London fire: Corbyn calls for empty flats to be requisitioned - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Mr Corbyn, who earlier released a statement saying he was "very angry that it was possible for the fire to spread in the way it did," said people living in high-rise flats would be frightened following the Grenfell Tower disaster and needed answers to give them "peace of mind". And he told MPs on Thursday: "The south part of Kensington is incredibly wealthy, it's the wealthiest part of the country. "The ward where this fire took place is, I think the poorest ward in the whole country. "[B]And properties must be found, requisitioned if necessary, in order to make sure those residents do get re-housed locally[/B]. "It cannot be acceptable that in London you have luxury buildings and luxury flats kept as land banking for the future while the homeless and the poor look for somewhere to live."[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40285994"]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40285994[/URL] How is this man in power again?

Aw those poor aristocrats.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366673]How is this man in power again?[/QUOTE] because he's got a good point. why the hell should one of the richest parts in the country be putting its poor at risk of dying en masse, especially if the rest of the area is perfectly safe? there's absolutely no excuse for what happened here.

Logically it makes sense. Having flats lie empty when people have no homes is a grievous misuse of urban resources. It might seem a little "authoritarian" or "communist" to seize them for the good of the people, even if they're technically the property of some rich bastard who tries to use them as bargaining chips, but hey. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of some fat fuck with more money than scruples. (disclaimer: not all fat people are fucks, and not all fucks are fat)

[QUOTE=Chaitin;52366695]Aw those poor aristocrats.[/QUOTE] People living in apartments, concerned about fire hazards, are aristocrats?

[QUOTE=bitches;52366711]People living in apartments, concerned about fire hazards, are aristocrats?[/QUOTE] I was referring to those rich owners of those empty flats.

[QUOTE=Chaitin;52366716]I was referring to those empty flats.[/QUOTE] The ones left vacant but technically the property of some fat cat in Saudi Arabia. You know what? I feel like housing law should have a "use it or lose it" clause added, to smack down the notion of buying empty houses and using them as bargaining chips.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366673][URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40285994"]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40285994[/URL] How is this man in power again?[/QUOTE] Because he's a brilliant man that cares about the people in his country, and not just the rich ones

[QUOTE=Cone;52366702]because he's got a good point. why the hell should one of the richest parts in the country be putting its poor at risk of dying en masse, especially if the rest of the area is perfectly safe? there's absolutely no excuse for what happened here.[/QUOTE] Because the government seizing your property without compensating you is such a great idea and is totally not authoritarian at all. Further more it will certainly not make people think twice about investing into property in the UK at all, knowing that the government can just seize it. No i don't see any downside at all tovarish.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366744]Because the government seizing your property without compensating you is such a great idea and is totally not authoritarian at all. Further more it will certainly not make people think twice about investing into property in the UK at all, knowing that the government can just seize it. No i don't see any downside at all tovarish.[/QUOTE] You're right we should just continue keeping all our poor people living in dangerous shit holes while all the nice flats sit empty for 10 months in the year.

People have been urging the government to step in and ensure sprinklers for the prevention of fire hazards for the past,what 4-8 years? My favourite quote is this one,said by the Conservative MP Brandon Lewis. [QUOTE]We believe that it is the responsibility of the fire industry, rather than the Government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation[/QUOTE] Sadly that idea hasn't turned out well at all. [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/grenfell-tower-fire-gavin-barwell_uk_59410ecbe4b09ad4fbe45929?mry8[/url]

If you guys can pull it off better than Vancouver's sabotaged attempts we'd love to hear how you did it.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366744]Because the government seizing your property without compensating you is such a great idea and is totally not authoritarian at all. Further more it will certainly not make people think twice about investing into property in the UK at all, knowing that the government can just seize it. No i don't see any downside at all tovarish.[/QUOTE] When did Corbyn say that they should be seized without compensation?

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366744]Because the government seizing your property without compensating you is such a great idea and is totally not authoritarian at all. Further more it will certainly not make people think twice about investing into property in the UK at all, knowing that the government can just seize it. No i don't see any downside at all tovarish.[/QUOTE] I'd rather not see property and land go completely unused beyond what is most likely a tax dodging scheme. Land and housing is for living in above all else; everything is secondary to it

[QUOTE=gokiyono;52366728]Because he's a brilliant man that cares about the people in his country, and not just the rich ones[/QUOTE] And despite me being a little "eh" when it comes to Labour (and our country's political parties in general), I'd sooner see Corbyn on the Iron Throne than New Margaret Thatcher, who honestly looks like one of the Grandmatriarchs from Cookie Clicker. Case in point: [IMG]https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/cookieclicker/images/5/59/GrandmaIcon.png[/IMG][IMG]https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/cookieclicker/images/1/18/GrandmaIconB.png[/IMG][IMG]https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/cookieclicker/images/f/f4/GrandmaIconC.png[/IMG][IMG]https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/cookieclicker/images/9/9c/GrandmaIconD.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Theresa_May.png[/IMG] [B]Identical.[/B] I honestly couldn't tell the difference at first.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52366746]You're right we should just continue keeping all our poor people living in dangerous shit holes while all the nice flats sit empty for 10 months in the year.[/QUOTE] Nice appeal to feels but that is not how reality works and you dam well know it. Also please give me example were seizing private property by the government has ever let to a increase of wealth for it citizens.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52366746]You're right we should just continue keeping all our poor people living in dangerous shit holes while all the nice flats sit empty for 10 months in the year.[/QUOTE] okay! let's start seizing private property that people have fucking paid for with their own money! what a great idea im a labour voter and this idea is retarded

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366771]Nice appeal to feels but that is not how reality works and you dam well know it. Also please give me example were seizing private property by the government has ever let to a increase of wealth for it citizens.[/QUOTE] This isn't a matter of increasing wealth of citizens. This is a matter of ensuring that victims of a recent, local tragedy being rehoused properly at the expense of some property nobody was using. Maybe I'm biased because I believe that land shouldn't be eligible to be private property, but nobody should have a right to deny housing to someone who needs it in a house that they probably forgot that they even had just because it has their name on it. It's arbitrary and completely against even the most basic of morals.

[QUOTE=Bird;52366784]Seizing bombs and guns from criminals and terrorists?[/QUOTE] Nice false equivalence, see how i mentioned property as in real estate [QUOTE=EuSKalduna;52366786]This isn't a matter of increasing wealth of citizens. This is a matter of ensuring that victims of a recent, local tragedy being rehoused properly at the expense of some property nobody was using. Maybe I'm biased because I believe that land shouldn't be eligible to be private property, but nobody should have a right to deny housing to someone who needs it in a house that they probably forgot that they even had just because it has their name on it. It's arbitrary and completely against even the most basic of morals.[/QUOTE] There plenty of hotels in surrounding area to temporarily until new housing could be found be the borough. Also i see we are posting picture of politicians now so let me post one as well. [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPAdbfiU8AAcWTx.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366771]Nice appeal to feels but that is not how reality works and you dam well know it. Also please give me example were seizing private property by the government has ever let to a increase of wealth for it citizens.[/QUOTE] in countries with high levels of inequality, seizing property (especially land) and redistributing it improves the lot of the masses

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366799] There plenty of hotels in surrounding area to temporarily until new housing could be found be the borough. [/QUOTE] Good idea. Let's impose further expenses on either the victims, who aren't exactly the richest people around, the government, who are undergoing quite a fucking shit fit and would be better not spending money where not needed. Alternatively, we could just let them bunk up in the unused property at the expense of the luxurious life of some landlord who probably is even paying all of their taxes, but even if they were someone of that stature should have some holding to the concept of "noblesse oblige". I mean what's the argument here? Oh no, we are making the extremely affluent life of a landlord slightly less affluent in order to help the deprived and suffering. What a tragedy. Make me care and sympathise for the landlord and maybe I'll give a rats arse.

[QUOTE=ironman17;52366707]Logically it makes sense. Having flats lie empty when people have no homes is a grievous misuse of urban resources. It might seem a little "authoritarian" or "communist" to seize them for the good of the people, even if they're technically the property of some rich bastard who tries to use them as bargaining chips, but hey. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of some fat fuck with more money than scruples. (disclaimer: not all fat people are fucks, and not all fucks are fat)[/QUOTE] A large majority of real estate investors are middle income families and retirees -- people who have put everything they had into investing in one or two properties to supplement their income and/or finance their retirement. Having their investments seized without compensation could ruin them. Where are you people getting the idea that landlords are all multimillionaires living in luxury on private islands, scoffing at the woes of the poor?

[QUOTE=Bird;52366784]Seizing bombs and guns from criminals and terrorists?[/QUOTE] I mean fuck nice that you just compared that to bombs and guns and terrorists now how am I supposed to take you seriously

[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;52366826]Good idea. Let's impose further expenses on either the victims, who aren't exactly the richest people around, the government, who are undergoing quite a fucking shit fit and would be better not spending money where not needed. Alternatively, we could just let them bunk up in the unused property at the expense of the luxurious life of some landlord who probably is even paying all of their taxes, but even if they were someone of that stature should have some holding to the concept of "noblesse oblige". I mean what's the argument here? Oh no, we are making the extremely affluent life of a landlord slightly less affluent in order to help the deprived and suffering. What a tragedy. Make me care and sympathise for the landlord and maybe I'll give a rats arse.[/QUOTE] Where do you think the councils funding comes from? A fairy's arse? Paying for the hotels for the displaced residents, or just cutting a deal with the home owners you are railing against to house these families, would save millions and speed up the process (unless you want instant seizures and a bunch of lost court cases).

As long as the rent is paid in full by the government why not, if that's how corbyn likes spending taxes If not, fuck right off. Ownership and property should be sacred.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366799]There plenty of hotels in surrounding area to temporarily until new housing could be found be the borough. Isn't that what he said though? [QUOTE]requisitioned [B]if necessary[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=SirJon;52366853]As long as the rent is paid in full by the government why not, if that's how corbyn likes spending taxes If not, fuck right off[/QUOTE] Rent and damages, and I could be convinced to agree.

I honestly have no issue with what he said. It's not like he advocated permanently seizing currently rented property without compensation. It's always bothered me how people could look at a situation where the poor and the needy are being turfed out onto the streets while luxury apartments are left to sit empty to drive the value up even higher- and think "Fair enough. Business as usual, Looks fair to me." So poor people getting screwed over even further after a tragedy in favour of the rich = epitome of fairness. But the moment someone suggests that these people should be given [i] temporary[/i] accommodation in properties that are being left [i]deliberately empty [/i] as part of some money making scheme, suddenly there's an injustice? Minor inconvenience to wealthy landlords in favour of giving poor people shelter after a tragedy = inconceivable injustice.

[QUOTE=SirJon;52366853]As long as the rent is paid in full by the government why not, if that's how corbyn likes spending taxes If not, fuck right off. Ownership and property should be sacred.[/QUOTE] Then the owners will over charge the government and whinge about government spending. I agree they should be compensated but I suspect they won't be [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/18/swedish-private-housing-sector-refugees"]offering a[/URL] [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/how-companies-have-been-exploiting-the-refugee-crisis-for-profit-a6706587.html"]fair deal.[/URL]

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366744]Because the government seizing your property without compensating you is such a great idea and is totally not authoritarian at all. Further more it will certainly not make people think twice about investing into property in the UK at all, knowing that the government can just seize it. No i don't see any downside at all tovarish.[/QUOTE] well if these rich fellas don't want a bunch of people who need rehousing, perhaps they should invest in making sure everyone else's house is as safe as theirs. like by paying marginally higher taxes. or by not voting for the party that's cut the fire brigade's funding to ribbons, for example. dreadful to think of, i know, but we all have to make sacrifices.