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?
No comments:
Post a Comment