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?

You can't just take people's property to suit your own needs this is more commonly called theft. Compulsory purchase would cause a la k of trust. As someone up thread mentioned councils can already require homes to be sold rented out or inhabited and maybe this is what needs to happen here. This does highlight the need for more affordable housing in London. Many of the missing seem to have had fairly decent jobs that anywhere else in the country would have enabled them to rent privately easily.

I really can't understand why the right wing fight till they're blue in the face to defend the "rights" of billionaire Saudi arms-dealers and tax-dodging corporations. But not say a word to defend the rights of normal human beings to not have their children slaughtered needlessly.

But then some posters do have a weird obsession with the ultra wealthy and powerful and the idea they should be allowed to do anything they like (while expressing outrage whenever a severely disabled person spends a penny of their £50 a week benefits on something non-essential). Maybe it goes back to the feudal system?

IMO some people have very weird ideas about fairness - fairness does not mean treating everyone exactly the same (or do you think it's "unfair" that murderers have to go to prison, children have to go to school, and severely disabled people don't have to go to work?). It's absolutely not "unfair" to think some little old lady living in a flat should be treated differently from a billionaire foreigner owning dozens of empty status properties.

Good question clairethewitch. I think universities are expected to monetise their assets these days by lettung out their accommodation outside of term time for conferences and the like, so it may well not be free.

I hope it bloody does bring trouble too, trouble to all the people making money off the back of treating the poor like chumps.

I'm not rich, but I'm worried about a 2011 situation.

Well how would it work in practice. Say a group of tenants are temporarily rehoused in a requisitioned property, with the owner of the property being paid market rent by who? The LA I guess?

In our council, they first offered to transfer his property to the HA for 'management' telling him he would receive fair rent as compensation in line with current rental prices.

Then there was some small print about tenants and LL's rights and how long it would take him to get the property back should he decide to live in it himself or rent it privately.

When he ignored that letter (because he wasn't actually living there and didn't receive it) they sent two more letters. One to the empty property and one to his mother's address telling him he must contact them with twenty eight days and state his intention to bring the property into use or they would apply for a forced possession order. Again there was small print about being compensated in line with current house prices.

Corbyn is not suggesting that we steal homes from 'the rich' he is suggesting the council use powers they already have to bring empty properties into use.

spin, but the council could pay the Uni instead of Hotels and B&B's thus providing income to the University.

Max and Ruby - compulsory purchase happens a lot. Government can take people's property for its own needs - the only question is whether the need is deemed sufficient (this is a low bar) and whether enough compensation is paid. S

I like Corbyn at least he challenges the accepted norms, unlike his Tory counterparts, or a lot of career politicians.

Why is it acceptable for people to own properties that remain vacant for year upon year, when their are people now sleeping on the floor of a leisure centre? Can these properties not be used temporarily until permanent accommodation is found.

The disparity between rich and poor people is an absolute disgrace, you only need so much money to live and functioning this world, why are some people allowed to accumulate so much wealth, when their are people starving and using food banks in our own country.

Maybe his politics are a little naive and me for that matter, but what's wrong with wanting a fairer society instead of maintaining the existing status quo, which isn't really working anymore.

You pay Council Tax on second homes. Some councils give a discount some don't.

And as has been said widely, if the displaced residents sort out their own housing now, they'll be shunted off the LA's housing lists asap. The L.A. need to handle the housing and if they have the powers they need already, let them crack on.

purits stop taking everything you read in the Daily Mail as gospel.

It's not 'stirring up class hatred', it's giving a shit about people other than yourself, which I realise is an alien concept to Tory voters but ho hum.

@ChardonnaysPrettySister Oh I see what you mean - I thought you meant trouble for JC, not trouble on the streets. No that wouldn't be good, would be awful (I lived in a riot area and was affected then) - but I don't think JC is adding to it with these comments, I don't think the politically awakened youth are the ones that are likely to be doing actual rioting.

Yes but the uni accommodation is probably already in use.

I like Corbyn at least he challenges the accepted norms, unlike his Tory counterparts, or a lot of career politicians

There is time and a place for this and it's not immediately on the back of people's deaths.

Perhaps Corbyn could start with his own property - it seems too large for one man.

Re the rich poor divide - the problem is people are so desperate to identify as being on the rich side. But realistically we are all on the "poor" divide because the divide in this case starts at perhaps £100 million minimum.

If you had say £20 million you would absolutely be considered "poor" by the properly wealthy who are the ones who actually own the properties in question.

It's not rich vs poor it's super hyper wealthy vs everyone else.

Except they're far more likely to be mates with a councillor on the housing committee poor Mrs Walid on floor sixteen.

I really don't think that anyone would be such good mates with Ron on the council that Ron would be able to sort out a £10m refurbishment, including EU funding grants.

I think that there is a little confusion about the different roles of different local authority departments. The Planning Department are concerned with how things look, that's their job, but they don't trump Building Regs, who's job it is to make sure things are safe. Planning most certainly don't have any sway over the Fire Brigade, who have to sign off on refurbishments.

This is what scares me about Corbyn. Using a tragedy like this to try and get through the idea of confiscating peoples homes. If you can do it in London then why not in every town and city where there are homeless people. Before you know it we are half way to Communism. Power to the people the state.

Perhaps Corbyn could start with his own property - it seems too large for one man.

RTFT and stop being goady.

Corbyn lives in a modest three-bedroom house with his wife, son, and he lets out his spare room to a lodger.

This is what scares me about Corbyn. Using a tragedy like this to try and get through the idea of confiscating peoples homes. If you can do it in London then why not in every town and city where there are homeless people

Jesus Christ, are you reading the thread? They do do this all around the country.

And it is not 'confiscating', it is a compulsory purchase order. The 'rich' will get their money back.

Perhaps Corbyn could start with his own property - it seems too large for one man.

Seriously, how many times do you have to be told that he doesn't live alone?

It would be interesting to know how many empty properties there are, belonging to the council, if any.

I agree that some form of penalty for keeping housing stock unloved in would be appropriate, but second/ third/fourth homes are still not going to provide decent housing, unless you tax heavily enough to enable housing to be built. And where, in London could this be?

Oh and my understanding was corbyn had a lodger for a couple of months, he moved in before the last GE in 2015 and moved out two months later when the GE WAS over. Is there another lodger ?

This is what scares me about Corbyn. Using a tragedy like this to try and get through the idea of confiscating peoples homes.

The point is that these aren't peoples' homes. They have been bought as investments to leave empty and take advantage of capital acquisition.