Opinion of Corbyn's proposal for Grenfell victims

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Jeremy Corbyn has proposed that private properties not being used by their owners be seized to house the homeless victims of the Grenfell fire.

[The Self]

If the business class there were smart, they'd donate the houses and score a PR coup.

[SATW]

horrible idea. corbyn is scum not robin hood.

[JA]

Huge Freedom Idea

[OSR stands with Israel]

horrible idea. corbyn is scum not robin hood.

[RFayette]

horrible idea. corbyn is scum not robin hood.

This, but Robin Hood is bad too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Massive freedom idea. Legitimate ownership consists in doing something with one's property that's of some use, ideally to others but at the very least to oneself. (This isn't even a specifically socialist concept; it appears in some form in both Aquinas and Locke.) If these were National Trust properties, or even properties that were already being rented, my perspective might be different.

horrible idea. corbyn is scum not robin hood.

This, but Robin Hood is bad too.

RFayette, I have a lot of respect for you, but it's dismaying that you've (in my view) over-committed to right-wing ideology to the point where you're criticizing folk heroes from eight hundred years ago for not being loyal Reaganite drones. You don't see me saying King Arthur is "bad too" for being a non-constitutional monarch.

[SATW]

horrible idea. corbyn is scum not robin hood.

This, but Robin Hood is bad too.

of course. the whole idea of a robin hood is misguided nonsense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Also, coming from anybody hand-wringing over the abstract ideological implications of this proposal in the face of the human suffering it's meant to address, I'm never going to take insinuations about left-wing ideas being "great in theory, but..." or utopian exercises divorced from reality seriously ever again.

[DavidB.]

A year ago I would have said it's horrible, now I'm not sure anymore. I really don't know.

[parochial boy]

Also, coming from anybody hand-wringing over the abstract ideological implications of this proposal in the face of the human suffering it's meant to address, I'm never going to take insinuations about left-wing ideas being "great in theory, but..." or utopian exercises divorced from reality seriously ever again.

This, also it needs to be pointed out just how disgraceful the housing situation in London actually is - these empty homes are, in many ways, empty boxes that are owned by Russian billionaires as a means of money laundering. And they have contributed to the insanity that is London housing these days, where people on low, or even medium incomes, are forced into the kind of crap quality, unsafe housing of the likes of Greenfell tower.

[SWE]

Freedom idea (not a fan of forcing poor people to burn to death)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As long as the owners are compensated sure. It's basically eminent domain with a very valid cause.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

As long as the owners are compensated sure. It's basically eminent domain with a very valid cause.

I believe the appeal of this rests on the idea that the owners won't be compensated, since otherwise this proposal would be a most expensive way of housing the fire victims and you could surely find them decent housing for cheaper.

[Kingpoleon]

horrible idea. corbyn is scum not robin hood.

This, but Robin Hood is bad too.

of course. the whole idea of a robin hood is misguided nonsense.

... Not if you actually read the story and believe in civilian resistance from corrupt and oppressive magistrates.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Terrible.

[RFayette]

horrible idea. corbyn is scum not robin hood.

This, but Robin Hood is bad too.

RFayette, I have a lot of respect for you, but it's dismaying that you've (in my view) over-committed to right-wing ideology to the point where you're criticizing folk heroes from eight hundred years ago for not being loyal Reaganite drones. You don't see me saying King Arthur is "bad too" for being a non-constitutional monarch.

I understand where you're coming from, but what I meant was that the popular idea of Robin Hood - stealing from the rich to give to the poor - is not noble, as theft is fundamentally wrong, even if the targets of said theft are not the most savory characters.  It's not about ideology per se (though my instincts are generally anti-redistribution), but rather the unlawful means the character took to advance them. In this sense, I see Robin Hood as worse than Corbyn, because Corbyn, should this pass, is at least going through legal channels.  As someone who views the right to property as pretty absolute, I find proposals such as Corbyn's troubling (though this is not my biggest problem with his, as it's his views on foreign policy and terrorism I personally find by far the most execrable), the whole idea of Robin Hood of the popular imagination as a "good guy" is concerning.   I see it the same way as how Depression-era banks likely were guilty of malfeasance, but this in no way makes John Dillinger any kind of hero, and putting lawbreakers, fictional or real, on a pedestal is the wrong way to go.

[Arturo Belano]

Common sense.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I have nothing in principle against it, although there may be more comprehensive and useful solutions for the general problem like heavily taxing empty homes, creating a public house building corporation, cutting tax credits or fining those with empty rooms etc etc

But yeah I'm not going to start crying because some Arab sheikh or American billionaire or minor aristocrat or Russian oligarch loses the ability to use his home for a few months. Problem is if they sue, and it all gets caught up in paperwork.

[Goldwater]

Honestly, I'm actually inclined to support this, assuming the  properties in question are actually currently not being lived or being used for commercial purposes.

[Kingpoleon]

horrible idea. corbyn is scum not robin hood.

This, but Robin Hood is bad too.

RFayette, I have a lot of respect for you, but it's dismaying that you've (in my view) over-committed to right-wing ideology to the point where you're criticizing folk heroes from eight hundred years ago for not being loyal Reaganite drones. You don't see me saying King Arthur is "bad too" for being a non-constitutional monarch.

I understand where you're coming from, but what I meant was that the popular idea of Robin Hood - stealing from the rich to give to the poor - is not noble, as theft is fundamentally wrong, even if the targets of said theft are not the most savory characters.  It's not about ideology per se (though my instincts are generally anti-redistribution), but rather the unlawful means the character took to advance them. In this sense, I see Robin Hood as worse than Corbyn, because Corbyn, should this pass, is at least going through legal channels.  As someone who views the right to property as pretty absolute, I find proposals such as Corbyn's troubling (though this is not my biggest problem with his, as it's his views on foreign policy and terrorism I personally find by far the most execrable), the whole idea of Robin Hood of the popular imagination as a "good guy" is concerning.   I see it the same way as how Depression-era banks likely were guilty of malfeasance, but this in no way makes John Dillinger any kind of hero, and putting lawbreakers, fictional or real, on a pedestal is the wrong way to go.

You do know the regime/elite he stole from literally blinded people who tried to not starve because the regime/elite took all their money, correct?

[Santander]

Authoritarians use crises as excuses to implement tyranny.

[publicunofficial]

Completely support, and city governments should make laws about preventing foreign buyers from buying up properties with no intention of living in them.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Freedom Idea

F**k "property rights".

[ZuWo]

Corbyn certainly is an effective populist.