Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
DJ Barry Hammond

Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

By DJ Barry Hammond, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

Where has this idea of Corbyn having no respect for property rights come from? I've seen you mention it a couple of times now.

 

- Parliament setting the price government pays for shares of companies it wants to nationalise

- Parliament setting the price of PFI contracts, or even there being no compensation at all

- Forcing land owners to sell land significantly below market price

- Talk of requisitioning homes after Grenfell, and also mandating local authorities to take possession of empty homes

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

- Parliament setting the price government pays for shares of companies it wants to nationalise

- Parliament setting the price of PFI contracts, or even there being no compensation at all

- Forcing land owners to sell land significantly below market price

- Talk of requisitioning homes after Grenfell, and also mandating local authorities to take possession of empty homes

 

All off the cuff comments, not policy. Nothing at all serious. :innocent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

All off the cuff comments, not policy. Nothing at all serious. :innocent:

The last two of which you openly supported on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The last two of which you openly supported on this thread.

I’m not sure that’s true toddy, as they make me feel a bit uneasy. Compulsory purchase is a sensitive ground and there is definitely a case for it in certain circumstances but I don’t accept that it should be at below market level.

I supported Labours plans to build more homes and many other policies but unless you can quote me I have no recollection of supporting them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rogstanley

Rogstanley

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

1) Parliament setting the price government pays for shares of companies it wants to nationalise

2) Parliament setting the price of PFI contracts, or even there being no compensation at all

3) Forcing land owners to sell land significantly below market price

4) Talk of requisitioning homes after Grenfell, and also mandating local authorities to take possession of empty homes

 

1) Not strictly property, but ok. I think McDonnell suggested firms whose behaviour was deemed poor might be nationalised at less than market value. I can't see that happening myself and it's not formal labour policy anyway.

 

2) Not property again but ok. McDonnell has said that he would bring PFI contracts in house (which Labour later formally stated would mean simply a review taking place), nowhere can I find anybody saying parliament would set the price or there being no compensation at all. Again, I find it hard to imagine that ever happening and it's not formal labour policy.

 

3) Assume you're talking about the idea of undeveloped land being sold at pre-planning permission value? I can see the concerns here but equally I think land-hoarding is immoral. I'd be more in favour of changing the law for the future, rather than putting existing investments at risk. But it has limited application anyway, let's not pretend the average person is at risk of being forced to sell land they own. It applies only to people who buy up land and leave it undeveloped waiting for it to become of interest for housing.

 

4) Compulsory purchase of homes is nothing new, happens all the time. Corbyn was talking about empty homes in the context of it being a solution for people being made homeless by Grenfell. Struggling to understand how twisted one's priorities would have to be for that not to make sense as an idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m not sure that’s true toddy, as they make me feel a bit uneasy. Compulsory purchase is a sensitive ground and there is definitely a case for it in certain circumstances but I don’t accept that it should be at below market level.

I supported Labours plans to build more homes and many other policies but unless you can quote me I have no recollection of supporting them. 

You'd have to go back to shortly after Grenville but I'm quite sure somebody like webbo railed against the idea of compulsory purchase out London houses and you were very straightforward in saying good. I was surprised. I think the assumption all round was that they wouldn't be paying market price for empty London homes.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharpe's Fox

Sharpe's Fox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

- Parliament setting the price government pays for shares of companies it wants to nationalise

- Parliament setting the price of PFI contracts, or even there being no compensation at all

- Forcing land owners to sell land significantly below market price

- Talk of requisitioning homes after Grenfell, and also mandating local authorities to take possession of empty homes

 

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

1) Not strictly property, but ok. I think McDonnell suggested firms whose behaviour was deemed poor might be nationalised at less than market value. I can't see that happening myself and it's not formal labour policy anyway.

 

2) Not property again but ok. McDonnell has said that he would bring PFI contracts in house (which Labour later formally stated would mean simply a review taking place), nowhere can I find anybody saying parliament would set the price or there being no compensation at all. Again, I find it hard to imagine that ever happening and it's not formal labour policy.

 

3) Assume you're talking about the idea of undeveloped land being sold at pre-planning permission value? I can see the concerns here but equally I think land-hoarding is immoral. I'd be more in favour of changing the law for the future, rather than putting existing investments at risk. But it has limited application anyway, let's not pretend the average person is at risk of being forced to sell land they own. It applies only to people who buy up land and leave it undeveloped waiting for it to become of interest for housing.

 

4) Compulsory purchase of homes is nothing new, happens all the time. Corbyn was talking about empty homes in the context of it being a solution for people being made homeless by Grenfell. Struggling to understand how twisted one's priorities would have to be for that not to make sense as an idea.

 

It is property. A property right is just a basic term to cover the right of ownership, doesn't have to be some tangible bit of land. It's not formal policy, just been repeated more than once by the man that wants to be chancellor and therefore in control of this stuff.

 

McDonnell said in a meeting with activists that parliament would decide the price or even decide not to pay compensation. But yes I suppose I'm supposed to disbelieve the potential chancellor. You often encounter this defence of Labour, either they didn't mean it, didn't see it, or some related nonsense.

 

Yet land banking does serve a useful purpose, partly due to restrictive planning laws but no mention of changing that to help the situation. And biggest single culprit of land banking is the public sector. I note that Labour did support the use of public sector land in their housing manifesto (you previously denounced this as not official policy mind) so no need for such infringements on private property

 

Compulsory purchase and requisitioning are different. One involves compensation, one is just seizure. One requires demonstration of necessity, one is on the state's whim. One can be appealed, one can't (tho actually the EU protects owners through ECHR). It doesn't make sense because it doesn't just solve the problem. I'd also hope anyone that respects the rule of law, so key for the functioning of our legal system, democracy, and economy would oppose government seizing property on a whim, whether it suits some anti-rich populist argument or not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rogstanley

Rogstanley

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

It is property. A property right is just a basic term to cover the right of ownership, doesn't have to be some tangible bit of land. It's not formal policy, just been repeated more than once by the man that wants to be chancellor and therefore in control of this stuff.

 

McDonnell said in a meeting with activists that parliament would decide the price or even decide not to pay compensation. But yes I suppose I'm supposed to disbelieve the potential chancellor. You often encounter this defence of Labour, either they didn't mean it, didn't see it, or some related nonsense.

 

Yet land banking does serve a useful purpose, partly due to restrictive planning laws but no mention of changing that to help the situation. And biggest single culprit of land banking is the public sector. I note that Labour did support the use of public sector land in their housing manifesto (you previously denounced this as not official policy mind) so no need for such infringements on private property

 

Compulsory purchase and requisitioning are different. One involves compensation, one is just seizure. One requires demonstration of necessity, one is on the state's whim. One can be appealed, one can't (tho actually the EU protects owners through ECHR). It doesn't make sense because it doesn't just solve the problem. I'd also hope anyone that respects the rule of law, so key for the functioning of our legal system, democracy, and economy would oppose government seizing property on a whim, whether it suits some anti-rich populist argument or not.

Fine

 

Where is the record of what McDonnell said in this meeting? Parliament deciding isn't the same as Labour deciding not to pay anything anyway. Ridiculous hyperbole.

 

We aren't discussing other ways to help the situation, pure whataboutery there.

 

Corbyn didn't say anything about requisitioning, he brought up compulsory purchase. The fact that you think the helping the victims of the Grenfell disaster represents a "whim" is deeply troubling to be honest and like I said before, I struggle to comprehend such inhumane priorities.

Edited by Rogstanley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Fine

 

Where is the record of what McDonnell said in this meeting? Parliament deciding isn't the same as Labour deciding not to pay anything anyway. Ridiculous hyperbole.

 

We aren't discussing other ways to help the situation, pure whataboutery there.

 

Corbyn didn't say anything about requisitioning, he brought up compulsory purchase. The fact that you think the helping the victims of the Grenfell disaster represents a "whim" is deeply troubling to be honest and like I said before, I struggle to comprehend such inhumane priorities.

It's not whataboutery, it's the point that if you want to target land bankers then the public sector is the biggest culprit, there'svyour land, no need to rob private land owners.

 

 

Corbyn's words were "requisition if necessary" and "seize". He also said "We would find a way to do this if necessary - we are looking into the ways in which it could be done depending on circumstances." Why would he need to find a way if it's just simple as compulsory purchase in line with current law?

I didn't say helping them was a whim, the policy of taking ownership of property was on a whim. A whim - a sudden notion or desire. So it is on a whim. How much it would have helped really is up for debate anyway, there are other ways than a witch-hunt against the rich.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/a73c4056-130b-11e8-940e-08320fc2a277

This month he told a meeting of Labour activists in east London that MPs would also get to decide whether there was any compensation at all. “Parliament will determine whether or not we provide compensation and on what scale,” he said.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rogstanley

Rogstanley

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

It's not whataboutery, it's the point that if you want to target land bankers then the public sector is the biggest culprit, there'svyour land, no need to rob private land owners.

 

 

Corbyn's words were "requisition if necessary" and "seize". He also said "We would find a way to do this if necessary - we are looking into the ways in which it could be done depending on circumstances." Why would he need to find a way if it's just simple as compulsory purchase in line with current law?

I didn't say helping them was a whim, the policy of taking ownership of property was on a whim. A whim - a sudden notion or desire. So it is on a whim. How much it would have helped really is up for debate anyway, there are other ways than a witch-hunt against the rich.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/a73c4056-130b-11e8-940e-08320fc2a277

This month he told a meeting of Labour activists in east London that MPs would also get to decide whether there was any compensation at all. “Parliament will determine whether or not we provide compensation and on what scale,” he said.

 

 

So his worst offence was his impassioned comment that in an emergency situation like Grenfell he would be prepared to requisition a home if necessary (ie if that was the absolute last option). Describing that as him having "no respect for property rights" is a laughable exaggeration tbqh.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

So his worst offence was his impassioned comment that in an emergency situation like Grenfell he would be prepared to requisition a home if necessary (ie if that was the absolute last option). Describing that as him having "no respect for property rights" is a laughable exaggeration tbqh.

 

 

 

Yes that is exactly what Corbyn said and that was the whole crux of the argument and it has been entirely dispelled. Top work from troll Rog, Moose, Frank or whoever the old folk think you are. Deary me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Claridge said:

Corbyn has a meeting with the Jewish Council and sorts nothing out. Why have the meeting? He can’t be that stupid surely, must see racism as a vote winner,easy group to attack the Jews.

Where have you got this from?

He wrote a piece in the standard today stuff was get forthright about the need to tackle anti-Semitism. Struggling to see why he's seen being attacked in it at this stage. Though obvs this depends on what you've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Teresa May's been fibbing again. Sigh.

 

UK liable for 'divorce bill' even with no Brexit trade deal – NAO chief

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/24/uk-liable-for-divorce-bill-even-with-no-brexit-trade-deal-nao-chief?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

 

You think there's divisions and problems in the country now. Wait til we end up paying £40bn to stay in the customs union lol. Might have to apply for jobs elsewhere.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl the Llama

Carl the Llama

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MattP said:

Sounds like the meeting with Jewish groups went well lol

 

IMG_20180424_204348.jpg

Corbyn's official facebook page has the following statement:

 

Quote

 

I am grateful to the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Community Security Trust for a positive and constructive meeting about tackling antisemitism.

I am absolutely committed to rooting out antisemitism from our party and our society.

When members of Jewish communities express genuine anxieties, we must recognise them as we would those of any other community. Their concerns are not “smears”. Jews belong in the Labour Party and we are utterly committed to making it a safe and welcoming place for them.

I have charged our new General Secretary Jennie Formby with improving our disciplinary procedures as her top priority to ensure all complaints are dealt with swiftly and fairly. We are grateful for the input from Jewish community groups, who we will continue to listen to carefully.

We will lay out the further steps we are taking in the coming weeks. We will continue to engage and work with Jewish community organisations to deal with this issue. Our party will not fail our Jewish brothers and sisters.

 

 

So what exactly is the charge against him here, that he is receptive of and responsive to lobbyists but won't be dictated to by them? 

 

I find your hard on for any negative press about Corbyn a bit odd.  Especially on an issue like this where he's being accused of failing to deal with prejudice within his party adequately which is a serious issue - especially if the accusations from some corners of deliberate inaction rather than sluggish incompetence are true - but one that comes at a time where the incumbent government appear guilty of actively taking deliberate actions to enforce the marginalisation and wrongful deportation of minorities which to my mind is a bit more serious than being incompetent at dealing with the words and social media posts of people with relatively little public influence and no control over the civil service.

Edited by Carl the Llama
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...