Poll: Exit Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Results discussion and OcUK Exit Poll - Closing 8th July

Exit poll: Who did you vote for?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 302 27.5%

  • Labour

    Votes: 577 52.6%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 104 9.5%

  • Green

    Votes: 13 1.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 19 1.7%

  • Scottish National Party

    Votes: 30 2.7%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 6 0.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 46 4.2%
  • Total voters
    1,097
Status
Not open for further replies.
kindai said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40319515

Sorry but, what?

You guys want this in power when he wants to forcibly seize peoples assets?
Click to expand...

Again emotive to say "seize" he said compulsory purchase them. In times of crisis the Government has the power to do this. If fair market value is paid for empty properties I dont see the issue???? Otherwise they stay empty and we have 500 people with nowhere to live.

He does have a valid point IMO.

But they are just "labour riff raff" so who cares about them eh?
 
Yeah think he has lost it on that one

talk about how BS it is that poor people who are homeless cant be rehoused while the whole borough is full of million pound houses that are empty as investments by people outside of the country - sure
talk about "seizing" (or even compulsory purchase tbh) and you done a derp
 
kindai said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40319515

Sorry but, what?

You guys want this in power when he wants to forcibly seize peoples assets?
Click to expand...
Thing is with Corbyn; this could well be a slippery slope. Starts off occupying and requisitioning empty properties owned by foreign oligarchs for the survivors of Grenfell Tower - fair enough, I can see an argument in that. What next though - there's still homeless people everywhere, maybe we should start requisitioning big mansions and putting up the homeless in there - worked in Dr Zhivago after all.
 
Greebo said:
Again emotive to say "seize" he said compulsory purchase them. In times of crisis the Government has the power to do this. If fair market value is paid for empty properties I dont see the issue???? Otherwise they stay empty and we have 500 people with nowhere to live.

He does have a valid point IMO.

But they are just "labour riff raff" so who cares about them eh?
Click to expand...

His initial comment was one thing but then he doubled down on the whole rhetoric of basically take them by all means necessary: "Occupy it, compulsory purchase it, requisition it - there's a lot of things you can do."

I agreed with the sentiment (in principle) of his original comment even though I found the undertones disturbing but its something else again when he has reinforced the original point with a considered response.
 
scorza said:
Thing is with Corbyn; this could well be a slippery slope. Starts off occupying and requisitioning empty properties owned by foreign oligarchs for the survivors of Grenfell Tower - fair enough, I can see an argument in that. What next though - there's still homeless people everywhere, maybe we should start requisitioning big mansions and putting up the homeless in there - worked in Dr Zhivago after all.
Click to expand...

Well i do think its disgusting the number of empty properties in the UK which have been sometimes for years as people are sitting on them allowing them to go up in value. I know streets in the North where people bought houses up cheap and just borded them up and waited for all the "riff raff" in the street to move out and then later they can cash in when the whole street goes upmarket and gentrification.

This "housing surplus" has nearly doubled from 800,000 spare homes in 1996 to 1.4million homes at any one time in 2014.
Click to expand...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/

I do think its kind of mental as a civilised nation where we are short of housing and there are 1.4 million homes empty. We are only building around 200k new homes per annum yet 7 times that are empty.
 
Greebo said:
I do think its kind of mental as a civilised nation where we are short of housing and there are 1.4 million homes empty. We are only building around 200k new homes per annum yet 7 times that are empty.
Click to expand...

What I hate is that there are several factors that insulate the housing market from the normal effects of supply and demand in a commodities market - an area where regulation really should be a thing.
 
Greebo said:
Again emotive to say "seize" he said compulsory purchase them. In times of crisis the Government has the power to do this. If fair market value is paid for empty properties I dont see the issue???? Otherwise they stay empty and we have 500 people with nowhere to live.

He does have a valid point IMO.

But they are just "labour riff raff" so who cares about them eh?
Click to expand...


Because the government has no business in forcing people to sell their assets on a whim. How do you know that house wasn't someones life savings in investment ready for when they retire? They get forced to sell it at market value and lose out any appreciation it may gain in the years until they retire.

The only way it could work is if they were payed *substantially* more than the current market value, and then whos going to pay for it? Another rich persons tax?
 
Lol @ Scorza, the unwavering Trump supporter, trying to criticise Corbyn for "doubling down" on "dangerous rhetoric".
 
Greebo said:
Again emotive to say "seize" he said compulsory purchase them. In times of crisis the Government has the power to do this. If fair market value is paid for empty properties I dont see the issue????
Click to expand...

Well it isn't very economical for a start (some of the most expensive real estate in the country and frankly not everyone from that tower necessarily has local links to the area etc..) and secondly the process takes a while. Not to mention it isn't exactly necessary either - there are hotel rooms available temporarily and they can find private sector or social accommodation in or around the borough in the long run.
 
kindai said:
Because the government has no business in forcing people to sell their assets on a whim. How do you know that house wasn't someones life savings in investment ready for when they retire? They get forced to sell it at market value and lose out any appreciation it may gain in the years until they retire.

The only way it could work is if they were payed *substantially* more than the current market value, and then whos going to pay for it? Another rich persons tax?
Click to expand...

So in general then you think its okay for people to be homeless as it might affect somebody's potential profit they are going to make for sitting on a house for 20 years? Its not like they wouldnt get full value and then could invest that money into another house elsewhere or some other investment.
 
Greebo said:
So in general then you think its okay for people to be homeless as it might affect somebody's potential profit they are going to make for sitting on a house for 20 years? Its not like they wouldnt get full value and then could invest that money into another house elsewhere or some other investment.
Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line though? any empty property or just those belonging to "rich" people and what about the human elements i.e. someone who has bought their "perfect" retirement home but currently living (maybe rented) and working in another part of the country?
 
Greebo said:
So in general then you think its okay for people to be homeless as it might affect somebody's potential profit they are going to make for sitting on a house for 20 years? Its not like they wouldnt get full value and then could invest that money into another house elsewhere or some other investment.
Click to expand...

it doesn't logically follow that because you'd be against seizing ridiculously expensive property on a whim that you'd also think it is OK for people to be homeless
 
Greebo said:
So in general then you think its okay for people to be homeless as it might affect somebody's potential profit they are going to make for sitting on a house for 20 years? Its not like they wouldnt get full value and then could invest that money into another house elsewhere or some other investment.
Click to expand...

Yes. Put bluntly I could afford the house, they couldn't. Me being forced to sell the house wouldn't make them any more able to afford it which only leaves one option, the government paying for it, which isn't viable.

As we know, the government (every government) is doing **** all to build new affordable housing.

The only way to put people in a place to live affordably for the government is high density housing, flats, tower blocks etc.
 
Jokester said:
I think everyone is missing the point. This will never happen and Corbyn knows it, it's just political point scoring.
Click to expand...

Well with the Tories in power, etc. no but do people really think that if Corbyn was in power he wouldn't work towards these kind of ends* seeing as they are the positions he holds?


* Maybe not necessarily the absolute end result but pushing things towards that kind of direction.
 
Rroff said:
Well with the Tories in power, etc. no but do people really think that if Corbyn was in power he wouldn't work towards these kind of ends seeing as they are the positions he holds?
Click to expand...
Even I don't think Corbyn if he was in power would seize property off private citizens.

We're not Venezuela!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom