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?

"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"

That's why I'm not really following you, employment status isn't a factor, well unless you're trying to get housing in a certain area to keep a job you already have.

Is it different in Kensington?

The ECHR allows for limitations on property rights

It does, pursuant to law, and on payment of proper compensation. Not by people taking the law into their own hands - even with the encouragement of an irresponsible politician.

he has now confirmed that he is not committed to parliamentary democracy, human rights, and the rule of the law; but some of us always knew that.

That's why I'm not really following you, employment status isn't a factor, well unless you're trying to get housing in a certain area to keep a job you already have.

Of course employment status is a factor. Those with zero hours contracts in poor/ insecure employment are more likely to end up homeless/ overcrowded and therefore meet the criteria for social housing. But once they have it if they get a decent job later (perfectly possible) they may end up better off as they won't be paying market rent. This is the case in most places not just Kensington and I'm not really understanding why that is hard to get your head round.

"Of course employment status is a factor. Those with zero hours contracts in poor/ insecure employment are more likely to end up homeless/ overcrowded and therefore meet the criteria for social housing."

Yes, but the criteria for social housing doesn't include unemployment.

Obviously unemployment and unstable employment is more likely to cause homelessness and being housed is more likely to lead to secure employments...

I just couldn't work out if there was something other than that that I was missing, which was why I was asking.

Interesting interview with Prof. Richard Murphy on PM this evening suggesting that requisitioning would be legal (I didn't get the name of the law but it'll be on the iPLayer) and that it regularly happens in other countries including in that communist Utopia America after hurricanes and floods and things of the sort.

Prof. Richard Murphy on PM this evening suggesting that requisitioning would be legal

Trouble is, it's not hard to find others who insist it isn't legal, or at least not in peacetime, which suggests that the whole idea would be an absolute bonanza for the lawyers ... and while they're fighting it out the victims would still be waiting

This is the problem with policy made on the hoof and dog whistle politics: it might make a nice headline, but it doesn't necessarily produce sensible solutions

Here's a point ... does anyone know what happened about the lady who offered accommodation in the student flats? Have any of the homeless victims been housed there?

the whole idea would be an absolute bonanza for the lawyers

And the currency traders....

It does, pursuant to law, and on payment of proper compensation. Not by people taking the law into their own hands - even with the encouragement of an irresponsible politician.

he has now confirmed that he is not committed to parliamentary democracy, human rights, and the rule of the law; but some of us always knew that.

I'm not sure I follow. If it is not illegal, how is it "taking the law into their own hands"? How is this "outside the rule of law"?

jeezypeeps, Andrew, surely the dispossesed could languish somewhere comfy while the council got their act together? I really don't think that Jezzer is inciting people to storm the barricades. More that it would be useful in the short term to use unoccupied places to house people who don't have homes and need to stay in the locality. It might be bending the law a bit(I don't know, so I won't pontificate), but considering how H+S laws have been trashed in regard to high rise housing, don't you think a bit of sense should prevail here?

don't you think a bit of sense should prevail here?

Honestly, it would be cheaper in the long run to go into the private rental market and take out a year's lease on the number of properties needed. It would raise the price of rentals in K&C and would have a bit of a ripple out....but that'd be it. A few French investment bankers would have to settle for a flat in Islington for a year. But you wouldn't be playing silly buggers with an economy already teetering on the edge of Brexit.

Some people's priorities are seriously screwed up here.

Calling trying to house people in vacant properties "pathetic" deserves a million s

I'd be perfectly happy to see property that was left empty requisitioned by government as a solution to the housing crisis. Not force a change of ownership, but force it being let at a fair market rate is absolutely fine by me!

spin Murphy's area of expertise is tax avoidance. He's an accountant not a lawyer. John McDonnell stated that team Corbyn do not trust him on matters of wider economics.

Natalia, you seem to have more economic savvy than me. What you suggest seems reasonable, but I don't understand why that would raise the price of rentals. Surely the greedy buggers could be shamed into accepting reasonable rent? Some of them might offer a home at a reasonable (London rate) price?
The folk who are just owning the properties, well what harm to them to lend it, if it is just bricks to them?

Next step the purge.

fevvers Price would rise because of supply and demand - same supply in the market with an unexpected increase in demand. It'd cost a lot of money, as rental property in K&C doesn't come cheap. But it wouldn't spook the hell out of the markets.

Most of the "greedy buggers" are foreign investors, many of whom choose London as a base precisely because of our respect for property rights. (A friend of mine deals with a lot of Russian clients, who say exactly that. The UK isn't corrupt in the same way as Russia or the Middle East. The rule of law prevails). The empty properties that are "bought to leave" are purely investment vehicles. If they wanted to let them out they would do. They buy to leave because the price of these properties is rising. If the price falls because people start to panic that the UK is no longer the respected of property rights that they thought, they will simply sell. And a lot of properties coming on the market at the same time will cause the price to fall (supply outstrips demand). It will be a purely investment driven decision (like selling a stock that has had a profits warning) as they do not regard it as a home. And sentiment will turn (even more) negative towards the U.K. and its economic prospects....and the £ will fall (even further).

All speculation at the end of the day, obviously (and if I were that brilliant at predicting these things I'd be the next George Soros rather than the stay at home mummy I am). But I think the "what harm to lend the properties?" is a little like asking why Tesco don't donate all their leftover food to starving Ethiopians. It just isn't as simple as that. And a further fall in the £ and/or widespread panic in the housing market (or even a 10-20% correction) would have huge economic implications for all of us.

I find it a bit shocking that so many people here are more concerned about some foreigner losing one of their many homes than about traumatised families who have already lost all the possessions and probably some of their members being left homeless or having to move away from what remains of their lives.

I find it a bit shocking that so many people here are more concerned about some foreigner losing one of their many homes

Don't give a shit about any individual property investor (foreign or otherwise) - caveat emptor and all that. But I think it's hugely (shockingly, even) irresponsible to suggest an economically illiterate knee jerk reaction which could have enormous economic repercussions which would affect the entire country. Millions of people.

atenco I don't think anyone is terribly worried about a foreign property owner per se.

But some of us are worried about the leader of the opposition making unworkable suggestions that are not legal under current legislation in the U.K. and seem to contradict international law.

I'm also a bit shocked at the number of different interpretations being offered as to what 'requisition' means. It's clear that whatever Corbyn meant is not what most posters here had in mind.

Natalia - what harm? I thought was, because it's maybe a hundred families, short term. Till the cooncil can sort out the long term. Little damage for investors, surely, and nothing like Tesco sending grub to Ethiopia (I'm sure you know that's daft, and certainly not Habesha)}

Also, "economically illiterate knee jerk reaction which could have enormous economic repercussions which would affect the entire country. Millions of people." - That'll be Brexit, surely?

fevvers Harm because you send a strong signal that the UK does not fully respect property rights. Like it or not, we live in a global world. Our economy is dependent on international investment for growth and jobs.

I agree with you re Brexit - and it's tied in. Look at how the currency plunged 20% after the vote. Essentially - put crassly - the U.K. has been devalued by 20%. We know need to look like "friends of international trade" (hence all the horrific hand holding with Trump - we no longer have the luxury of choice there, very very sadly). If you start requisitioning assets you call into question the UK's respect for property rights and law. Which makes it a vastly less attractive place to invest in. But just try requisitioning these properties or forcing an emergency occupation order on them. As Carl says, there'll be (expensive) lawsuits and those properties will be put on to sell at any price before these are concluded. They will tank. The rest of the London market will tank. The rest of the UK will suffer a serious correction. There'll be negative equity at the same time prices are rising (£ worth less and we import more than we export). So many moving parts.

If you want a radical short term solution, there are smarter options. Increase K&C council tax and go into the private market. Do a deal with a developer who will lend a finished block in return for planning permission elsewhere.

I don't think food to Ethiopia is that daft an analogy (although it's a bit crass, obviously). They need food. You send food. But you actually then cause a problem because what they actually need is the irrigation and crops to grow their own food and you inadvertently wipe out any nascent agricultural industry there is. Here - you want to help the homeless and vulnerable. But if by requisitioning property you set off a spiral which sends the country into recession, you make more people homeless and vulnerable. And there's less money for social housing and safety inspections.

Murphy's area of expertise is tax avoidance. He's an accountant not a lawyer

I'm aware of that, having googled him. The interview here www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tvj7f starts at 49.08. He quotes the Civil contingencies act 2004, section 22, www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/section/22: "Emergency regulations may make any provision which the person making the regulations is satisfied is appropriate for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency in respect of which the regulations are made. (...) Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative; in particular, regulations may—

(...)

(b)provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property (with or without compensation);

Some of us have property that we got from our parents. Some of us have property that we got from our parents legacies after they died. Some of us were so hardworking that we made ourselves rich. apparently. And some of us have fuck all. Even if we work.
Anyhoo. Back to the problem at hand. Could the disposessed folk bunk out in their area, in houses/whatever that are currently not occupied by their owners till the council get their fingers out and find long term homes?It's not about eating the rich.

But the people who own empty properties have bought them purely as an investment. Because the price is rising. As you might buy, say, shares in Marks and Spencer. At the first sign that M&S aren't selling much this season, you'd look to sell those shares. And as more people look to sell those shares, the price falls. So you want to sell your shares before anyone else so you get the best price. That's what would happen to those properties the minute it was seriously mooted. And people with other assets may worry about whether the rules regarding those would change. And they would sell. And so on and so on. It's not about people "bunking in" for a bit. You are setting a precedent which would be seen as a very negative signal. I think almost any solution would be better than that.