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?

Ok I will read it .

Kensington Palace is quite big and just down the road.

Do people understand that actually the government has the right NOW to buy your house off you, and it often does. What's the difference?

I understand that very well. The difference is that, under current legislation, the government would be legally obliged to pay you a premium above the market rate for your property. So, yes, the government could indeed buy - at a huge and inflated cost - some of the most expensive property in the world. But, as ever, that money would have to come from somewhere....and therefore those millions and millions would therefore not be spent on schools, hospitals etc etc. When people talk about requisition, they mean something very different.

Compulsory purchase is a different thing to bringing empty properties back into occupation.

wonderif he him self has offered up space or whether in classic marxist fashion he wants other people to. totally ridiculous people pay there taxes to let the government fix these problems although maybe corbyn should ask for a cut in his salary so more money can be spent elsewhere

Oh FFS.

How about we drop a few less bombs on Syria? That should go someway towards paying for it.

We could get Starbucks to pay some of their tax bill too.

Also it's local authorities who would buy it, not central government and the laws for empty property are different. They'd be bought at market value not market value plus. It's only when the sale of a home is forced that a relocation premium is added.

Ah yes, Corbyn and his I hate Rich people stance. Of course you can't take houses off people who you 'deem' to be rich - it's not the rich people's fault the fire happened! Corbyn is an idiot for even thinking that, and a bigger idiot for publicly saying that.

I very much like Lillian Gish's post. I think it hits the spot.

Dear God it's like a dunce magnet, this thread.

bluegreenyellow

Have you always been this thick or did you take night classes?

It's been said upthread that CORBYN LIVES IN A 3 BEDROOM HOUSE WITH HIS WIFE, SON AND A LODGER.

Oh and to the person upthread who asked if he had a new lodger, the answer is apparently yes.

I'm politically centrist but this idea appeals. Those people who hide behind Panamanian companies can come out of the woodwork if they don't like it, the parasites.

Accidental landlords and ordinary couples renting out their first flat or whatever, won't be affected because they'll have tenants already.

Placing homeless people in vacant homes that don't generate any taxes seems sensible to me, in summary. And I'm no hard leftie, I float between Lab and Con.

Outrageous = unless they both offer up their own properties first.

Corbyn on what he thought the wage cap should be, a few months back = "A little bit more than what I earn."

With these sorts of people it always is - it's never a little LESS than what they earn, though is it?

We have a second home (not in London) and we definitely pay council tax on that, by the way. I can't understand why you wouldn't. That I definitely agree with in spades - close that loop hole.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_Dwelling_Management_Orders

Our council threatened ex-H with a compulsory purchase order after offering him the opportunity to willingly accept an EDMO, in which he'd have received a fair market rent for the property.

Though his house was worth considerably less than a flat in Kensington and our Labour run council at the time was committed to restocking LA housing.

Lo and behold, we now have no shortage of council houses. The waiting list is generally six weeks.

under current legislation, the government would be legally obliged to pay you a premium above the market rate for your property. So, yes, the government could indeed buy - at a huge and inflated cost - some of the most expensive property in the world. But, as ever, that money would have to come from somewhere ...

You're in danger of bringing common sense into it, Natalia

You seem to think we don't have the money to help people, when we absolutely do. In the long run, it would be cheaper to house people in these empty properties temporarily - and pay fair market rent to the owners - than it would housing them in hotels and B&Bs.

Maybe you can break that down for me, please?

You're in danger of bringing common sense into it, Natalia wink

No, she's in danger of bringing fantasy into the equation.

The power to do what Corbyn suggested already exists and is already used across the England.

So steal.

Yes, let's exploit a tragedy so we act out the political chip on Jeremy's shoulder and steal things from a random third party. No level of political opportunism is too vulgar, it's all a means to an end you know.

That'll make everything better.

The power to do what Corbyn suggested already exists and is already used across the England.

An EDMO explicitly can't be used for second homes. All an owner would need to do would be to turn up once every six months to meet that requirement.

MotherOfBleach you might want to look into the difference between requisitioning and compulsory purchase ...

So steal

Seriously, people read the damn thread.

Google Empty Dwelling Legislation UK.

THIS ALREADY HAPPENS IN COUNCILS ACROSS ENGLAND.

Corbyn is not planning on kicking Prince and Princess Richness of Tax Haven Island out of their twenty bedroom castle in Kensington. He wants to use existing legislation to force the occupation of empty, unused flats in the area either via forcing them to be let (in which case Prince and Princess Richness will be paid a fair market rent) or by forcing sale (in which case Prince and Princess Richness will be paid fair market value)

No-one is stealing anything. No-one is at risk of loosing their much loved home.

"Yes, let's exploit a tragedy so we act out the political chip on Jeremy's shoulder and steal things from a random third party"

So what is your suggestion for rehousing these people in the borough?

1 theres no evidence at all to suggest he lives with a lodger 2 i cant find where it says he lives with his son and ones 25 the other 2 are at uni so assumable in halls and surely these homeless people are more important maybe he could offer that room but in classic leftish fashion someone else should always pay.

in which case Prince and Princess Richness will be paid a fair market rent)

Which will cost an absolute fortune. Which comes out of the public purse and affects spending elsewhere. And will send the property market into meltdown. What affects Kensington and Chelsea will have a knock on effect in, say, Kennington and Clerkenwell. Which will knock prices in Enfield and Barnet. Which will then affect Herts, Bucks and Surrey.....etc etc.

And markets will tank, starting with financials, because there will be fears of widespread negative equity. And falling consumer confidence. And the pound will fall even further which, because we have a huge current account deficit, will mean inflation rises. And interest rates will then have to rise.....therefore placing more people at risk of not being able to pay their mortgage and putting further downward pressure on house prices......Investment in the NHS will seem like a pipe dream.