Easy to say as you clearly believe otherwise. For some reason you have blind faith in this man, he can certainly do no wrong in your eyes, but if you live to regret it I like to think I would not be so insensitive as to rub it in. It would also be rather stupid anyway as it would clearly affect me and most other people too. I guess time will tell - and it will be too late by then so God help us ALL if you are wrong.

God help us all now!!! :/

The logic of how it could damage the economy (in the form described) is sound enough... The reason that the "doom and gloom" is false is that it relies on the premise that Corbyn could come into power and make large sweeping changes to housing and other legislation on a personal whim... Which we all know is simply not the case. Our government is set up specifically to stop things like that from being possible.

Although like I said I do think some changes need to be made to private rental, given that it is increasingly how people are going to be living. Stable homes are vital.

Haven’t you put that up before?

The property owners Corbyn wants to chase after and lets not forget that May says she wants to do the same thing... but won't, is the large corporate investors who buy up entire streets. Presently we have streets in London and other major cities, sitting empty. Purchased by wealthy Russians, Chinese and Saudis. These properties were never purchased with the intention of living in them or renting them. They are merely a nest egg and therefore, Corbyn and May's idea on compulsory purchase are the right way to go. I think May's just slapping her lips and I think Corbyn will go ahead with it.

The other is land sales. Agricultural land has a present value of around £20k a hector but once it becomes building land the price goes up to around £2million a hector. This means that any property built on this land has to have a massive price tag. What Corbyn has suggested and I wholeheartedly agree, is that instead of allowing a land owner to sit on waste land for years, it can be purchased by compulsory purchase and more affordable housing built on it.

I have seen no cites regarding Corbyn buying rental property that's in use.

Presently, before a housing estate gets planning permission, a percentage of those not yet built houses have to be sold. Brokers put a percentage of those unbuilt houses out to tender at a massively knocked down price. Along come the investors and buy up that percentage (Jo blogs never gets to hear about it). Once the house is built, the investor can either rent it out for the house value, which is much more than what he paid for it or sell it and make a healthy profit.

What Corbyn wants to do is buy up that percentage and not allow it to fall into investors hands.

And you know this? So you and Kirk have the credible and verifiable cites?

And what about your cites for your previous post. Pot and kettle. Or are we supposed to take you at your word?

Totally agree,Corbyn getting power would be a massive mistake and a total disaster

Kirk put up accusations with no cites and the other person thanked him for the facts! I have attempted to google some of those facts but can't find it.

I, on the other hand, wrote something that most people will be fully aware of and could pull that stuff up on google in one fowl swoop.

As for you, you revel in any slites against Corbyn, including and especially the propaganda. I bet you loved the bit about 'Marxism'. Corbyn has never advocated using any style of Marxism in the UK... Not ever but if you use that word enough, people will latch on.

Nope.

It looks familiar.

It might, he's made 100s of youtube vids.

Then he needs to stop lying and coming up with hare - brained schemes and promises to get votes that he must know won't be possible. He's already known for doing this and it makes him look like the clown he is.

could you explain it to me please, as in how it would damage the economy?

I think right to buy is all daft anyway. While we have a lack of council houses, we are selling them off at a discount. Makes no sense. Would be fine if we were rebuilding more, but it does not seem that way.

I am sure that Corbyn is not meaning that all landlords should have to sell their properties at a discount..thats a bit out there even for him tbh

Maybe someone should seize his house and give it to or sell it at a discount to a more needy family. Wonder what he would think of that! He earns enough to pay rent someone else. Is that the way anyone really wants this country to go.

I can't possibly comment as I'm buying mine... Mind you I have lived in it for over 20yrs :/

A genuine question Kizzy - isn’t socialism against home ownership - what I have read says it is. If this is the case then neither yourself or Corbyn are real socialists - it all seems a bit pick and mix to me.

Oh I could take advantage of this scheme too (if I had the cash..)

I still disagree with it though. I don't blame people for actually doing it though, when the option is there. I just don't think the option SHOULD be there. Seems daft to me, unless they were to build new council places for each that was sold off.

We have had some lovely council houses built here,they are so far removed from the council days of old,and they mix private and council together on new estates,seems to work here.

All those calling Corbyn a socialist don't understand what socialism is.
Anyone who wants to leave capitalism intact is not a socialist. We could call them a soft and fluffy socialist thinkers but socialist they are not.
As for Marxism :facepalm: Corbyn is about as far away from Marxism as Thatcher was from socialism.

The forced sale of properties at below market value would be "artificially" meddling with the housing market and that is always a bad idea. Also, in an ideal world, it would all be people genuinely buying their family home to live in but in all likelihood (as happened with council right to buy) what you'd actually get is an influx of people buying for reduced cost and then almost immediately selling on at full market value for profit.

Also, like I said, we're increasingly in a country where most people are in private rentals and too much heavy handed government interference is likely to prompt those who are buying property as an asset to simply sit on an empty property, rather than renting it out at all. Worse still, the announcement of any such legislation coming into effect is HIGHLY likely to prompt a huge number of private landlords to sell up before it's enacted, which not only is likely to collapse the housing market over night, but would also see untold numbers of private renting families losing their rented home.

That was started just after Blair came into office and it started because during Blairs campaign, he was warned not to campaign on private estates and to stick to large council estates. After getting into office he put in place the idea to mix council houses amongst private houses with the same look and same facilities the private owners enjoyed.

Have I ever professed to be a socialist?

But lets be realists here most people want a home to call their own... Should you want to own the whole street and charge exorbitant rents, have several mahoosive homes that nobody lives in or a home that sits on acres and acres of unused land..That's a separate issue.

Marx himself was a homeowner, it is when ownership becomes exploitative it is considered 'antisocial'.