Well this certainly seems to be an emergency. Has it happened before? Like with floods, or earthquakes or something.. and is it in fact only a temporary thing? until the destroyed homes are renewed? so it would in effect be a pragmatic stop-gap only, so as the investor is minimally inconvenienced?
When houses are bought by the rich to leave empty in the expectation that they will increase in value, they are taking those houses out of the market. Taking houses out of the market reduces supply, increases house prices, pushes up rent. Houses should be used for what they are built for, to be lived in. It's a disgrace for people, and councils I might add, to leave homes empty when there are people out there who can't find a home to live in.
Chaka comes across pretty well to me. Bojo, Gove and May can't be far away from a trip to Bedlam!
Nothing like a bit of civil unrest to get the juices flowing, eh?I'll tell you what would cause unrest, if a family of survivors broke in and squatted in one of these houses and the coppers went in to try and evict them.
they should get it at market value, and an annual fee based on any increase in value in subsequent years to compensate them for losing their investment and maybe even a chunk of their retirement.
but this is Corbyn so he'll just steal it.
Nothing like a bit of civil unrest to get the juices flowing, eh?
In war it is widespread, in peace time not so much. The use of the word requisitioning is important, it is not permanent re-allocation or compulsory purchase and at the end of the process the owners are recompensed.
I'm genuinely glad to hear that.It doesn't float my boat.
Right fair, hand on heart, how many private investors do you think are voluntarily going to answer that call. These are people who these investor types wouldn't want to share their neighborhood with, never mind invite them to live in their properties.This still doesn't mean Corbyn spouting his mouth in public. Why can't he suggest the investors come forward and offer the homeless a temporary home? Telling the government to take over privately owned property, while broadcasting it to the entire nation is just him trying to score a politicial point. Its a smart thing to do on his part, because he knew that it will turn more people agaisnt May and the tories.
Your grammar lacks any punctuation outside of a 'full stop'.
Quite an indictment of the literacy skills of modern society, which is rather different than "an indictment of the literacy of our nation" as, here, you are picking out [and including] all aspects of literacy competency with such a sweeping statement.
Innit.
If anyone has watched chuka closely you will come to the obvious conclusion that he is a giant ****. He is always on the verge of getting really angry with anyone who disagrees with him. Be warned he is a very flawed individual.
Seems reasonable enough. So in fact the 'marxists Corbyn.. causing anochy' stuff, is a bit of shite? Nobody is really gonna lose? - Well, except the poor twats whose homes have burnt down.
Correct, this is not a land grab, it is not property is theft. There is a political element to it. It highlights the disgraceful number of properties left deliberately empty in London and the right wing don't like it because it sets a precedent in peacetime, that public need trumps property rights, even if it is extreme circumstances like this, they'll see such a move as the thin end of the wedge.
Right fair, hand on heart, how many private investors do you think are voluntarily going to answer that call. These are people who these investor types wouldn't want to share their neighborhood with, never mind invite them to live in their properties.
Well this certainly seems to be an emergency. Has it happened before? Like with floods, or earthquakes or something.. and is it in fact only a temporary thing? until the destroyed homes are renewed? so it would in effect be a pragmatic stop-gap only, so as the investor is minimally inconvenienced?
Property is theft! I give up. Let's all get round the camp fire and share all our food and goods out equally.
Of course it has - major flooding has happened fairly regularly - ask the folks in Carlisle. In recent years the Somerset Levels and surrounding areas flooded extensively and the council - also Tory - coped well there because they had a disaster plan and were well funded thanks to local MP and PM David Cameron....
To be fair to Bigga he responded to my post in the spirit I expected when I put that line in my post. I replied to him in the same spirit to thank him for picking the faults out in my grammar. Just a bit of good natured fun between friends.I'm not sure whether that's a serious nit-pick. No other punctuation was needed. Far too many commas in the world (oops, no verb). I think I'd have inserted a "that" in "I invite some clever dick to pick out a mistake in my post thereby ironically proving (that) what I am saying is correct", but goalmole may be a Guardian proof reader charged with taking out any unnecessary "that".
As to "would of" it was bad enough having it in print, but now people are saying it out loud. Just say "I woulduv done that" just like we woulduv done.
I suspect they had contingency plans in place to use public buildings and maybe even private facilities, sports clubs and the like.
Oh, and the budget for it.
Unlike Kensington ad Chelsea...........they have the budget just no fucking plan