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

[Silurian]

If the people are so poor and on government handouts already why not just relocate them outside the city where property is cheaper, build housing out there?

So they can not get to work! Or there childeren can no sit there evams which are currently taking place

I am not an expert.

However I believe that in the UK tax right offs are permitted for relevant costs, losses and government favoured activities,
and not simply for owning empty properties.

There is no local council tax for properties if they are unfurnished and unoccupied.

This concession was designed to protect builders and renovators with unsold and unrented property, but it is misused by speculators.

In the UK the problem is that a lot of rich foreigners buy up property and then sit and watch property price inflation double their money.
Many London (and also Manchester) properties are sold to Chinese or Arabic purchasers who have never even seen them.

In theory they should pay capital gains tax on such profits, but there are an awful lot of tax avoidance/evasion scams.
For instance, the property is bought in the name of an overseas company; the owner sells the company or its (obfuscated
via tax havens), parent company and not the property itself, so the claim is that there is no change of ownership and no tax due!

In theory the UK should benefit from such elevated building activity, but as much of the workforce are temporary immigrants
and off book, the benefits to central government and local councils are very questionable.

I agree with most of this

The government will fail in its pledge to house the victims locally

 

[Borachio]

Not a new thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_overspill

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I like the general idea, but it needs structural finesse.

As others noted, to just "randomly" confiscate stuff because the gov likes it, is troublesome. Okay as others noted as well, the gov already confiscate stuff for infrastructure / city structural purposes. The thing is that this kind of thing just has to go with confiscation, everybody gets that. Otherwise, you could get no big structural projects done if only one single dude objects. It makes a certain kind of sense not many things do.
So to ease the minds of those seeing the red menace destroying their way of life, let's be shifty about it. Let's play some trickery and subtle coercion rather than outright coercion. Do that, and BAM! - you are part of the normal world.

So to accomplish that, you need to tax, fiercely. And you need to generously offer a way out. So as that the government is not taking your stuff. The government is just asking those harming the general well-being to pay their dues - and if they don't want to, the government can help you as well.
That is the way of the market, baby. No coercion. Coercive suggestions.
For instance - tax vacant housing in inner cities. If you buy housing in those areas, you have to be present x number of days in the year. If you are not and the gov finds out about it - you are in trouble. If that makes estate prices implode - the government is there is free you of your property. And if you are caught - selling your property to the government will help to handle your punishment.

The free world stays intact and we get what we want. Freedom is great, you just got to put a price tag on it to keep it good and free.

 

[Ajidica]

It seems like the basic idea behind this is that "inequality is not acceptable". I would disagree with that. Inequality is not only necessary, it is inevitable. We have to accept inequality as a society if we're going to be honest with ourselves.

The post-war Labour government demonstrated that the existence of inequality in no way prevents the government addressing the effects of inequality by addressing the "five evils" of society: Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, and Idleness.
That like saying "child murder exists" and that by default child murder is necessary for society. I mean, if your entire conception of society is a collection of hateful, mean-spirited violent thugs and that we should aspire to nothing better, then, well, I got nothing.

It seems like they almost want to blame rich people for the fact that the fire happened. This sort of blame-shifting is not going to make anyone happier.

If, as it seems likely, the British government's austerity* policies are responsible for the penny-pinching that prevented installation of a sprinkler system, then those who argued for austerity and implemented it must bear some level of blame.
Why were fifty eight people burned alive? Deficient safety equipment.
Why didn't the government install sufficient safety equipment? Lack of money.
Why was there a lack of money? Austerity policy.
Why was there austerity policies? Because someone thought austerity was a good idea.

*It still boggles the mind that the current mean-spirited penny pinching is described with the same word as the Labour program to rebuild the United Kingdom after the horrors of the Second World War. One was an attempt to "build a New Jerusalem" while the other is an excuse to cut taxes on the wealthiest and hurt the most vulnerable.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Latest reports are that the Grenfell Tower refurbishment was requested by potential developers of adjacent property, and not by the tenants, to prettify the tower.

It seem that the sub-contractor installed the wrong type of cladding containing an inflammable core £22 per sheet (x 2000) instead of a non inflamnable
core at £24 per sheet although the manufacturers knew the inflammable core should only be used low down e.g. within reach of fire service hoses.

Much talk of regulations being inadequate, but in the end the builders should know their trade.

It looks like gross incompetence amounting to negligence.

No doubt the inquiry will look at the paper trail as to who specified what and what checks were (not) carried out.

I doubt that the saving of 2,000 by £2 (+ VAT) of £5,000 was the driver.

An issue is that the refurbishment was driven for the wrong reasons
Another issue is that the various hands offs in passing off council housing
to corporates and contracting out and sub-contracting obviate against accountability.
The government also privatised its Building Research Establishmernt (BRE).
and expertise in architectural and building safety in the public sector was run down.

 

[Hrothbern]

Latest reports are that the Grenfell Tower refurbishment was requested by potential developers of adjacent property, and not by the tenants, to prettify the tower.

It seem that the sub-contractor installed the wrong type of cladding containing an inflammable core £24 per sheet (x 2000) instead of a non inflamnable
core at £22 per sheet although the manufacturers knew the inflammable core should only be used low down e.g. within reach of fire service hoses.

Much talk of regulations being inadequate, but in the end the builders should know their trade.

It looks like gross incompetence amounting to negligence.

No doubt the inquiry will look at the paper trail as to who specified what and what checks were (not) carried out.

I doubt that the saving of 2,000 by £2 (+ VAT) of £5,000 was the driver.

An issue is that the refurbishment was driven for the wrong reasons
Another issue is that the various hands offs in passing off council housing
to corporates and contracting out and sub-contracting obviate against accountability.
The government also privatised its Building Research Establishmernt (BRE).
and expertise in architectural and building safety in the public sector was run down.

It seem that the sub-contractor installed the wrong type of cladding containing an inflammable core £24 per sheet (x 2000) instead of a non inflamnable
core at £22 per sheet

I guess that is the other way around

 

[EnglishEdward]

Hrothbern - oops - I have corrected my above.

 

[cardgame]

It seems like they almost want to blame rich people for the fact that the fire happened.

Jee whiz, I wonder why?

but at what cost?

0.17%

but what's 17 lives compared to 5,000 in the bank right?

 

[Hrothbern]

I doubt that the saving of 2,000 by £2 (+ VAT) of £5,000 was the driver.

I saw somewhere that part of the cladding was done with the mineral core and part was done with the inflammable core.

Perhaps it was a stupid purchase planning/delivery issue for the not-inflammable type coupled with a deadline.

Latest reports are that the Grenfell Tower refurbishment was requested by potential developers of adjacent property, and not by the tenants, to prettify the tower.

something that makes me vomit

 

[luiz]

Latest reports are that the Grenfell Tower refurbishment was requested by potential developers of adjacent property, and not by the tenants, to prettify the tower.

It seem that the sub-contractor installed the wrong type of cladding containing an inflammable core £22 per sheet (x 2000) instead of a non inflamnable
core at £24 per sheet although the manufacturers knew the inflammable core should only be used low down e.g. within reach of fire service hoses.

Much talk of regulations being inadequate, but in the end the builders should know their trade.

It looks like gross incompetence amounting to negligence.

No doubt the inquiry will look at the paper trail as to who specified what and what checks were (not) carried out.

I doubt that the saving of 2,000 by £2 (+ VAT) of £5,000 was the driver.

An issue is that the refurbishment was driven for the wrong reasons
Another issue is that the various hands offs in passing off council housing
to corporates and contracting out and sub-contracting obviate against accountability.
The government also privatised its Building Research Establishmernt (BRE).
and expertise in architectural and building safety in the public sector was run down.

So absolutely nothing to do with "austerity"... Jeez, it's like some politicians (and their press) were a bit too quick with accusing others of murder.

 

[innonimatu]

So absolutely nothing to do with "austerity"... Jeez, it's like some politicians (and their press) were a bit too quick with accusing others of murder.

Nothing wrong with "austerity"?

It turn out that the austere scumpags at the council searched for a bidder that would underbid the initial estimate by 20%. And they, a public non-profit entity basically tasked with carrying out proper maintenance, have been proudly putting in the bank £10 million each year, while other boroughs have been breaking even (actually spending their revenues on doing the maintenance). "Nothing wrong with austerity"?

Os course, the scumbags running the show just have to grant themselves "compensation" (wages is so low-class) of several hundred thousand pounds for being such good managers. No austerity for them...

This is the world you like, of course.

It is not, however, the world that most UK citizens like.

 

[EnglishEdward]

UK Councils, that do not have in house teams capable of doing the work themselves, are by European Law required to undertake
competitive procurements and award contracts usually on the basis of most economically advantageous tender (MEAT).

MEAT is often taken, incorrectly, to simply mean lowest cost tender.

The danger with this is that the contract is awarded to the company that has misunderstood the requirement and submitted
the lowest bid because it has under calculated its cost. It is then driven to take short cuts to break even, let alone make a profit,
and this often impacts on quality and in this case quality means safety. I doubt that the decision to use the cheaper cladding was
cynically made in the knowledge of the risk, but I suspect that the function of quality review by an expert may have been scimped on.

To avoid this, the government customer should have either (i) produced a detailed specification by qualified experts or
(ii) invited the bidding suppliers to provide detailed proposals for review by qualified experts.

 

[luiz]

Nothing wrong with "austerity"?

It turn out that the austere scumpags at the council searched for a bidder that would underbid the initial estimate by 20%. And they, a public non-profit entity basically tasked with carrying out proper maintenance, have been proudly putting in the bank £10 million each year, while other boroughs have been breaking even (actually spending their revenues on doing the maintenance). "Nothing wrong with austerity"?

Os course, the scumbags running the show just have to grant themselves "compensation" (wages is so low-class) of several hundred thousand pounds for being such good managers. No austerity for them...

This is the world you like, of course.

It is not, however, the world that most UK citizens like.

I love the "plus dinner, lunch and tea". Why not throw a poney in the mix too?

Anyway, how about we wait until we know the actual causes and contributing factors before we go around accusing people of mass murder? I'm sure there were mistakes made, but the number of factors that could have played a large role is immense. Trying to minimize costs is something that all governments and private entities do, from Norway to Cuba, and there's nothing wrong as long as proper standards are met. Nobody will try to maximize costs, not in maintenance, not in Healthcare, not in anything. The knee-jerk reaction of "austerity killed these people" is fitting of a terrorist sympathizing douche, not of a real leader.

 

[innonimatu]

To avoid this, the government customer should have either (i) produced a detailed specification by qualified experts or
(ii) invited the bidding suppliers to provide detailed proposals for review by qualified experts.

This highlights the problem of governments outsourcing work, instead of having public employees capable of doing it. At least some of the work must be done "in house" . Otherwise, who will have the expertise to write the detailed specification? Who will have the foresight to know the dangers or pitfalls of solutions proposed by the bidders?

Know how is necessary for the buyer. In this case (public housing) that is an argument for the government to directly employ people to build and maintain at least a portion of the housing it manages. And to draw from that pool when the time comes to manage any outside contracts.
"Public-private partnerships" or the simple idea that "the market will provide, government only has to pay" is a tremendous mistake. States should have agencies employing qualified staff directly, across the range of the needs of the state. Some things can be outsourced, but in those cases always maintain some teams able to do the job and evaluate the ones hired out.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It he cause is related to shoddy construction, inappropriate materials, poor maintenance, etc., then those responsible for such decisions should be impoverished along with their families and condemned to public welfare until they die. Such an approach would reduce all such incidents in the future.

 

[Hygro]

We gotta go after their families

 

[bernie14]

Hindsight is always 2020...or we would all wear helmets in the shower...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Hindsight is always 2020...or we would all wear helmets in the shower...

And using that hindsight to improve our looking ahead is both useful and beneficial.

 

[Kyriakos]

I love the "plus dinner, lunch and tea". Why not throw a poney in the mix too?

Anyway, how about we wait until we know the actual causes and contributing factors before we go around accusing people of mass murder? I'm sure there were mistakes made, but the number of factors that could have played a large role is immense. Trying to minimize costs is something that all governments and private entities do, from Norway to Cuba, and there's nothing wrong as long as proper standards are met. Nobody will try to maximize costs, not in maintenance, not in Healthcare, not in anything. The knee-jerk reaction of "austerity killed these people" is fitting of a terrorist sympathizing douche, not of a real leader.

ITT someone even offended by people speaking against austerity.
Comedy never stops, yet the act got old fast.

 

[luiz]

It he cause is related to shoddy construction, inappropriate materials, poor maintenance, etc., then those responsible for such decisions should be impoverished along with their families and condemned to public welfare until they die. Such an approach would reduce all such incidents in the future.

Would you support going after the families of terrorists? Because we don't do even that, even though terrorists are deliberately killing young children. And if someone suggested going after the families of terrorists, he would be called a nazi monster. But you would go after the families of bad constructors?