I would argue that we do in fact live in a tyranny if the power to remove property rights from an individual even exists. Simply because that power hasn't been exercised YET is no comfort - it can only be a matter of time.
Spot on David. As I used to work in this field it’s I can add something as to the existence of empty properties and the use of CPOs. Empty property definitions mean empty for 6 months+ and long-term means over 2 years. Councils will have a number of these and the reasons they are empty vary. It often relates to the death of an owner; there is no title, wrangles about a will, dealing with a protracted sale. Others are things like ‘saving’ the property until the market improves, fights with planning etc. The property of course deteriorates and becomes a blight on the area. Normally action by a local authority consists of negotiating with the owner. It’s expensive and time consuming. CPOs are normally out of the question due to the expense. In this case they are now a first suggestion. Makes me think that Government directly or indirectly may well have agreed to stump up the money for the specific purpose of making over the property for asylum seekers. Yet they couldn’t do that to release the property back into the pool of scarce social housing? Ummm
In terms of property rights the Government will push it as far as they think they can, after all they have a burgeoning population to house and house building isn’t going to get them there. Maybe the next step will be abolishing the single person council tax rebate. We shall see.
Fascinating - thank you for providing clarity on this issue. It seems all part and parcel of the mindset that now seeks to claim state ownership of our very bodies, which has been the wake up call for so many of us. And scarily it seems easier to persuade people to give this up than their homes...
Of all things one would expect a judiciary to uphold, it would be private property rights. In my view, that's the only sacred thing to our judiciary. What's the point of being a judge if you can't bank on your property?
I’m afraid that ship sailed centuries ago. What’s really protected property rights has been the restraint of the legislature. We’re now seeing that gradually eroding. (This is one of many things Marxists just never understood.)
An elderly friend of mine has just had a bungalow compulsorily purchased by Great Yarmouth Council under their empty homes initiative . In fairness he bought it in 1999 and never occupied or maintained it and has ignored years of letters from them. But he has been paying a punitive 4x council tax on it.
Yes. I have just been extremely irritated by a piece in The Guardian arguing for 'the abolition of landlordism' by which the writer seems to mean that somehow the private rented sector should pass into the hands of the state. It's a piece typical of the times: it doesn't explicitly advocate a policy of compulsory purchase or any other coercive measure but it seeks to create a general climate in which such a shift becomes more and more acceptable to the public, creating the idea of a 'bad group' (landlords) and offering a simple solution: their abolition.
This sort of tactic is being used in many sectors now, notably the new demonisation of drivers and accompanying 'solutions' of closing roads and installing fine-producing cameras as local authorities seek to gain unprecedented control over public space. I've just published a short book about Albania, still not recovered from a 50-year dictatorship and the parallels seem obvious to me, even if the techniques used to take power are less blatant.
Yes, great comment. My concern is that while at the moment it's subtle, it's becoming less so as time goes by. Adam Smith made the case centuries ago that the 'man of system', who wants to control everything, sooner or later gets angry when it turns out that people don't like being controlled and refuse to follow his wonderful plans. The anger of the governing class is brewing - you can feel it.
It certainly is becoming more and more blatant. I'm at the stage where I think that's a good, or at least necessary thing, as Western citizens have become complacent that they won't see it otherwise. The ways of refusal are many. Interesting times lie ahead!
The transfer of 'justice' from the benefit of one group to another reminds me of the transfer of wealth during the austerity era following the financial crisis. It's a blatant and arbitrary dismissal of the interests of one group to another's advantage.
I would argue that we do in fact live in a tyranny if the power to remove property rights from an individual even exists. Simply because that power hasn't been exercised YET is no comfort - it can only be a matter of time.
Spot on David. As I used to work in this field it’s I can add something as to the existence of empty properties and the use of CPOs. Empty property definitions mean empty for 6 months+ and long-term means over 2 years. Councils will have a number of these and the reasons they are empty vary. It often relates to the death of an owner; there is no title, wrangles about a will, dealing with a protracted sale. Others are things like ‘saving’ the property until the market improves, fights with planning etc. The property of course deteriorates and becomes a blight on the area. Normally action by a local authority consists of negotiating with the owner. It’s expensive and time consuming. CPOs are normally out of the question due to the expense. In this case they are now a first suggestion. Makes me think that Government directly or indirectly may well have agreed to stump up the money for the specific purpose of making over the property for asylum seekers. Yet they couldn’t do that to release the property back into the pool of scarce social housing? Ummm
In terms of property rights the Government will push it as far as they think they can, after all they have a burgeoning population to house and house building isn’t going to get them there. Maybe the next step will be abolishing the single person council tax rebate. We shall see.
It would make total sense that the Home Office would be funding councils to do this (or making noises about doing so).
Fascinating - thank you for providing clarity on this issue. It seems all part and parcel of the mindset that now seeks to claim state ownership of our very bodies, which has been the wake up call for so many of us. And scarily it seems easier to persuade people to give this up than their homes...
Of all things one would expect a judiciary to uphold, it would be private property rights. In my view, that's the only sacred thing to our judiciary. What's the point of being a judge if you can't bank on your property?
I’m afraid that ship sailed centuries ago. What’s really protected property rights has been the restraint of the legislature. We’re now seeing that gradually eroding. (This is one of many things Marxists just never understood.)
An elderly friend of mine has just had a bungalow compulsorily purchased by Great Yarmouth Council under their empty homes initiative . In fairness he bought it in 1999 and never occupied or maintained it and has ignored years of letters from them. But he has been paying a punitive 4x council tax on it.
That's fascinating. I have to wonder why he bought it in the first place!
Yes. I have just been extremely irritated by a piece in The Guardian arguing for 'the abolition of landlordism' by which the writer seems to mean that somehow the private rented sector should pass into the hands of the state. It's a piece typical of the times: it doesn't explicitly advocate a policy of compulsory purchase or any other coercive measure but it seeks to create a general climate in which such a shift becomes more and more acceptable to the public, creating the idea of a 'bad group' (landlords) and offering a simple solution: their abolition.
This sort of tactic is being used in many sectors now, notably the new demonisation of drivers and accompanying 'solutions' of closing roads and installing fine-producing cameras as local authorities seek to gain unprecedented control over public space. I've just published a short book about Albania, still not recovered from a 50-year dictatorship and the parallels seem obvious to me, even if the techniques used to take power are less blatant.
Yes, great comment. My concern is that while at the moment it's subtle, it's becoming less so as time goes by. Adam Smith made the case centuries ago that the 'man of system', who wants to control everything, sooner or later gets angry when it turns out that people don't like being controlled and refuse to follow his wonderful plans. The anger of the governing class is brewing - you can feel it.
It certainly is becoming more and more blatant. I'm at the stage where I think that's a good, or at least necessary thing, as Western citizens have become complacent that they won't see it otherwise. The ways of refusal are many. Interesting times lie ahead!
The transfer of 'justice' from the benefit of one group to another reminds me of the transfer of wealth during the austerity era following the financial crisis. It's a blatant and arbitrary dismissal of the interests of one group to another's advantage.
Yes, no doubt - the most egregious example in recent history, and something that has conveniently been memoryholed by the establishment.
I understand Michael Gove’s reasoning here but I can’t believe he doesn’t understand how fundamentally anti-conservative it is.