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?

Natalia You had me there. Bravo. But it's a bit mean really. Folks are just wondering about how people from Grenfell could be housed in the short term.

spin I'd be gobsmacked if Corbyn's suggestion involved the use of the CCA.

First, it was conceived as a response to situations such as war, terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11 etc.

Second, even in those situations Corbyn was extrememely concerned about the amendments. Shami Chakrabati has also condemned them fiercely ( as have many leading civil rights lawyers/organisations).

Third, the emergency powers vested in a LA through the CCA last a short time. This would in no way solve the problem of where to house the residents of GT whilst permenant acccommodation is found. The time scales are not in line.

This is before we get on to the thorny issue of whether using the CCA would be 'proportionate' to the problem. Which is the corner stone of the legislation. I haven't yet heard any lawyers or politicians say that using the law would be proportionate. So an accountant's say so is pretty underwhelming.

You are setting a precedent which would be seen as a very negative signal.

Investment is risk. One risk when banking property is that there may come a point when that practice is questioned.

If you buy up all the fresh water reservoirs, don't act shocked when the thirsty people demand government action.

Smith himself talks about this weakness in his model.

don't act shocked when the thirsty people demand government action.

And it's perfectly reasonable to suggest, say, that Sadiq Khan has the power to impose an empty property tax on London. Or that Kensington & Chelsea council can raise an emergency levy on council tax on a particular band of properties . Or that non dom property owners pay a special levy. But all these things are unequivocally legal and would have a financial impact (mostly) only on the people whose actions you wish to discourage.

Natalia would a more apt analogy not be the government making M&S open up a mothballed production line to make uniforms and compensating them for doing so?

I just can't imagine the lack of public spiritedness of these people that such a tiny inconvenience to them would make them choose the hassle of selling up rather than agreeing to help out in a crisis. I guess that's why I'm not a billionaire though...

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

He's actually a political activist if he's the same guy who set up the Tax Justice Network and appointed himself as it's leader. I don't think he's practised as an accountant for a very long time. He used to post on an accountancy website and was regularly called out for his biased political views. Rather than any kind of expert, I think he's someone who is very good at getting himself in the media. He's certainly not regarded as a expert by his fellow accountants!

But the people who own empty properties have bought them purely as an investment. Because the price is rising

Nope. I bought my house in the UK so I'd have somewhere to bring my severely disabled son every year when it's too hot for him to live a life where we live.

It was also bought for us to stay in when I'd bring him to the UK to see Drs.

He can no longer travel but the house will stay empty apart from the odd week in the year I use it, or my other children do, just in case he should ever be able to travel again.

It's not an investment. I have absolutely no idea what's it's worth. I'm not even interested in what it's worth and it never crosses my mind to find out. But it is priceless in that if my son is ever in it again it will be because he was well enough for me and his carers to get him on a plane.

But all these things are unequivocally legal and would have a financial impact (mostly) only on the people whose actions you wish to discourage.

To be honest I may agree that other action may be more practical.

My concern here is with the sanctification, once again, of "free" markets. Because there is absolutely no such thing as a free market. Without a strong social contract, the conditions allowing for the safe and low risk investment environment seen in London housing would not exist.

Neoliberalists seek to have the best of society"s strengths (public involvement to avert crashes - soft landings) without contribution.

If the local council and MP had pulled their fingers out, everyone affected could have been in local student accommodation the same day (private rooms, communal areas for counselling etc, all facilities useable), a huge order for those fantastic new prefabs would have been placed, an area of Holland Park or something would have been designated for redevelopment and the recruitment drive for a massive building programme would be under way. It's not like the government would refuse the money for this is it?

Empty properties are a distraction - especially as, if they really are long-term empty investments, they would not be fit for habitation.

Nothing to do with the MP. Heaven forfend that how much gets done depends on how good an ear bender the MP for an area is.

Student accommodation? Is term over? Most universities let their accommodation over the vacation and it's essential to their finances. Even if the council aid the same rent they would have to disappoint the people they do business with. Not on.

Neoliberalists seek to have the best of society"s strengths (public involvement to avert crashes - soft landings) without contribution.

I agree with you. Which is why I'm not in that camp. In fact, in the case of property, I believe that property assets only have value because of the community. I have no problem with asking for the contribution. I just think we need to be smart about how we do it to avoid destabilising the economic prospects of the wider society.

Natalia would a more apt analogy not be the government making M&S open up a mothballed production line to make uniforms and compensating them for doing so?

It's a very good analogy - and my response would be that it would still be a daft thing to do. You can force M&S to undertake a particular activity. But you send the signal that the government is prepared to intervene in private enterprise and direct its activities. People would worry that this would apply to the rest of the retail sectors - and maybe the wider market - and that the forecasts for future cash flows would be lower than they expected. So they would sell M&S....and then the rest of the retail sector. And then the rest of the FTSE that had significant UK operations. You want the uniforms made? Offer a tax incentive to get someone to build a new, higher tech production line.

Listen to Mark Carney this morning. The UK is in a precarious position. Destabilise the property markets and bring into question our commitment to property rights? Craziness. You want to tax the rich burghers of Kensington and Chelsea to benefit people in social housing? Totally different proposition....and much easier to do.

But you send the signal that the government is prepared to intervene in private enterprise

Government is intrinsically linked with business. Government provides roads to access property. Government provides national security keeping the bandits away. Police, so that you can safely travel to the property. Courts so that property rights can be enforced. All of these providing the stable foundation that makes private enterprise possible.

We can go on. Government provides an educated workforce and consumers. Government provides a healthy workforce and consumers.

Government bails out banks when they concoct fraudulent schemes.

The free market is a fairy tale, a myth.

And make, all your points are bloody good ones in favour of levying taxation. I don't disagree. You make a profit - that's not independent of the wider society which enables you to make it.

But - you may not like it - we live in a globalised world, whose basis is the international capital markets. Are they perfectly efficient, as per financial theory? No. But our future prosperity is inextricably linked to them.

Seriously the easy solution is just to lease as many homes as is required at market rates. Even at £2000 a month for 2 years would only be ~£6m.

requisitioning houses is a very odd idea. I agree the MP and local council could impose levies if they wanted to discourage second home owning.

Can I just check whether this interesting chat on markets is including the fact that the income from rents exceeded the spend on social housing in RBKC?
Not being sarcastic - genuinely can't remember if it's been mentioned here!

It's just Corbyn all over isn't it, exactly why I didn't vote for him (probably get flamed on here for that...). You can't penalise people for working hard and achieving by taking their assets away because someone might need them. It's just ridiculous! Yes it's sad and awful that these victims have lost their homes, but it's up to their landlord (the council) to ensure that they have a roof over their head. I'd be furious if it was my property (although probably would have offered it to those it need anyway)

So if your house isn't lived in and its requisitioned, what if the plumbing isn't working properly? What if there is no kitchen fitted or working oven? What if its in the middle of renovation?

Surely there can't be that many second homes all working perfectly ready to be moved into at a moments notice? What if you've got expensive paintings or antiques? Are you supposed to fly back from Qatar or whereever and empty the house before people move in? How does it work practically?

and does that then officially make you a landlord? With all the responsibilites that entails?

But our future prosperity is inextricably linked to them.

It's a quandary.

I think we must find a way forward, and I don't think Neoliberalism is the way:

Climate change
Population growth
Increased inequity/destabilisation
Nukes

We have these huge challenges that Neoliberalism just doesn't address.

Merci off plan unused (totally empty) investments. Not homes.

Thank you for explaining explodedcloud the practicalities have been bugging me

so if they are totally empty, what happens with bathrooms and kitchens?

But our future prosperity is inextricably linked to them.

It is also linked to people who live here having adequate housing.

To be clear, in economics capital investment is money that can be used by business for production. This is speculation we are talking about, not investment if properties are left empty as they are of no use to the country at all and that is a very important distinction.

This is speculation we are talking about, not investment if properties are left empty as they are of no use to the country at all and that is a very important distinction.

why what difference does it make if someone is living there or not? If I buy a house for £800k and live in it, then sell it 10 years later for 1.5million, whats the difference if I do the same but just don't live there?