This could prove very scary

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by JK0 View Post
    Hmm. Do you seriously think Corbyn is planning to pay the 'top-up'?
    Well, he did suggest it, so there's a chance.

    There's an issue with the state simply taking property away from people.
    You'd probably end up in the European Court of Human Rights (even post Brexit).
    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
      On the reverse side, the power inbalance between landlord and tenant is a problem for contractual agreements otherwise.
      Presume you are talking about the fact that the tenant is in control of a £400K asset owned by the landlord and hence has considerable power..... suppose you are right there is an imbalance.


      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
      There's an issue with the state simply taking property away from people.
      Not sure. The way it works is via the methods used by Corbyn's philosophical underwriters -- the Cultural revolution and Germany in 1939. That is how property is extracted from individuals the state feels are undesirable.

      Frankly I think our great country (well I'm an immigrant...) is at the most dangerous point it has been for the past century, including those years of 1939-1945. The things that will determine what Corbyn does, will not be the fine veneer of the points he makes, but how he will be forced by the bedfellows he and his friends have decided to keep. So how is it possible that anyone who is gay, or has gay family members (as I do) could vote for a man who receives his sustencance from people who throw gays off tall buildings, and do so without his dissent.

      It beggars belief how little discussion there is about the real issues we face. So much for the mantra that we walked into Brexit without the dirty and ignorant public knowing what they were voting for (which is largely nonsense). The much bigger problem is that we are being sleep-walked into what could easily become a marxist/fascist state, which has no respect for people unfavoured by the leaders and the friends who have bankrolled them - without so much as a murmur of debate.

      Comment


        #18
        I am concerned about a left-wing labour government, particularly one led by John McDonnell.

        I have no concerns about them throwing gay people off buildings (or receiving funding from those who do).
        The party is led by people who feel more strongly about Israel than they do about Brexit, the NHS or pretty much any other subject.
        That blinds them to the wrongs of those who share similar views about that particular national government.


        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
          Well, he did suggest it, so there's a chance.

          There's an issue with the state simply taking property away from people.
          You'd probably end up in the European Court of Human Rights (even post Brexit).
          I did think of that, and looked it up yesterday. It's okay if it's for 'public utility'.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by JK0 View Post
            I did think of that, and looked it up yesterday. It's okay if it's for 'public utility'.
            Letting a tenant buying someone else's property isn't a matter of 'public utility'.
            That's the problem.

            'Public utility' is the principle used to buy land to knock down someone's home to build HS2 because their rights as an owner of property are outweighed by the needs of the public for a new railway that lots of people will use that can't otherwise happen.
            Or a compulsory purchase to build a new housing estate or Heathrow runway.

            The needs of the many outweighing the need of the one is an essential part of the principle.
            Very Star Trek.

            And, even in cases of public utility, the state has to properly compensate the person losing out (even though the compensation is for the property, not any sentimental value etc).
            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              #21
              There are lots of ways it could be done.

              Method 1:
              =======
              a) Change tenancy law to make it practically impossible to get rid of a tenant ever, including via inheritance of tenancies
              b) Simultaneously cap rents to that which the state will determine
              c) Make sure that all repairing obligations remain intact and are brutally enforced

              Then give sitting tenants a right to buy in competition with the general market who will be purchasing their tenancy.

              Prices will be automatically reduced by around 50% or more, and landlords will be only too willing to take the hit.

              method 2:
              =======
              - Put stamp duty on the seller
              - Hike stamp duty to 20% for properties which are not your own home except where the purchaser is a tenant

              Method 3
              ======
              Simply resort to force and appropriation. Say properties above where landlord does not sell, and does not maintain (or is unable to maintain) state will take over in the interest of the tenant, or levy such fines as will make that so if the owner does not so agree.

              Sieg Heil, John McDonnell

              Comment


                #22
                The first reading of a bill that threatened any of those things would see every tenant from switched on landlords receive notice.
                Now switched on landlords aren't that numerous, but have a lot of properties.

                The moment the government commenced legislation to move shares to employees, shares would be moved off shore.

                It's all a load of hot air and populist nonsense.
                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                  The first reading of a bill that threatened any of those things would see every tenant from switched on landlords receive notice.
                  Now switched on landlords aren't that numerous, but have a lot of properties.

                  The moment the government commenced legislation to move shares to employees, shares would be moved off shore.

                  It's all a load of hot air and populist nonsense.
                  I think the problems are that

                  a) The thing normally happens incrementally - once most people are clued in they are trapped.
                  b) How exactly would you give notice, and on what grounds. That is hard enough now.

                  I'm less confident that a thick-as-two-bricks set of ideologue politicians would not do thick things, whether enhanced by hot air or otherwise.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
                    a) The thing normally happens incrementally - once most people are clued in they are trapped.
                    b) How exactly would you give notice, and on what grounds. That is hard enough now.
                    a) Fair point, I have some personal red lines and try and keep up to speed (personally rather than rely on other people). No s21 (without some compensatory replacement) is one.

                    b) s21. Retrospective legislation isn't practical, so you're going to get some warning.

                    Given the last few years, my confidence in the fundamental processes of UK parliament safeguarding the norm have undergone a bit of a bashing, but I still think Corbyn isn't electable.
                    He has one great chance, in 2017, and didn't quite make it, and since then, he's drowning in antisemitism, brexit and just plain not being very good.
                    If there's an election this year, Labour and the tories will be ripped to shreds.
                    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                      Letting a tenant buying someone else's property isn't a matter of 'public utility'.
                      That's the problem.

                      'Public utility' is the principle used to buy land to knock down someone's home to build HS2 because their rights as an owner of property are outweighed by the needs of the public for a new railway that lots of people will use that can't otherwise happen.
                      Or a compulsory purchase to build a new housing estate or Heathrow runway.

                      The needs of the many outweighing the need of the one is an essential part of the principle.
                      Very Star Trek.

                      And, even in cases of public utility, the state has to properly compensate the person losing out (even though the compensation is for the property, not any sentimental value etc).
                      The Duke of Westiminster tried to use the ECHR to avoid having to sell his freeholds to his lessees. He lost due to the 'public utility' clause. According to today's Mail, there won't be any top up from the tax payer.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by JK0 View Post
                        The Duke of Westiminster tried to use the ECHR to avoid having to sell his freeholds to his lessees. He lost due to the 'public utility' clause. According to today's Mail, there won't be any top up from the tax payer.
                        Could you point me at that - selling freeholds to long leaseholders has a well established set of rules?

                        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                          Could you point me at that - selling freeholds to long leaseholders has a well established set of rules?
                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_v_United_Kingdom

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Anyway we have just moved one step closer to a Marxist loonie-bin semi-dictatorship courtesy of Philip Hammond, David Gauke, Grieve, Ken Clarke, Letwin and others. Well done guys and thanks -- exactly what I voted for. What could possibly go wrong?

                            Comment


                              #29
                              What could go even worse than Jeremy Corbin becoming Prime Minister is John McDonnell becoming leader of the Labour Party , whilst Corbin is Marxist , McDonnell is Troxyite

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Worse, Corbyn is useless and McDonnell is very effective.
                                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X