August 30, 2005
Private Property Surrenders

Remember folks, to liberals this is actually a very sensible policy:

Grieving families across the West [UK] may find the homes of deceased loved ones taken over by bureaucrats to help the homeless, it was claimed yesterday.

Under Government plans, local councils are set to be given sweeping powers allowing them to take temporary control of empty private houses and then rent them out. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott is proposing that the tough new orders could be brought into play when a house has been unoccupied for as little as six months.

As I recall, it took my mom and my uncle quite a bit longer than a year to sell my grandparent's home after their deaths. I can only imagine what said mom's and uncle's reaction would be if they came with a realtor to the property and found a homeless family had been placed there by the city. I'm sure it would do wonders for the resale value as well.

That's the glory of ivory towers... you can't see the details of your engineered tragedies from way up there.

Posted by scott at August 30, 2005 12:36 PM

eMail this entry!

Actually to the Labour Party this is actually a very sensible policy. The Labour Party is better seen as being Democratic Socialists, which as we all know is different from Liberal Democrats.

Which oddly enough since the LP is looked at as the centrist of the three main in UK, they could almost be seen as the libertarians. Ok yeah cheap shot but what do you expect.

Posted by: Joshua on August 30, 2005 01:58 PM

Multiple problems come out when you look at this:

1 - Squatter's rights - what if the couple who now controls the place decides not to sell it - just let it appreciate in value. The city puts a homeless family in there and they're there for years (bureaucracy is good at forgetting things, extending deadlines if it puts off an unpopular decision, etc). How do you evict them? (Cue media shot: Frank and Ethel Jones are forcing this poor homeless family out of their gov't appointed housing because they stand to make a tidy profit. Damn those rich people for trying to kill the poor and make them into Spam!

2 - Speaking of eviction - what if you move the homeless family in and the owners sell the place in a month or so - how do you evict them at that point? See above media shot.

3 - Property damage - what if the homeless family moves in and trashes the place? After all, it's costing them nothing so why should they respect it? Who's liable for recovering damages? Cue media shot, this time inserting eviction with trying to recover damages.

4 - Stolen property - what if said homeless family decides to make off with furniture, appliances, electronics, or other valuables?

Seriously, this has got to take the cake as one of the Worst Ideas Ever. I give them kudos for trying to solve the problem, but this is unreal.

Posted by: ronaprhys on August 30, 2005 02:06 PM

The Democratic party in the US is closer now to being classic democratic socialists than they ever have been. You can thank Soros et. al. for that.

Anyone who would seriously consider Labor having anything other than a superficial resemblance to the US's libertarians quite patently doesn't know much about either. Cheap shot I know, but what do you expect?

Posted by: Scott on August 30, 2005 02:10 PM

Can I have a cheap shot, too? Huh, mom, huh?

Why do they always get the cheap shots and I'm stuck working... /mumbling.

Posted by: ronaprhys on August 30, 2005 02:13 PM

While what you said might be true in some viewpoints that still has nothing to do with the US liberals. Since this story is about the UK, AND since they have a political party using the term liberal (Liberal Democrats) I was trying to keep this within the land from which it came. I have yet to see US liberals embrace this idea, so until then lets keep the apples from the oranges.

Concerning the second seems just a few days ago you had a sense of humor. I was merely trying to joke around. I obviously know there is a huuuuge difference between the libertarians and the LP. I was trying (apparently failing) to joke about how to many in the UK the LP is the center between the LD and the Cons. Since the libertarians seems to be in the middle of the dems and the repubs here in the US I thought it would be funny. Guess sarcasm and satire is only funny when it is going against the other parties.

Posted by: Joshua on August 30, 2005 02:18 PM

From my readings, folks in the UK (well, those my age and older at any rate) would be quite surprised at the characterization of Labor as centrist. Many quite younger (who actually watch the proceedings in the commons at any rate) would be as well. The comparisons between Blair and Clinton are many and well-founded, but none moreso than the observation that both represent masterful politicians who have (or in Clinton's case, had) managed to place a veneer of centrism over what otherwise remains a quite hard-left primary constituency*.

Once the Democrats lost Clinton they lost their way, falling in on themselves in a welter of New Society idealism, reduced to recycling ideas proven to have failed forty years ago and preaching to their various frothing chiors. They have yet to rediscover anything even close to a centrist agenda. Labor will have a very difficult time indeed not succumbing to the same pressures.

In truth I mis-read the initial comment, but one must be careful when firing shots across another's bow. On-line jokes are, after all, the very thing for which smileys (smilies?) were invented. :)

* It could be fair to say Bush has done the same with the Republicans, but the truth is for more americans are center-right than center-left, and a case can be made that Bush in fact represents most (perhaps just barely, but it's enough) of the country's views at this time. What changed? We're coming up on its anniversary.

Posted by: Scott on August 30, 2005 02:39 PM

You still have not supported your claim that this is what liberals find as a sensible policy. AND since this is in the UK you would have to show me where the LD party is supporting this.

Posted by: Joshua on August 30, 2005 02:53 PM

"Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott is proposing that the tough new orders could be brought into play when a house has been unoccupied for as little as six months."

Labor is liberals in the UK, at least as liberals are perceived here in the US. There is no need to show lib dem support, as that was not stated anywhere. The hard-line socialists and communists who to this day make up a significant part of Labor are precisely where this sort of initiative came from, and it would be hard to imagine them proposing legislation they themselves found insensible.

Posted by: scott on August 30, 2005 03:09 PM

The Labours are the liberals in the UK. Yeah I guess that is why they (the liberals) are buddy buddy to Bush in the support for going to Iraq. Remember Blair is LP.

Listen, you know we could play this game all day and night. My point being, with all these posts, is that the spin you put on this post is not only misleading but also a blatant use of the term liberal to paint the US liberals as something they are not. What I was trying to show is that there is a Liberal Democracy party in the UK and they are not the LP. Since the LP has its roots in accepting and following socialism and Marxism and the LD do not they are not the same.

I'm just calling you on it. I honestly could care less what the UK was doing. I don't agree with that idea you posted. Huh, looks like a US liberal doesn't agree with it. Go figure.

Posted by: Joshua on August 30, 2005 03:31 PM

To repeat:

"The comparisons between Blair and Clinton are many and well-founded, but none moreso than the observation that both represent masterful politicians who have (or in Clinton's case, had) managed to place a veneer of centrism over what otherwise remains a quite hard-left primary constituency"

Blair may very well represent Britons, but he is not widely perceived as representing significant portions of his party.

At no point have I ever even mentioned the lib dems in the context of supporting this initiative, since as you rightly note they are not what we in the US would consider true liberals. Other than the coincidence of their name, I see no reason for them to enter the conversation.

US liberals, as with their UK brethren, are a broad constituency with many diverse viewpoints. While you may disagree with my characterization of the term liberal in this context, I still stand behind it. The rank-and-file may not support these things, but I am of the opinion that their leadership does.

You can (do) disagree, and that's fine. If we all thought the same way George Bush would be president forever. :) <-- smiley means joke. Never said they'd be funny :) <-- there I go again :) <-- somebody stop m-%@@#$ rrrk!!!


Posted by: Scott on August 30, 2005 03:50 PM

Remember folks, to liberals

Considering this is a US site and you take every opportunity to mock, put down, and otherwise paint the US liberals in a poor light, any reasonable person in the general public after looking through your site would consider this to be directed toward the lib dems. Look at the context of your site and what it is about and I think you will see what I am saying.

Posted by: Joshua on August 30, 2005 04:14 PM

Joshua, Scott lost his sense of humor when Bush was elected. One of the few people I have seen "froth" lately was Pat Robertson, but of course our very own Jesse Jackson just fixed it all today. lol I wish they could lock those two in a room together.

Posted by: Pat on August 30, 2005 10:02 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?