"Labour will allow councils to seize abandoned shops to give them a new lease of life as cooperatives or community centres" Typical! Another policy based on theft. Those shops are owned by someone, who may already be desperate because they can't fill them. theguardian.com/politics/2019/…
So what would Corbyn do? Steal the properties off their owners and just hand them to the state.
This is the perfect example of why Labour finds it so hard to win the backing of businesses.
This is the perfect example of why Labour finds it so hard to win the backing of businesses.
It's hyper populist because many people won't care about the reality of the underlying situation. They'll just think: "Awesome. All those grotty boarded up shops will be a thing of the past."
It's like his policy to pay less than market value for the things he wants to privatise (seriously - Google it!)
At the end of the day he's taking something that belongs to someone (in the case of privatisation, that includes millions of ordinary people via their pension funds.)
At the end of the day he's taking something that belongs to someone (in the case of privatisation, that includes millions of ordinary people via their pension funds.)
It's really not rocket science...
If you take something that does not belong to you, that's theft.
That's true if you're a burglar smashing your way into a home through a back window.
That's true if you're the state seizing assets that aren't yours to take in broad daylight.
If you take something that does not belong to you, that's theft.
That's true if you're a burglar smashing your way into a home through a back window.
That's true if you're the state seizing assets that aren't yours to take in broad daylight.
So "for the many, not the few" should really read "for the many, not the few, by any means necessary" the way Jeremy Corbyn is going about it.
Chilling effect on business, on investment, and on the security of anyone who dares to aspire to actually own something for themselves.
Chilling effect on business, on investment, and on the security of anyone who dares to aspire to actually own something for themselves.
What people cheering the opportunity to stick one in the eye of Megacorp don't get is that the State's pockets may be deep, but the private sector's are much much deeper.
Scare away the private sector, dissuade them from investing, and at some point everything *will* fall apart.
Scare away the private sector, dissuade them from investing, and at some point everything *will* fall apart.
There is a reason why every single communist experiment everywhere in the world has failed. And that's because the State can never fully replicate the drive, motivation and resources of the private sector, no matter how hard it tries. Eventually the head of steam runs out.
If there are obvious problems (eg lack of transparency over property ownership) then by all means fix them. There are hundreds of loopholes that could be productively closed.
And if you want to pass a law that the State will compulsorily purchase *at very very close to actual market value* certain derelict assets, there's a case for that too.
But don't just steal stuff.
But don't just steal stuff.
The very end of this slippery but continuous slope is "Why aspire to own anything if the State can just come in and take it from you?"
2 groups take things that don't belong to them: thieves and pillaging armies.
Aspiring to add the State to those 2 groups is not a good look.
2 groups take things that don't belong to them: thieves and pillaging armies.
Aspiring to add the State to those 2 groups is not a good look.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
