But they have already done it in the past. It is nothing new. There is no such myth as an Englishman and his Castle, when the state chooses.
What a silly thing to say. I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to but let's say it has. Does the fact it's happened in the past make it okay?
Sadiq Khan commissioned this report, compiled by our trusted "experts" at the LSE which stated: "Almost no evidence' of London homes owned by foreign buyers being left empty" If you read on it is contradicted by other researchers from places that aren't the "go to" experts. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property...london-homes-owned-foreign-buyers-left-empty/ I also read earlier that some of the flats in Grenfell House that were privately owned were being let out for £2,000 per month!!!! This has to stop somehow but in a free market I don't know how!!!
Think of it this way. It's not exactly setting a precedent when somebody suggests it might be a good thing to do it again in an emergency situation. Remember, while You and I are deliberating over this, some people are directly suffering and frightened. If that seems like I'm trying to find your compassionate side, you're right.
"Emma Dent Coad, the new Labour MP for Kensington was on Kensington and Chelsea’s housing scrutiny committee, which oversees “community safety issues”, until May 2014. A 2014/15 report, in which she is named, says the committee scrutinised work on Grenfell Tower. She was also a board member on KCTMO from 2008 to end 2012, and is currently a member of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. "
Again, precedent is irrelevant to the question of whether something should happen. Have I suggested the people left without homes should be left on the streets? No. There are far better ways of housing them than having the state seize the property of other people though.
He deserves to be called out on it. As does Boris who doesn't look good shutting down firestations and safety agreements.
No, nobody is seriously suggesting this. People are merely pointing out the obscene gulf that exists between rich and poor in our supposedly civilised society.
Edit: I found it. It appears he did say that. Good on him, though like you I wouldn't actually condone government seizure of empty properties; not overnight without due process anyway. The problem does need to be addressed though. I know Notting Hill pretty well, and there certainly are whole streets full of empty mansions rocketting in value while the capital is in the grip of a severe housing shortage.
In this extreme situation the properties could simply be compulsorily purchased, with a fair price paid.
I'm not disputing this, Beefy. I'm just of the opinion that there are (and I know it's probably only a small minority, but they make it worse for those truly in need) who take advantage of the system. I have known of quite a few people who openly brag about getting handouts for "necessities" when they have bigger TVs, the latest phones and gadgets, expensive holidays and drive bigger and better cars than a lot of decent hardworking people. It's that which pisses people off and it's that which must be stopped. Don't tax the middle and upper middle classes and waste the money, because they'll realise it's not worth it. I've no issue with closing no loopholes and perhaps raising the top rate of tax a bit on those who earn vast amounts (though they're the ones who can afford tax consultants to avoid as much as they can), but I still feel that there are too many who play the system, want something for nothing and are a deadweight on the economy. Saying that, I wouldn't want to be the one who decides who gets what - I just feel in this day and age, no one should be hungry or homeless.
Compulsory purchase orders take years to process and are intended as an absolute last resort. Not a realistic option.
I understand what you are saying about the small minority that milk the system for all they can get, but I think it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt, that the sum of benefit money, fraudulently claimed, is dwarfed by the amounts not paid in tax, as a direct result of "legitimate" tax avoidance. I also think (can't direct you to anywhere to support this, but have read it before) it has been proved that the numbers abusing the system has been over stated as a means of getting people "on side" when "difficult" decisions are made to cut benefits. I would also estimate that for every person making a fraudulent benefit claim, there is a business or self employed worker making "adjustments" to their tax return in order to reduce their tax burden, for personal gain. Some will use legitimate means. Some won't, which puts them on a par with the benefit system abuser. It's a very difficult problem to overcome, but when the government uses austerity measures to reduce payments to the most needy, whilst giving tax cuts and tax breaks to the wealthy, then the government must be challenged.
Benefits fraud costs the government £1.3bn a year, according to official statistics, while the gap between tax owed and tax paid is put at £34bn a year by officials. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/13/benefit-or-tax-evasion-row-over-the-tories-targets The problem is the poor are easy targets. So they have disgusting TV programmes and campaigns about how bad benefit fraud is. Making it look like loads are doing it when they aren't. I read another report that puts benefits underpaid as £1bn, but that isn't counted in most reports for some reason. Tax evasion and the rich buying up homes and leaving them empty is the biggest problem in this country and nothing is being done about it.
2009 - Lakanal House tower block catches fire killing 6 people. The local authority is prosecuted for lapses in fire safety. A review is promised by the Labour government after pressure from the Fire Protection Association (FPA). 2010 - Building Regulations Act is published, including provisions for fire safety. Conservatives win election, a review is promised by the new government after more pressure from the FPA and warnings that the BR act does not go far enough. 2013 - Boris Johnson overrules the ruling body of the London Fire Brigade and uses legal action to inflict £29m in cuts. Closing 10 fire stations, cutting firefighters by 552, losing 14 fire engines and cutting minimum staffing levels from 5 to 4. By the time he steps down as Mayor of London he inflicts a further £100m in cuts to £130m total and the loss of 7000 firefighters. Fire prevention measures carried out by the service drop by over 25%. 2013 - All Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue produces a report strongly recommending installation of fire suppression systems and sprinklers in 4000 tower blocks throughout Britain. The Grenfell residents action group publishes a report warning that their landlord is putting their safety at risk by restricting the access ways to their car park. They are ignored by their landlord. 2013 - 2016 Conservative housing ministers sit on All Party report without action, promising they are "looking at it", including housing minister Gavin Barwell. 2016 - Conservatives vote against a Labour motion to make sure all landlords and housing associations ensure residences are fit for human occupation, including provisions for fire safety. The motion is denied by 312 votes to 219. 72 of the MP's voting against are landlords. The Grenfell residents action group publish a report warning people will die in a fire before the landlord takes notice of their poor fire safety provisions. They are ignored by their landlord. 2017 - Ex housing minister Gavin Barwell becomes Prime Minister Theresa May's chief of staff. He never actioned the report. Grenfell Tower is reduced to rubble with the deaths of at least 12 residents as a fire spreads through the building in 4 minutes. It has no fire suppression system or sprinklers. The stairwell is not adequate for a full building evacuation. The emergency lighting is missing from half of the floors. The fire service struggle to reach the building due to previous car park modifications causing access issues as warned by the resident action group in 2013.
It's perception isn't it. I've had debates with my Tory parents about this. Like you say, much more tax avoided by savvy business or by illegal means. Also, there is nearly always a story. My job means that I work with vulnerable families, and I work with the odd family that have sky tv, the playstation, and definitely do not appear like they are undernourished; you know the ones that are demonised in the press. More often than not, there is a level of emotional poverty, and lives can be chaotic and unfulfilled. Further cuts just means more misery for these individuals. But like you say, gets people on side.
Indeed, there is hugely disproportionate attention paid to these fraudsters. Just recently, an extremely rich man going by the name of Adnan Khashoggi, died aged 81. He was a very civilised gentleman, liked by all who came into contact with him. He was friends with Presidents, Company Heads and Celebrities. He was also one of the richest people in the world, having 35 homes, all of mansion size, cars, the huge yacht Nabila with the size, engine power and technology of a respectable destroyer type ship of the era [1980s], and lastly his own private Douglas DC-8 airliner [roughly the Douglas equivalent to a Boeing 707]. People asked him what he did for a living. He said he was a 'bridge' He put the right person in front of another and took a toll off both. But doing that doesn't make you the richest person in your heyday. Well it does if you are an arms dealer. In his time he did more than 80% of the total arms deals from the West to Saudi Arabia. OK, so what.? Well then he obviously thought he didn't have enough [he spent £250,000 per day keeping his living standard up], so he got involved in quite a bit of fraud to the tune of millions of dollars. His brushes with people of less than high standards [Richard Nixon, etc...] where he could expose them left him well protected, even though he left his own trail. But he was clever. He even covered himself by donating a few million to a University where he was a trustee. The US authorities detained him but dropped all the major fraud charges they were going to press, at one point, to obstruction of justice and mail fraud. They still didn't pin him down and he was acquitted. And this is why it's difficult to go after the rich, mass defrauders, because they've always got something, maybe embarrassing, often illegal, over the people who want to chase them. The poor have nobody but other poor people as friends. So who are the better people here.?
