Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because that's the law. Social Housing is no longer allocated on the basis of responsibility, whether you work hard or add value to your community or do a useful job - but putting it brutally on your ability to churn out lots of children you don't have the means to provide for.
But politically toxic if you try and point that out.....
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because that's the law. Social Housing is no longer allocated on the basis of responsibility, whether you work hard or add value to your community or do a useful job - but putting it brutally on your ability to churn out lots of children you don't have the means to provide for.
FWIW I don't actually feel hard done by. I believe that right to buy was a good policy. The real problem, in my opinion, is that we've had an open door immigration policy with Europe and we've kept interest rates at 0.5%. It's a toxic mix which none of our politicians want to address.
Good analysis, and I think this is all largely academic unless they can get a leader who can make waves and get them noticed.
There are 7-8 seats there they should be able to swipe from the Tories in a "change" election, but I suspect fear of Corbyn within them is a greater motivator than kick-the-Tories out, at present.
True , however when you have a conservative poster on here , saying the government is not just about Brexit.As they have a policy on private parking.One does wonder how bereft they are becoming.
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to work near where they live who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
Didn't one London borough try that a few years ago, renting places well outside the city (Clacton?) to house the long term unemployed?
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Tories need to get planning reforms through and go really hard on Corbyn over housing.
We know he doesn't believe in private property at all, the idea that a vote for Labour will make it easier for young people to get on the housing ladder is madness.
Proof please, and no ranting about Marxism unless you specify Groucho, Chico, Harpo or Zeppo - isms
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
Time to get themselves sorted out , get a job like tlg and rent their own home. If they don't like that put them in a hostel. Far too many moochers at each end of society nowadays , with the poor hard working sods in the middle paying for both lots.
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
Time to get themselves sorted out , get a job like tlg and rent their own home. If they don't like that put them in a hostel. Far too many moochers at each end of society nowadays , with the poor hard working sods in the middle paying for both lots.
Ultimately, that well illustrates Corbyn's problem. He is only interested in reining in one end of society. That he is preprared to give the other end a free pass really pisses off a large part of his natural vote though.
The Tories problem is that they are perceived to be on the other end of that problem - eat the poor, whilst giving the rich a free pass to keep getting richer. But that has been their perennial problem.
The LibDems problem is...to be honest, who can be arsed with them?
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Tories need to get planning reforms through and go really hard on Corbyn over housing.
We know he doesn't believe in private property at all, the idea that a vote for Labour will make it easier for young people to get on the housing ladder is madness.
Proof please, and no ranting about Marxism unless you specify Groucho, Chico, Harpo or Zeppo - isms
Well he just announced today he’d take 9,000 homes out of the market. Everything Corbyn says about housing is about rented housing, he’s offering nothing to those who want to buy.
Moreover, the banks would likely react to the uncertainty of a Corbyn government by hiking deposit requirements, making the practicality of buying a house even more onerous on the younger generation.
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
It's a Mexican Wall statement. It doesn't stand any chance of being implemented, but sends a powerful message. In this case, that he sides with the homeless rather than with the property developers and foreign criminals investors who are sitting on empty property in London.
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
It's a Mexican Wall statement. It doesn't stand any chance of being implemented, but sends a powerful message. In this case, that he sides with the homeless rather than with the property developers and foreign criminals investors who are sitting on empty property in London.
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because that's the law. Social Housing is no longer allocated on the basis of responsibility, whether you work hard or add value to your community or do a useful job - but putting it brutally on your ability to churn out lots of children you don't have the means to provide for.
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. The current position is that most homeless people will still have their future accommodation paid for, but often it has to be a hostel or a B&B. A property left empty for future speculation seems a reasonable alternative.
The practical effect will be to nudge speculative owners into putting long-empty properties on the market for rent themselves. Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
Time to get themselves sorted out , get a job like tlg and rent their own home. If they don't like that put them in a hostel. Far too many moochers at each end of society nowadays , with the poor hard working sods in the middle paying for both lots.
Ultimately, that well illustrates Corbyn's problem. He is only interested in reining in one end of society. That he is preprared to give the other end a free pass really pisses off a large part of his natural vote though.
The Tories problem is that they are perceived to be on the other end of that problem - eat the poor, whilst giving the rich a free pass to keep getting richer. But that has been their perennial problem.
The LibDems problem is...to be honest, who can be arsed with them?
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
It's a Mexican Wall statement. It doesn't stand any chance of being implemented, but sends a powerful message. In this case, that he sides with the homeless rather than with the property developers and foreign criminals investors who are sitting on empty property in London.
So Corbyn = Trump???
Trump knows well and understands what he is doing , Corbyn ?????
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. alternative.
The practical . Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Yes and maybe the rest of the country should not be paying to build all the infrastructure etc for them. Make them pay all their own bills and charge them for all the UK government jobs centred there as well.
You can make the argument that many of those who didn't like Corbyn and were worried about him but were more worried about the Tories and May came out and reluctantly voted for Labour in seats where Labour and the Tories were competing.
Presumably though in seats where the Lib Dems and Labour were competing people were actively choosing Labour over the Lib Dems as opposed to Labour over the Conservatives. It would appear, at least in those seats that people did actually prefer the left wing option of Labour rather than being railroaded into it.
It does seem to be a popular train of thought that Labour voters were dragged in kicking and screaming, there are probably always voters not completely happy with the party they are voting for in every election but I would be surprised if Labour voters are more discontented with the party than previously, I would contend the reverse is true.
Somebody mentioned Jacinda Ardern earlier, surely she is pretty much Corbyn in the British context.
Labour (in NZ) went from being quite a drab affair with no real energy or enthusiasm to packing out events, young people grabbing selfies with the leader I even saw some articles from NZ that appeared to be from the left noting Corbyn's relative success in the UK and how they could bring that over to NZ in the time leading up to Ardern taking over.
Now this doesn't mean they necessarily share policy positions or are the same politically but the drive that seemed to help propel her to her own success was quite similar to what helped drive Corbyn.
That's 20 for Federer. Would not be surprised if he wins Wimbledon as well.
After he won the 2010 Australian Open, Federer won one of the next 27 grand slams (2012 Wimbledon). He's now won three of the last five. He must really love playing tennis.
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. alternative.
The practical . Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Mr. Nashe, indeed, although his rise coincided pretty much with Sampras tailing off, Federer's had to deal with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, yet he's still won a huge number of titles and continues to do so. It's immensely impressive.
Mr. 86, he's a great ambassador for the sport too.
Corbyn commits to purchase 9000 houses straight away for the homeless and allow local authorities to take over vacant properties
What is your source for this? The only references I can find relate to Corbyn's cynical knee jerk reaction after Grenfell.?
Andrew Marr show - he said it
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Yeah, still don't understand. Homeowners will be compulsorily required to lease it to the state, presumably? At what? A market rent? For how long? And what happens if the place gets trashed?
Same as happens with properties buy to let landlords rent to councils - the council pays you a rent and hands it back at the end cleaned and if necessary repaired.
Very easy to avoid - don't leave properties empty long term and rent them out yourself or move in yourself.
The government is going to be paying market rents for empty homes in Kensington???!
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
You might also try to consider how much wealth London would be creating without the rest of the UK.
For one thing it would be a Corbynite Socialist Republic - you would really see the City relocate in that situation.
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
Mr. Nashe, indeed, although his rise coincided pretty much with Sampras tailing off, Federer's had to deal with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, yet he's still won a huge number of titles and continues to do so. It's immensely impressive.
Mr. 86, he's a great ambassador for the sport too.
Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 (Sampras won that year's US Open so he wasn't totally past it). That was the last year that Wimbledon was a proper grass court tournament.
Mr. Nashe, indeed, although his rise coincided pretty much with Sampras tailing off, Federer's had to deal with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, yet he's still won a huge number of titles and continues to do so. It's immensely impressive.
Mr. 86, he's a great ambassador for the sport too.
Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 (Sampras won that year's US Open so he wasn't totally past it). That was the last year that Wimbledon was a proper grass court tournament.
pardon my ignorance, what changed at Wimbledon between 2001 and 2002
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
Of course. There are plenty of empty properties. That is because parts of the UK are depopulating.
And the same is true of the EU.
There are homeless East Europeans on the streets in London. But the corollary to a country like Latvia losing 20 per cent of its population is that there are empty homes, schools, factories in Latvia.
There are empty houses. There are the homeless. They are not in the same place.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
You might also try to consider how much wealth London would be creating without the rest of the UK.
For one thing it would be a Corbynite Socialist Republic - you would really see the City relocate in that situation.
London Labour councils are largely dominated by centrists. But I agree with your central premise: solidarity is what should guide policy-making. We are all in it together, so we should all be helping each other out.
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
Higher taxes on property willwnever be popular, however sensible or justified.
I assume he is simply taking over long term empty properties that aren't in use. Simple answer - rent it out to someone and your property won't be taken over. Leave it empty for ever as an investment property - sorry that's no longer going to be encouraged.
He isn't actually going to take the properties over and hand over the deeds and ownership to the homeless people - they will simply rent them.
Who pays the rent
Housing benefit. alternative.
The practical . Good.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Of course. There are plenty of empty properties. That is because parts of the UK are depopulating.
And the same is true of the EU.
There are homeless East Europeans on the streets in London. But the corollary to a country like Latvia losing 20 per cent of its population is that there are empty homes, schools, factories in Latvia.
There are empty houses. There are the homeless. They are not in the same place.
I'd be interested in what the homes in London represent. How do they come about? Are they wealthy (if lazy) speculators? Are they sentimental family homes left after probate? Are their owners not known? What other kind of holes are they stuck in?
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
Shifting the balance of taxation from work to expensive property would be IMO a good idea.
I would though then make it much easier for expensive property to be redeveloped into multiple, cheaper units as compensation for the owners.
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
Higher taxes on property willwnever be popular, however sensible or justified.
Depends how it is designed. A council tax revaluation could be redistributive and most people might end up paying less tax but with huge rises in central and inner London and certain other cry high value areas reflecting current values.
A land value tax might work in a similar way. You can raise more revenue while designing a system where a lot of people pay less in annual property tax.
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
Higher taxes on property willwnever be popular, however sensible or justified.
Depends how it is designed. A council tax revaluation could be redistributive and most people might end up paying less tax but with huge rises in central and inner London and certain other cry high value areas reflecting current values.
A land value tax might work in a similar way. You can raise more revenue while designing a system where a lot of people pay less in annual property tax.
But the little old lady with wealth but no income gets hit hard.
Of course. There are plenty of empty properties. That is because parts of the UK are depopulating.
And the same is true of the EU.
There are homeless East Europeans on the streets in London. But the corollary to a country like Latvia losing 20 per cent of its population is that there are empty homes, schools, factories in Latvia.
There are empty houses. There are the homeless. They are not in the same place.
The areas of low housing cost, and declining population map well to Leave voting. Take Copeland for example. All are signs of lack of faith in the global economy, hence correlated.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
The areas of low housing cost, and declining population map well to Leave voting. Take Copeland for example. All are signs of lack of faith in the global economy, hence correlated.
Why on earth should they have faith in the "global economy" ?
The "influencers" at Davos don't care about Copeland, or anyone but themselves.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.
So the very best that Corbyn's Hard Labour can hope for is a hung parliament where a precarious 73 year old Corbyn minority government cant do anything without the Liberals who hold the balance of power. Abolition of tuition fees is vetoed as are all radical socialist measures. Corbyn presides over a reluctant New Labour sort of government until his defeat a few years later.................................
Of course. There are plenty of empty properties. That is because parts of the UK are depopulating.
And the same is true of the EU.
There are homeless East Europeans on the streets in London. But the corollary to a country like Latvia losing 20 per cent of its population is that there are empty homes, schools, factories in Latvia.
There are empty houses. There are the homeless. They are not in the same place.
If only there was some kind of Europe wide organisation we could join to co-ordinate policies in this area.
Of course. There are plenty of empty properties. That is because parts of the UK are depopulating.
And the same is true of the EU.
There are homeless East Europeans on the streets in London. But the corollary to a country like Latvia losing 20 per cent of its population is that there are empty homes, schools, factories in Latvia.
There are empty houses. There are the homeless. They are not in the same place.
If only there was some kind of Europe wide organisation we could join to co-ordinate policies in this area.
It was a Europe wide organisation that largely created the problem.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
I don't think there would be a Corbynista Socialist Republic in London. But then I know London pretty well. If London kept all the wealth it created it would be able to buy in whatever it needed. That's essentially what happens now, but London does it with only a portion of what it earns.
So the very best that Corbyn's Hard Labour can hope for is a hung parliament where a precarious 73 year old Corbyn minority government cant do anything without the Liberals who hold the balance of power. Abolition of tuition fees is vetoed as are all radical socialist measures. Corbyn presides over a reluctant New Labour sort of government until his defeat a few years later.................................
The end game of that scenario would depend also on how the post-Brexit (or abandoned Brexit) divisions played out within the opposition.
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
Higher taxes on property willwnever be popular, however sensible or justified.
Depends how it is designed. A council tax revaluation could be redistributive and most people might end up paying less tax but with huge rises in central and inner London and certain other cry high value areas reflecting current values.
A land value tax might work in a similar way. You can raise more revenue while designing a system where a lot of people pay less in annual property tax.
But the little old lady with wealth but no income gets hit hard.
Oh the famous little old lady living in her £3m home she owns outright who has no money and is living on beans on toast.
Of course if she needed social care we would be quite happy to slap a £6k a month bill on her for the cost!
Said little old lady is just used as an excuse by wealthy London based property owners - some of whom are MPs - to ensure wealth is not taken into account in tax policy.
She would of course pay nothing while alive - as with her social care you would place a charge on her property and it would be paid out of her estate after death. So her poor relatives might only inherit £2.8m instead of £3m for a house she probably bought for £10k in the 1960s - poor diddums
Or she could just downsize to a £2m house rent it Jeremy Corbyn for a homeless family and go on year long world cruise. Such tough choices.
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
Higher taxes on property willwnever be popular, however sensible or justified.
Depends how it is designed. A council tax revaluation could be redistributive and most people might end up paying less tax but with huge rises in central and inner London and certain other cry high value areas reflecting current values.
A land value tax might work in a similar way. You can raise more revenue while designing a system where a lot of people pay less in annual property tax.
But the little old lady with wealth but no income gets hit hard.
So what? Income is taxed as a rough proxy for wealth. But the relationship is decoupling to some extent. The wealthy on relatively low incomes should not be allowed to evade their social responsibilities.
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
Of course. There are plenty of empty properties. That is because parts of the UK are depopulating.
And the same is true of the EU.
There are homeless East Europeans on the streets in London. But the corollary to a country like Latvia losing 20 per cent of its population is that there are empty homes, schools, factories in Latvia.
There are empty houses. There are the homeless. They are not in the same place.
The areas of low housing cost, and declining population map well to Leave voting. Take Copeland for example. All are signs of lack of faith in the global economy, hence correlated.
Brexit points towards an economic, industrial and regional policy that Labour would find much easier to deliver than the Tories.
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
+1
It would be wildly unpopular amongst homeowners.
Who decide elections.
'tis always a challenge to democracies when the right thing to do isn't immediately popular.
Deutsche Bahn already runs a decent chunk of the British railway system. Corbyn wants to kick them out and put some hopeless British organisation in charge instead.
I'm presuming you've never had the misfortune to travel on CrossCountry or Arriva Trains Wales, two of Deutsche Bahn's UK franchises and generally agreed to be among the worst-run, most under-invested franchises on the network. I suspect most travellers would prefer a hopeless British organisation whether public (Directly Operated Railways) or private (Stagecoach or even First).
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
Then you and those millions of Conservative voters were badly let down by the incompetent Home Secretary from 2010 on. Theresa something, I think her name was.
The areas of low housing cost, and declining population map well to Leave voting. Take Copeland for example. All are signs of lack of faith in the global economy, hence correlated.
Why on earth should they have faith in the "global economy" ?
The "influencers" at Davos don't care about Copeland, or anyone but themselves.
Quite right, but it is why Brexit is the wrong answer. These are not the areas that will vote for a Tory buccaneering Brexit, though may rather fancy a Corbynite brexit.
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.
London's wealth derives from financial services and which is dependent upon the stability London being part of the UK brings.
Something which would be going bye-bye under a London Corbynista Socialist Republic.
Its astonishing how determined Londoners are to sponge off the UK, even as they revile it.
Some Londoners that is - as I don't expect to see a London Independence Party make an appearance at this year's elections I assume its a minority view.
Still, if London wants to play at being a 'world city' then that's London's choice. But some of the consequences will be foreign property speculation and homeless immigrants. And those need to be dealt with by London.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
Then you and those millions of Conservative voters were badly let down by the incompetent Home Secretary from 2010 on. Theresa something, I think her name was.
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.
I think London is definitely missing a trick here. They really should set up something like the Hunger Games to divert those provincials from their lot. After all, they made such a good job of the Olympics.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.
London's wealth derives from financial services and which is dependent upon the stability London being part of the UK brings.
Something which would be going bye-bye under a London Corbynista Socialist Republic.
Its astonishing how determined Londoners are to sponge off the UK, even as they revile it.
Some Londoners that is - as I don't expect to see a London Independence Party make an appearance at this year's elections I assume its a minority view.
Still, if London wants to play at being a 'world city' then that's London's choice. But some of the consequences will be foreign property speculation and homeless immigrants. And those need to be dealt with by London.
With the money that London generates, rather than lavish it on hostile lotus-eaters.
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
Higher taxes on property will never be popular, however sensible or justified.
Not among the tory client vote, for sure. But it doesn't need to be.
I get the argument - poll tax, dementia tax etc. But if it can successfully presented as "a tax cut for 8 out of 10 property owners who are in work," or whatever.
To pull it off, it would require Mcdonnel to go a bit new new labour, but I recon property taxes could actually be an election winner.
London's wealth derives from financial services and which is dependent upon the stability London being part of the UK brings.
Something which would be going bye-bye under a London Corbynista Socialist Republic.
Its astonishing how determined Londoners are to sponge off the UK, even as they revile it.
Some Londoners that is - as I don't expect to see a London Independence Party make an appearance at this year's elections I assume its a minority view.
Still, if London wants to play at being a 'world city' then that's London's choice. But some of the consequences will be foreign property speculation and homeless immigrants. And those need to be dealt with by London.
London is the fat overflowing bastard on the train who puts his bags over all the empty seats and his feet on the upholstery, while bragging into his smartphone about how good he is.
On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!
You really are a horrible little bastard, aren't you?
And one who has clearly never been to NZ. I doubt more than a handful of Kiwis give a monkey's about the kids' parents' marital status. NZ has its social preoccupations but that isn't one of them.
Just an aside, but this silly London versus the rest of the UK/England is precisely why we need an English Parliament rather than carving England into shitty little regional assemblies. Doing that would create permanent institutional divisions in politics that would perpetuate and deepen the divide and hostility between regions.
[And that's without getting into equality with Holyrood requiring the equal ability to make the same laws, such as tax changes, which must only be done on an England-wide basis].
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
Snip
Local council London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.
It’s almost as astonishing as the number of provincials who move to the capital, and then presume to speak for the whole city.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
Then you and those millions of Conservative voters were badly let down by the incompetent Home Secretary from 2010 on. Theresa something, I think her name was.
You could believe the Tories were for immigration in the tens of thousands in 2010. But seven years later after the highest levels of UK net immigration ever -.much of it from outside the EU - to still believe that was their true policy was naive at best.
They probably want less net immigration than Labour - but there isn't much evidence of it in their actual policies. They now want to exclude students from the figures - as apparently while living here they don't use public services or require housing or use trains and tubes or use the NHS so don't need to be accounted for in planning for these. They seem to be seeking to cut official immigration by changing the counting method rather than actually cutting it.
I see Jezza's inner Marxist was on show this morning...Also lifetime tenancies at secure rent, f##king bonkers...we could call it the Frank Dobson law. Millionaire living in a million pound council house, while others freeze on the streets.
Also, Corbyn also said he would introduce a government-backed mortgage scheme to help first-time buyers. That was part of the issue that caused the sub-prime crisis in the US....
Edit:- From 2011,
For some London properties this amounts to the equivalent of someone having their rent subsidised by the taxpayer by up to £70,000 a year.
According to a Whitehall analysis prepared for ministers, there are up to 6,000 people in social housing with an income greater than £100,000.
On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!
Her husband is good looking and surfs a lot, the baby will no doubt look lovely and in any case that is what they expect from liberal metropolitan elitist Aucklanders anyway. So I expect they are very happy for the couple.
On topic, there's a constituency of people who are centrist, internationalist and globalist and aren't being served by any party at the moment, including the Lib Dems. It's about 25% of the electorate and would be a prize for a third party. They need to rebrand themselves, at the risk of losing their rural bastions, that don't contain many of those kind of people. It's a risk they need to take. Labour could take that group under a different leader than Corbyn. The Conservatives are out for the duration on internationalism, I think, but they do have most of the nationalist conservative vote, which is a bigger group.
Really quite surprised that Joe Root has not been bought at the IPL. He's not a big 6 hitter but he scores way better than a run a ball in the format and can hold an innings together. Man of the Series against Australia in the ODIs.
Comments
Squeaky bum time....
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
In midge season.
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
A small but highly visible subset is lived in only occasionally. However, there was almost no evidence of homes being left permanently empty
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/what-is-the-role-of-overseas-investors-in-the-london-new-build-residential-market/
The Tories problem is that they are perceived to be on the other end of that problem - eat the poor, whilst giving the rich a free pass to keep getting richer. But that has been their perennial problem.
The LibDems problem is...to be honest, who can be arsed with them?
Moreover, the banks would likely react to the uncertainty of a Corbyn government by hiking deposit requirements, making the practicality of buying a house even more onerous on the younger generation.
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council services are funded mainly from business rates - London generates a third of rates income but only has 16 per cent of the England population. It exports £3bn of its rates income a year to fund local services elsewhere - so it's time councils outside London did their bit.
C'mon Cilic!!
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
Presumably though in seats where the Lib Dems and Labour were competing people were actively choosing Labour over the Lib Dems as opposed to Labour over the Conservatives. It would appear, at least in those seats that people did actually prefer the left wing option of Labour rather than being railroaded into it.
It does seem to be a popular train of thought that Labour voters were dragged in kicking and screaming, there are probably always voters not completely happy with the party they are voting for in every election but I would be surprised if Labour voters are more discontented with the party than previously, I would contend the reverse is true.
Somebody mentioned Jacinda Ardern earlier, surely she is pretty much Corbyn in the British context.
Labour (in NZ) went from being quite a drab affair with no real energy or enthusiasm to packing out events, young people grabbing selfies with the leader I even saw some articles from NZ that appeared to be from the left noting Corbyn's relative success in the UK and how they could bring that over to NZ in the time leading up to Ardern taking over.
Now this doesn't mean they necessarily share policy positions or are the same politically but the drive that seemed to help propel her to her own success was quite similar to what helped drive Corbyn.
Mr. 86, he's a great ambassador for the sport too.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/20/over-200000-homes-in-england-still-lying-empty-despite-housing-shortages
There are also an increasing number of second homes, indeed the housing surplus has gone from 800 000 to 1 400 000 over the last 2 decades:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/number-empty-homes-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/
For one thing it would be a Corbynite Socialist Republic - you would really see the City relocate in that situation.
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
The competition he's had to deal with has been great indeed. The 2008, I think, Wimbledon final against Nadal was phenomenal.
And the same is true of the EU.
There are homeless East Europeans on the streets in London. But the corollary to a country like Latvia losing 20 per cent of its population is that there are empty homes, schools, factories in Latvia.
There are empty houses. There are the homeless. They are not in the same place.
I would though then make it much easier for expensive property to be redeveloped into multiple, cheaper units as compensation for the owners.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-28/ingvar-kamprad-ikea-s-swedish-billionaire-founder-has-died
I love my Poang.
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/collections/poang/
A land value tax might work in a similar way. You can raise more revenue while designing a system where a lot of people pay less in annual property tax.
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
These are great for a fiver:
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/products/chairs-stools-benches/chairs/gunde-folding-chair-black-art-00217797/
The "influencers" at Davos don't care about Copeland, or anyone but themselves.
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/search/?k=PRODUKT milk-frother
Why get a cappuccino maker, when £1 buys you this (which works far better than the frothers on the great majority of machines).
Of course if she needed social care we would be quite happy to slap a £6k a month bill on her for the cost!
Said little old lady is just used as an excuse by wealthy London based property owners - some of whom are MPs - to ensure wealth is not taken into account in tax policy.
She would of course pay nothing while alive - as with her social care you would place a charge on her property and it would be paid out of her estate after death. So her poor relatives might only inherit £2.8m instead of £3m for a house she probably bought for £10k in the 1960s - poor diddums
Or she could just downsize to a £2m house rent it Jeremy Corbyn for a homeless family and go on year long world cruise. Such tough choices.
Yorkshire isn't a province. It wasn't conquered by London. They're both parts of England.
Who decide elections.
Something which would be going bye-bye under a London Corbynista Socialist Republic.
Its astonishing how determined Londoners are to sponge off the UK, even as they revile it.
Some Londoners that is - as I don't expect to see a London Independence Party make an appearance at this year's elections I assume its a minority view.
Still, if London wants to play at being a 'world city' then that's London's choice. But some of the consequences will be foreign property speculation and homeless immigrants. And those need to be dealt with by London.
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/957583122090078208
I get the argument - poll tax, dementia tax etc. But if it can successfully presented as "a tax cut for 8 out of 10 property owners who are in work," or whatever.
To pull it off, it would require Mcdonnel to go a bit new new labour, but I recon property taxes could actually be an election winner.
[And that's without getting into equality with Holyrood requiring the equal ability to make the same laws, such as tax changes, which must only be done on an England-wide basis].
They probably want less net immigration than Labour - but there isn't much evidence of it in their actual policies. They now want to exclude students from the figures - as apparently while living here they don't use public services or require housing or use trains and tubes or use the NHS so don't need to be accounted for in planning for these. They seem to be seeking to cut official immigration by changing the counting method rather than actually cutting it.
Also, Corbyn also said he would introduce a government-backed mortgage scheme to help first-time buyers. That was part of the issue that caused the sub-prime crisis in the US....
Edit:- From 2011,
For some London properties this amounts to the equivalent of someone having their rent subsidised by the taxpayer by up to £70,000 a year.
According to a Whitehall analysis prepared for ministers, there are up to 6,000 people in social housing with an income greater than £100,000.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555223/Rich-to-lose-their-subsidised-council-homes.html
Like student fee proposals, Jezza helping the millionaires...