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?

Of course, it's something many parts of London have been doing for years - pricing the working class and poor out of the area, and turning it into a millionaire's playground.

Not just the poor. Everyone except the super rich. I'm not "poor" but could never dream of living in that borough. Couldn't even afford a garage there let alone a house. That's why those boroughs are a mixture of very poor who have social housing and multi millionaires. Nobody in between unless possibly their families have owned the same house for generations.

Even areas which used to be extremely poor find their houses are selling for well over £1m. Miles out of reach for the low and middle earners.

The Queen could offer to take all the people left homeless into Buckingham Palace so they can stay local.

I would fucking love it if that happened

Of course Corbyn knows that it will never happen, he was deliberately drawing attention to the fact that there is enormous, almost unbelievable amounts of wealth inequality in London. There is something very off about wealthy foreign owners of all these mansions parking their money (laundering their money in many cases) in these properties and leaving them vacant, pushing up housing prices across the city. I agree with all that Rainbunny in fact I agree with that whole post. If Corbyn has helped draw attention to what is happening in the London property market (and not just in London, but increasingly in other cities as well) then good on him. I've long been moaning about this very problem - a problem made worse by Brexit and the drop in the pound (Brits have been made poorer while foreign buyers have suddenly been given a massive discount). People need to open their eyes and see what is happening before Brits are completely priced out of their own housing market.

I'm well aware of the property situation in London, but I just don't see that requisitioning mansions is the answer. Most of the homes are fully furnished with expensive furniture and antiques, and have a housekeeper living there to maintain it so the owners or their friends can drop in, on a moment's notice, in their private jet. Where would all of their furniture be stored?

Owners living abroad are also human beings and the Human Rights Acr protects them too.

there are no human rights to own property in any country. Every country has various rules about property ownership by both domestic and foreign people and bodies. Developing nations have had for decades extensive capital controls on property (and commercial interests for that matter) to prevent precisely what we are seeing now in wealthy nations: wealthy foreigners crowding out locals and using the local housing system as a safe store for their wealth.

there is nothing xenophobic about barring foreigners from using local housing in this way (you could even bar locals from using the housing stock to protect wealth), and it in fact makes good economic sense not to turn your housing stock into money stores.

We have no idea whether any of these mansions / homes are suitable / safe to be let. My house wouldn't pass the rental legislation as I haven't up to date Gas certs etc.

Many of the buy to leave investment properties are actually 'ordinary' new builds rather than mansions.

A thought. If this fire had occurred in a middle class owner-occupied block what would the reaction of the Left been.

Sure, they'd have insurance but that doesn't work instant miracles. Would JC be saying "their problem, let them get on with it".

And incidentally I see that the residents regard RBKC Council as the building insurers but why are they the contents insurers too?

Just asking?

I won't even answer that ridiculous question.

If people are failed that is wrong regardless of class. Obviously.

chillpepper20 Once you have allowed foreigners to buy they have the same right as other owners.

And all owners have the right to sell to anyone who wants to buy. You can apply restrictions to new build if you are so minded but it would be xenophobic.

In Australia, no person without a genuine connection to the country (ie, citizenship or residency) may buy property without permission from its government. This seems like a very sensible rule especially re residential property. There is no need to sell it to attract foreign investment. Therefore, there is no benefit to the country in allowing housing stock to be sold to overseas investors.

I'm all for laws allowing compulsory purchase of property from overseas investors at cost price myself. There's something very parasitic about buying property just to ride up the value. It's a zero sum game that doesn't benefit the economy.

A thought. If this fire had occurred in a middle class owner-occupied block what would the reaction of the Left been

Impossible scenario. The only people who can live in that borough are those able to afford £3m + properties or council residents. There would be no middle class owner occupied blocks. You'd have to be out in Zone 4 or 5 to have that.

I'm all for xenophobia if it means protection of housing stock for the benefit of those that have to, buy it, rent it or otherwise live in it.

And as "xenophobia" means "dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries" the claim that protecting housing stock for (amongst others) the benefit of those who choose to move there to live is
xenophobic is rather odd.

The key to understanding Marxism is to remember that no one except the State is allowed to amass wealth.
People crying out to tax the rich, to steal their property need to understand that they, are in fact seen as rich also.
See the failed USSR for a failed reason.

Exactly, The day someone tries that and you will have a civil war on your hands. Absolute load of rubbish.

I would like to see someone try taking someone's house that they have worked for to give it someone who has done nothing to progress themselves in life.

And incidentally I see that the residents regard RBKC Council as the building insurers but why are they the contents insurers too?

I presume the building will have been insured by the Council? No idea how it works - presumably all the Council stock would be underwritten as a package? They won't be contents insurers, though - I think, by its very nature, that's an individual thing. Presumably if there is culpability proved, then the residents will be entitled to compensation; if not, there will/should be some sort of funding put aside. (Unlike some of the other suggestions re property, I suspect this would be doable via the Council).

In fairness, had it been a privately owned block full of middle class people, then it would be the freeholder in the firing line rather than the council, so it wouldn't have been quite so political by its nature. No less of a tragedy, of course, but less politically charged.

Toad You simply can't do what you suggest retrospectively. The wider repercussions are enormous and financially catastrophic for all of us. Could you bring in a ban on foreign ownership prospectively? Possibly, although this may lead to a short term bubble as people race to beat the new law coming in - and may deter other foreign investment in other sectors. I think taxation is the best way to tackle it if you want to go down that road.

Yabu.

Those poor rich people gaving to share. After all they have earned their money unlike those state sponging poor people ( jokes)

Yey capitalism!

I just cant understand the mentality on here?

So if you are rich because you made it in life and you are poor because you did not make a go of it then it is the rich person fault?

If you ban foreign investment in London then you will see the whole city degrade to what it was during the 20's

Talk of taking peoples home just because you have a few quid is daft. If you are not working you should be made to move to a cheaper area. After all there no point you being there as you are not doing anything and don't have work there.

That would be a good start

CauliflowerSqueeze I did not suggest a middle class block of flats in RBKC - but there are other places in this country and it could happen there.

Haven't rtft but OP shame on you for starting this thread before reading what was actually said.

“All those made homeless by the fire must be housed in the borough, using all methods possible to make this happen, including, if necessary, requisitioning empty properties.”

This is not as simple as homes of the rich should be taken and given to the victims

The idea that rich people work harder than poor people is nonsense. Rich people have been fortunate in life. Income does not increase in line with effort, in fact the reverse is often true, as people amass wealth they can do less rather than more whilst still accruing income. Look at JK Rowling for example.

"I just cant understand the mentality on here?"

Well you wouldn't do if you think that people aren't rich because of what they have or haven't done, that unoccupied properties are in any way people's homes and that work is the only thing worth valuing as a tie to an area.

user not that it should matter, but looking at the backgrounds of many of the residents of the tower, they (or at least the adults) have succeeded in terms of working hard to make a better life for themselves than those whose wealth has come from flipping property.

Children of billionaires buying property after property to sit on aren't exactly the "deserving rich", are they?

^A thought. If this fire had occurred in a middle class owner-occupied block what would the reaction of the Left been.

Sure, they'd have insurance but that doesn't work instant miracles. Would JC be saying "their problem, let them get on with it".

And incidentally I see that the residents regard RBKC Council as the building insurers but why are they the contents insurers too?

Just asking?^

what is the point of that "question" other than to suggest that JC wouldn't care about owner occupiers.? Why don't you ask him though?

Besides, part of the issue here is that a building inhabited by owner occupiers would be so much less likely to have fallen foul of the failings to ensure a ssafe environment. It is a social housing issue.

Some (many?) of the residents are middle class, if you define that as professional, educated middle-earners. They still need help.

I dislike the fact that large sections of London have been bought to stash capital with people having zero intention of living in them. This "buy myself a house but never use it" which is driving up property prices and stopping normal people getting by. (Plus a couple of years back I read an article from one of those types who wanted to clear social housing from parts of London because 'it's not fair' that social housing is in 'prime real estate' areas.)

I wouldnt be haooy about forcing people to give up their property but if there are empty disused buildings that arent being cared for can be regenerated into affordable housing then I'm happy about that.
Equally, I'd be more than happy to tax the hell out of property empires bought up by foreign investors. Local business can't thrive when there's only 50% (example) of an area actually being lived in, so business falls and then you get an area with few facilities just so some rich investors can stash their money somewhere.