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?

if you want to seize them within the rule of law you can't because the state's threshold for taking them would not be met as it would be in cases of motorways, airports, wartime powers

I am not so sure about this.

consistent with the Human Rights Act

The ECHR allows for limitations on property rights.

It would have made sense to appeal to rich people with empty properties, to offer them up for homeless residents. Maybe for 2 months so alternative arrangements can be made.

The ECHR allows for limitations on property rights.

The markets don't. The currency would plunge (again) and markets would reel. There'd be a rush to take foreign owned assets out of the U.K. It would affect us all. It's a stupid, reactive, highly politicised idea. It'd be cheaper in the long run for the government just to buy the requisite number of properties in the open market.

If you want to tax land, best way is to remove capital gains tax relief on principal private residences. Your house goes up by £1 million from the time you bought it. That's a capital gain. You would pay tax on that if you'd bought shares or a second property - you just get an exemption for your home. You could allow it to be rolled over (so people can move) so it can be paid either when you downsize or out of your estate on death.

If you want to discourage foreign ownership, put a penal stamp duty rate on non doms. Increase council tax for empty homes. All of this is potentially sensible stuff to discuss. But requisition? Misusing emergency powers because we did in WW2? Not sensible at all.

squatting has only been a criminal offence for a handful of years. Shame, as it would have been a handy solution here.

There'd be a rush to take foreign owned assets out of the U.K.

How? Would people be lifting apartment blocks brick by brick and moving them to Dubai or something?

If foreign investment was suddenly very highly taxed more properties would go on the market, and prices are likely to drop

That may not sound so bad but the flip side to that is less building, companies start to lose money lay off staff, less money being circulated impacts the economy

Problem is we have become reliant on foreign investment, it's good for the overall economy more money collected by the government as more cash is circulated that doesn't mean it's good for all individuals in society

There had be less incentives but they need to be made gradually so the market doesn't suddenly have many investors putting their property on the market

If the owners were faced with having their luxury pads taken over they'd simply let them out through a rental agency so they weren't empty anymore.

It does seem as though there is scope for some kind of "we will punish you if you dont fill these" tax system, maybe some kind of rising scale where the tax increases for every year that there werent tenants for 6 consecutive months. (so they dont get in someone for 1 week per year).

These flats/houses are being bought as a business asset essentially, if it becomes more expensive to leave them empty than to fill them, they wont be left empty.

*There'd be a rush to take foreign owned assets out of the U.K.

How? Would people be lifting apartment blocks brick by brick and moving them to Dubai or something? confused*

No. They'd put them on the market and they'd do it quickly. And, especially given that they'll have made a decent profit on them (especially in US$ terms), they won't be too picky about the price they get. The property market isn't liquid in the same way as the equity markets and the top end is already down because of Brexit. You'd see sales going through at significant discounts to current values.....and this would have a knock on effect throughout London, then the rest of the South East, then further afield.....

Problem is we have become reliant on foreign investment, it's good for the overall economy more money collected by the government as more cash is circulated that doesn't mean it's good for all individuals in society

Really good point Enthusiasm. Except, and it isn't a popular view, that I think foreign investment HAS been of benefit to all individuals in society....it's just that that benefit hasn't been spread equally. So - some people are stonkingly better off and the poorest people are only a bit better off (even if only due to being able to buy cheaper goods). I think it has increased inequality....but it's also increased the size of the pie for everyone. It's obviously a moot point as to which of these is better.

Interesting to see Corbyn's latest bright idea around empty properties being "occupied". He knows that squatting is now illegal - though no doubt that would change in his communist utopia - so clearly he's had to think of some other word in his pursuit of dog whistle politics

Utterly pathetic

The ECHR does indeed allow for the suspension of property rights in certain cases.

However, assuming that the current circumstances fall within any of those parameters is not something we should do. I've not heard any lawyers say that this case falls squarely in the exceptions.

Perhaps Shami Chakrabati has commented? It's her field.

Are there any Middle Class people in Kensington?

I ask because I don't think anyone on even a high income (let alone middle-ranking professionals or key workers) could afford to buy or even rent a property there.

It seems just a tale of the super rich and those that qualify for social housing.

I agree that the number of Buy to Leave properties is immoral, but (except in the case of the Grenfell people) reallocating them to those who are on the housing list is unfair. In Kensington there are masses of jobs and unless someone is old/disabled, they can work and earn a decent salary (and no commuting costs!).

Lady The ownership of Grenfell Towers was mixed, some were privately owned www.standard.co.uk/Front/london-fire-inside-the-2k-grenfell-tower-flats-before-the-blaze-a3565416.html#gallery.

He knows that squatting is now illegal - though no doubt that would change in his communist utopia

Squatting wasn't illegal in that well known communist utopia, Thatcher's Britain...

Are there any Middle Class people in Kensington?

Basically, no. And it's a function of UK housing policy. In every town and even every village in the UK is a mix of private and social housing. This was a deliberate policy to avoid there being "poor areas" and "rich areas" that were completely separated from each other. Even the richest live cheek by jowl with the less advantaged.

The problem (I think) came with selling off the Council houses under Thatcher (a huge political bung, basically). Some people made huge profits, there were all sorts of scandals and, as a result, the social housing stock has been depleted.

But here's the question. (Can we put this back into general context rather than talking about the Grenfell victims, who of course need to be rehoused near their schools, community support etc - I don't want to have that argument.) If council housing in some London boroughs is worth millions, should it be sold and the proceeds used to create newer, better Council housing to benefit more people? Does it matter that, say, Chelsea becomes a rich-only area? Does anyone have a "right" to live there? Middle class people can't afford to live there and have to live in Barnet and trek in on the Northern line. Or - is it a fundamental tenet of a progressive society that we don't allow rich and poor to be segregated and is it in fact in everyone's interest that the poor don't live in downtrodden areas and the rich have to live in gated communities with security guards on patrol?

(FWIW I prefer the balance we have rather than, say, how it is in some US cities. But I don't think it's a clear cut subject.)

No it wasn't

And many certainly in London were full of middle class young adults and trustafarians wanting to rough it for a while until they got bored

I'm certainly glad that law has changed becuase it made many people's live very very difficult

"In Kensington there are masses of jobs and unless someone is old/disabled, they can work and earn a decent salary (and no commuting costs!)."

I'm not really understanding what that bit had to do with anything else?

Natalia It would ripple out from places like Chelsea. Poor people would get pushed further and further out. This is already happening as central boroughs 'regenerate' the old council estates by pulling them down and replacing with mixed private/shared ownership/'affordable' properties. Yet we still need people to do all the low paid jobs in those central wealthy areas. These are not the sort of workers who can afford to commute by tube. It's one thing trekking in on the Northern line, quite another to expect people to spend 3 hours on a bus at each end of a gruelling shift stacking shelves or in a care home.

Also I do think communities work better if they are mixed.

I think there were quite a few leaseholders in Grenfell, as there will be in other ex LA properties around K&C. I'd say they're probably MC. Also some social renters who've been there since before all the stock was sold off. It used to be a perfectly normal housing option for people who we'd now say are lower middle class.

Earn a decent salary well if you have low outgoing maybe

The minimum salary that the many cafes and little shops will pay or just slightly higher someone might around £300 a week (for 37.5 hours)

Rents in that area and much of London are above that for a 2 bed flat and not much less for a 1 bed

I think I'm clumsily trying to say that once social housing is secured, then many tenants are in the same financial position as someone who is considered "undeserving" of social housing. Finding a decent full-time job in some parts of the country is hard, but London is awash with jobs.

My mother's family all lived in council houses/flats. They all had jobs. It was not a condition of gaining a tenancy that you didn't have a job.

I think in somewhere like Kensington there should be a banding system for available social housing provision so it doesn't become a ghetto.

Pencils Good point re the ripple effect - I think you only have to look at the social problems in some of the big places in the US to realise that complete segregation can cause all sorts of bigger problems of its own.