) And given that the government has already committed to rehousing all those affected by the fire, what we actually have is Corbyn et al
14) Using this tragedy & very real distress of those affected to try & suggest something which makes them look good & opponents heartless...
15) But which, further down the line, would further devastate the lives of those they claim to care about so deeply.
(Thread Ends)