Republic of Britain

The London tower fire made around 600 people homeless. Given housing shortages that is a lot of beds to find. Mr Corbyn's proposal to requisition empty properties therefore seems very sensible.

There are derelict properties just begging to be renovated. Requisition them, tidy them up fast as temporary accommodation, and everyone wins. The tower residents will have a place to stay while permanent housing is arranged. Once they have been rehoused then the property can be returned to the owner, having had a face lift.

What's not to like?

Except that Mr Corbyn said, "It cannot be acceptable that in London you have luxury buildings and flats kept as land banking for the future, while the homeless and poor look for somewhere to live."

So he was talking about requisitioning the houses of the rich to give to the poor. Clearly on message - the Labour manifesto promised big increases in tax for the rich and for companies, worth £6.4 billion a year, in order to increase funding for benefits and the NHS.

The first question has to be - was this just a sound bite stunt? Clearly not - Mr Corbyn does get involved in poorly stage-managed stunts (train seats, for example) but this suggestion was from the heart.

The next is - what does 'luxury' mean, and how empty is 'empty'? Only used at weekends? For holidays? No-one resident but used by family and friends for London visits? When my grandmother died we didn't sell the place immediately - so presumably it was empty. Was it a 'luxury' flat? Ask someone who has been burnt out of a cheap-build tower block what 'luxury' means to them.

The third question, though, is the most provoking.

Mr Corbyn is a believer in nationalisation. His suggestion is simply that we nationalise private housing at need, 'luxury' housing specifically. If the purpose was to simply provide a place for people to live then renting from the private rental market would be simpler and sufficient (and far cheaper - the rich can pay for very good lawyers).

So the third question is: What else might suddenly become desirable to nationalise or to requisition - and which groups might seem publicly acceptable to target?

My concern is not with nationalisation or requisitioning itself. It is the targeting of a certain group and the removal of their assets without due process or recourse. When the government increases the top tax rate? Get a better accountant. When officials can simply take your home... get a new passport and a plane ticket.

Many governments have taken this road, as it looks an easy road. The Republic of Zimbabwe is a prime example of where the road leads.

Would you want to live in the Republic of Britain?

Nothing has changed

If it wasn't tragic it would be funny. Mrs May starts the electoral campaign (which no-one wanted) with high hopes, a slim majority, and an unassailable lead over the opposition. No need to say where it has ended.

We are still waiting to hear whether the DUP will join Mrs May's government... The DUP?! A coalition of chaos indeed (with large lumps of cash sweeteners to help it along).

Strong and stable?! It isn't as if Mrs May and her advisers didn't already know how inaccurate that was. Her flagship policies were regularly launched, and just as regularly sank without trace (remember the workers on company boards? JAMs? No early election? National Insurance? Hinkley Point?). It was only surprising how quickly the social care policy sank - four days after launching it in the manifesto. The first election campaign U-turn in modern history.

It didn't help that she then claimed "nothing has changed". We know politicians are liars (I realise the correct modern term is 'spin' not 'bald-faced lie', but 'spinners', really?), however we expect at least some respect. Claims that black is white (or, say, "nothing has changed") will only be swallowed by the true believers. Of course, even then she didn't give any figures. There would be a cap - to be discussed after the election.

Most damning was the fact that the Dilnot report has recommended a cap and that party members assumed that would be the policy. Instead Mrs May and her secret coterie dreamed this disaster up without consultation, even adding a dig at Cameron for listening to Dilnot. Meanwhile she (for never would the words 'Conservative Party' pass her lips - she told us to vote for her) also announced she was taking winter fuel payments from pensioners. Her staunchest voters given a one-two by their own preferred party.

Did she actually want to lose? Or does she simply have no idea about what ordinary people want?

At least there was a silver lining - those advisers are out.