Let's assume for the sake of the argument that Corbyn could produce the money for this fanciful idea and take into public ownership 8000 houses for the homeless - if I was one of the many 1000s of people/families who have been patiently sitting on the council house waiting list, I'd be mightily peeved about Corbyn's largesse.
//Local authorities already have the ability to take over empty properties. //
this matter was brought up in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire, when Mr Corbyn said exactly the same thing (and using the same words) as he said this morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40303142
legislation simply does not (at this time) exist for the authorities - local or national - to sequestrate private property, even if land-banking is seen as immoral.
A fair few of the people choose the Lifestyle, I used to have premises opposite a homeless shelter, if I went in early I would often find the guests kipping in doorways on my site on bits of cardboard because they couldn't sleep in a proper bed, didn't like being enclosed and only went into the shelter to shower and eat.
Never caused me any problems tbh.
Oh but I am all in favour of looking after societies most vulnerable. We should doing a lot for those with no hope of ever being able to fend for themselves. Such as those with a debilitating physical disability or a diminished mental capacity.
limited time help for those who simply fall on hard times through say job loss or medical need. They have the capacity to 'pick themselves up' etc
A large proportion of homelessness is due to some sort of mental health issue. That needs to be addressed at the same time.
But in any case he will find it exceedingly difficult to immediately release 8000 homes. If they ain't there now they ain't going to be there the week, (in fantasy land) he gets his hands on the keys.
//Its been absolutely bitter at night here these last few weeks and very wet.
But at least Labour are saying that they will do something about the situation. //
Oohh goody a bit of "global(or is that gob all) warming, and a nice dry summer.............if you vote Lay Boor. :))
Kensington and Chelsea ( the site of Grenfell Towers) alone, has over 1500 flats and other properties that are being intentionally kept empty. Owners use them as 'property banks' to force up the housing price and increase their profit. I my book that is wrong, and they should be forced to let or sell them. The other issue that needs addressing is the practice of allowing developers to make a payment (in effect pay a bribe) to the council to get out of the clause that is supposed to force them to build 50% of 'affordable housing'. By paying this 'fee' they can then build 100% luxury top of the range housing that is more profitable to them and pays more council tax to the council.
^ I'm more than happy where I am , been here for over 40 years now, and yes it is a housing association property. When we do move it will be a downsize to a pensioners 1 bed property.
Can't understand how a man such as yourself Eddie, travelled and worked all over the world in lucrative businesses and held down responsible positions to boot, doesn't own his own place outright with a comfy taxable pension.
You keep out of it Mikey.....is Eddie not allowed to speak for himself? Or let Eddie post that from now on you are his "spokesman". Just answer the points that pertain to you.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.