labour party compulsory purchase of agricultural land for building ,at agricultural value

[toquark]

I don't think Thatcher's right to buy was a bad thing necessarily, it gave millions the opportunity to build meaningful capital as for the first time. The negative consequences were that removal of the "first step" of affordable rented accommodation, which today, unless you can prove your incapable of work or you choose to bang out 5 kids by the time your 20 is all but impossible to get. To make it work all they needed to do was replace the homes lost to the private sector.

 

[DrWazzock]

I don't think Thatcher's right to buy was a bad thing necessarily, it gave millions the opportunity to build meaningful capital as for the first time. The negative consequences were that removal of the "first step" of affordable rented accommodation, which today, unless you can prove your incapable of work or you choose to bang out 5 kids by the time your 20 is all but impossible to get. To make it work all they needed to do was replace the homes lost to the private sector.

“… replace the homes lost to the private sector.”

Why should the state “feed” cheap homes into the private sector for private gain?
If the state had held onto council housing then look how that state asset would have gained in value. But no, it was sold off cheap for private gain, leaving those only able to afford a low rent high and dry.

 

[toquark]

“… replace the homes lost to the private sector.”

Why should the state “feed” cheap homes into the private sector for private gain?
If the state had held onto council housing then look how that state asset would have gained in value. But no, it was sold off cheap for private gain, leaving those only able to afford a low rent high and dry.

Well I suppose one could argue there should have been a limit on the number sold, with the strict proviso that they be replaced like for like. An annual cap on the number sold, along with the reduction of the discount applied would have probably been sensible in hindsight also. The hypothetical value gain to the exchequer is fairly meaningless...unless they sold them, plus that value gain would have been more limited if there was a policy of replacement of the council stock.

We're debating the merits of a policy introduced in 1980 to tackle the problems of the day in the context of the 2020s.

 

[Lowland1]

“… replace the homes lost to the private sector.”

Why should the state “feed” cheap homes into the private sector for private gain?
If the state had held onto council housing then look how that state asset would have gained in value. But no, it was sold off cheap for private gain, leaving those only able to afford a low rent high and dry.

It was a bribe nothing more nothing less. The idea was to convert the socialist council house dwellers into conservative voting property owners so they sold state assets at a knock down price. It most certainly worked you can’t separate your average red wall northerner from your home counties southerner nowadays.

 

[FonterraFarmer]

Buckingham Palace already belongs to the state. The office of The Crown is a department of state.

Then no need to buy it ,just knock it down, what a waste of space ,ffs.

 

[FonterraFarmer]

The Russians still love Stalin too even though he killed lots of them. A good idea of how democracy struggles is apparently the UK has 3.7 million people who are so unwell they are exempted from having to look for work this is out of 5.2 million people claiming work benefits. Any political party saying that it will sort this out is liable to be 3.7 million votes down straight away. Oh for the old days when Labour looked after the working class and the Conservatives us upper class folks.

I've actually been to the USSR, Stalin isn't mentioned as their hate is probably double what New Zealanders think of our political prostitute Ardern!!!

 

[FonterraFarmer]

Strange how those on the Left are SO focused on hatred towards private land owners.

Yet IF there is an actual problem then there was NEVER a need to confiscate private land anyway - so all this cr@p coming out of sanctimonious mouths, who have obviously NEVER been at the lowest end of the property or rental market anyway.

If any of you had you would already know all you are doing is creating hell on Earth where the poorest who are decent live amongst the worst dumped there by Government - Drug & Alcohol addicts, Violence, Abuse, Physical & Mental Health, Benefits Cheats etc. I know because I HAVE lived amongst it - I've been on the lowest rung possible and it's totally shocking to see a destitute young family with a baby thrown in amongst drug addicts by the "Social Services".

Anyway back to the stupidity of Confiscating Privately owned land just for the sake of it.


The Crown Estate own 1000s of acres near me - why aren't they building houses on their land ? Same goes for the Church ? Same for the Council ? Same for the foresty Commission ? In total I bet in my locality we are talking 10,000s of acres all practically free.

The government (together with its QUANGOs) is the biggest land owner by area, the Forestry Commission owning some 2,200,000 acres (890,000 ha), the MoD 1,101,851 acres (445,903 ha), the Crown Estate 678,420 acres (274,550 ha), DEFRA 116,309 acres (47,069 ha) and Homes England 19,349 acres (7,830 ha).[3] Other large central government landowners include the Environment Agency and National Highways, apart from extensive local government holdings. Merton College, Oxford University owns 14,707 acres (5,952 ha),[3] and other colleges and universities have varying land holdings, from campus, playing fields and accommodation to significant endowments in town and country.

Charities, trusts and the Church of England are also significant land owners. The National Trust and the National Trust for Scotland own 589,748 acres (238,663 ha), the RSPB 332,000 acres (134,000 ha), the Duke of Atholl's Trusts 145,000 acres (59,000 ha), the Church of England 105,000 acres (42,000 ha) and the Honourable Artillery Company 14,209 acres (5,750 ha).[3]

Milton Keynes???

 

[FonterraFarmer]

Labour needs to get back to pipe smoking white heat of technology Harold Wilson style optimism and faith and trust in the people. I’d nearly vote for them then.

Its been said that our current government thinks substance abuse is quite normal, even at the 9th floor, allegedly.

 

[Lowland1]

I've actually been to the USSR, Stalin isn't mentioned as their hate is probably double what New Zealanders think of our political prostitute Ardern!!!

I've been to Russia too they love Stalin. I'm pretty sure you're a bit fixated and possibly a bit misogynistic over Ms Ardern.

 

[Still Farming]

Lot of the RSL (residential social landlords) and housing associations are closely involved with Grant's and subsidies promoted under the Welsh Senedd Labour Government too allegedly.

 

[FonterraFarmer]

I've been to Russia too they love Stalin. I'm pretty sure you're a bit fixated and possibly a bit misogynistic over Ms Ardern.

Nothing remotely misogynistic with Ardern, she's always been ineffective and useless, always struggled to make decisions, political prostitute best describes her.
Her failure in doing her job as PM incompetently will have repercussions for decades.

 

[FonterraFarmer]

I've been to Russia too they love Stalin. I'm pretty sure you're a bit fixated and possibly a bit misogynistic over Ms Ardern.

Russian president dolls, who was the one always missing???

 

[Lowland1]

Nothing remotely misogynistic with Ardern, she's always been ineffective and useless, always struggled to make decisions, political prostitute best describes her.
Her failure in doing her job as PM incompetently will have repercussions for decades.

I didn’t read the political bit so apologies in this case.

 

[Courier]

.. ……

We're debating the merits of a policy introduced in 1980 to tackle the problems of the day in the context of the 2020s.

Just goes to show the long term effects that extremist policies can have …..