Is Corbyn right about "requisitioning" property from the rich?

[W|M]

Yes, but there was this NHS thing, for example, instituted and respected until the neocons disguised themselves as neoliberals and came back with a vengeance in the '80s, and still somehow survives.

It was only instituted because people fought for their right to healthcare, and it was only institutionally respected because it's so popular, but the newer justifications of ''austerity'' have led to the brilliant idea of killing it by stealth so as to justify increasing amounts of privatisation. The rise of neoliberalism has created new justifications and strategies which the rich use against the poor, but the desire for such effective ways of waging class warfare has been around for a long time

 

[EnglishEdward]

Yes, but the only thing the current government knows how to do with regulations is to abolish them.

Very true.

Charging foreigners might be a thing, of course. But during all the time that they are in the UK they are paying taxes and so on (they have to live, and anything they buy is taxed), so how much are they taking out?

I doubt that foreign students studying in the UK actually pay much UK tax. Consider their lifestyle and the main components of their expenditure.
Fees for education are rarely taxed. Food is tax free. In general Rent is tax free. The rate of tax on Public Transport is 0% but occasionally 6%.
While some foreign students may work, the time spent on their studying is likely to preclude most of them from reaching the income tax threshold.

A better justification for the UK government making loans for foreign students is that they are obtaining skills urgently needed to help their
impoverished countries. Although that argument only works for some student on some courses and from some e.g. third world countries.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If you don't want to have a discussion you might want to make clear what it is that you actually want to say and what you're replying to.

Well, the last time I tried that you started talking about the Hillsborough disaster instead...

 

[Takhisis]

Well, Hillsborough is one of the most glaring examples of a war on the poor. Cause a massacre and then blame and demonise them for it.

Please, next time, if you're answering a post other than the one immediately above yours, include a quote.

It was only instituted because people fought for their right to healthcare, and it was only institutionally respected because it's so popular, but the newer justifications of ''austerity'' have led to the brilliant idea of killing it by stealth so as to justify increasing amounts of privatisation. The rise of neoliberalism has created new justifications and strategies which the rich use against the poor, but the desire for such effective ways of waging class warfare has been around for a long time

A struggle for control of the means of production has been an integral feature of human civilisation.
It might just be that class warfare is more readily apparent these days by there being things to take away now, compared to 200 years ago when the poor simply made good infantrymen and factory workers.

Very true.

So far this week, they've proven that they can laugh at people while keeping their salaries frozen (the salaries of those whose jobs they cannot simply outsource, that is).

That's something on which they can regulate, apparently.

I doubt that foreign students studying in the UK actually pay much UK tax. Consider their lifestyle and the main components of their expenditure.
Fees for education are rarely taxed. Food is tax free. In general Rent is tax free. The rate of tax on Public Transport is 0% but occasionally 6%.
While some foreign students may work, the time spent on their studying is likely to preclude most of them from reaching the income tax threshold.

A better justification for the UK government making loans for foreign students is that they are obtaining skills urgently needed to help their
impoverished countries. Although that argument only works for some student on some courses and from some e.g. third world countries.

Well, yes, if we're going for the general improvement of humanity then no education should have any tuition fee, but that's a bit utopian right now.

Now, even if food, rent, etc. have low taxes or none at all, there is still somebody coming in and paying several tens of thousands of pounds in tuition fees (sometimes over £100,000, depending on the duration of the degree), plus rent, food, etc. into the local economy. A bit like tourism.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, Hillsborough is one of the most glaring examples of a war on the poor. Cause a massacre and then blame and demonise them for it.

Please, next time, if you're answering a post other than the one immediately above yours, include a quote.

Right... seriously what are you talking about?

a) It isn't an example of a "war on the poor" at all.
b) Even if it was, that's got nothing to do with blaming all rich people for the very specific actions of sidestepping building regulations, which is what I was replying to.
c) At no point have I replied to a post that wasn't immediately above mine without a quote.

Honestly, at what point is it reasonable for me to start suspecting you're just trolling here?

 

[Silurian]

Silurian: Good post

But these public sector organisations are not esteemed by me.

It is simply not their job to be advising anyone how to obtain a false paper trail of
compliance for buildings that are not compliant with government regulations.

If the government regulations are out of date, i.e. not taking into account
new materials and techniques, they might better draft updates to the regulations
(and derived government guidelines) for all to consider and comment
and, if appropriate, for the government to implement in due course.

Having a third tier of documents (their own guidelines) rarely helps;
as it diverts attention from the statutory requirement. That is not to say
that there can never be value in producing a guide as to how to use a
new material or technique, provided it does not contradict the regulations.
But a problem is that tertiary documents are taken to supersede regulations.

I am not sure if the materials themselves broke the regulations, as I stated in the post you liked they have been bent.
The use of the "non compliant" cladding, used despite the manufactures recomendations, has been so widespread that if it broke the letter of the building regulations then surely someone would have said so.

As for the instalation process that could well break the building regulations. The use of subcontractors in construction is increasing so there is reduced accountability. The main contractor off loads the responsibility for quality and program, if the project is late quality can suffer but the defects may not come to light for years.

As you noted the govermnent has adopted a policy of not updating regulations. This has left a void into which trade bodies has stepped.
As I understand it, the lack of management of the regulations by the government will not formpart of the public enquiry. If this is case it will be regarded as a white wash.

Regulations tend to be fairly legalistic, by there nature, and so can be difficult to understand especially by intallers. Regulations also tend to be very specific, and so long and unreponsive to change; or vague "build a fire resistant building"; or some combination so that they can cope with some change.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Silurian:

Well now all the little people who've been renovating my house installing new electrics,
central heating etc seem to understand the regulations, often quickly refuting my own ideas.

It seems that they have a conscience, apparently those dissappear from bigger business,

We shall have to see what comes out of the inquiry.

On a more general point. It seems to me that there are three inquiries needed.

(1) for the specifics of the Grenfell Tower fire;
(2) for assessing the building regulations for fire aqnd other risks to building new high rise properties; and
(3) a review of the existing stock of high rise buildings, risk assessment and remedy plan.

Just waiting to hear of the property developers new line. It would cost too much to make
them safe, better to knock them down and we will build a replacement for you.

It appears there are unsold (at up top £50 m each) appartments in the Shard.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/05/shard-apartments-empty-flats-london-market

Perhaps Jeremy will requisition some of them.

 

[Silurian]

Seem to understand the regulations is the problem.

 

[Takhisis]

b) Even if it was, that's got nothing to do with blaming all rich people for the very specific actions of sidestepping building regulations, which is what I was replying to.

I never said all rich people did that. For class-on-class warfare, see wim's posts.

 

[Kyriakos]

May gets nastier and nastier. I hope she soon goes out.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I never said all rich people did that. For class-on-class warfare, see wim's posts.

civver complained about the concept of punishing rich people, as a demographic, for the fire. You replied and defended it. Don't you remember? Are you still trolling?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Apparently Grenfell Tower's wiring wasn't done very well
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40632705