Monday, Jun 04, 2007
The "Haves" sneer and Jeer! Trying to convince the have nots all is lost!
The Economist: Fighting over their castles
A political head of steam is building behind the idea of fixing things by building more homes. Gordon Brown, the prime-minister-to-be, has argued for this recently. It will be hard to sell to the 70% of households who already own their homes, however, and especially hard for the Conservative Party, which is strong in the south-east where people think their neighbours are too close now. Yet Michael Gove, the shadow housing minister, believes his party will accept a bonfire of planning restrictions when it is convinced that there is a good, economically liberal case for it. “The longer it goes on unchanged, the worse it gets,” says Mr Gove. Which seems a melancholy verdict on what has looked for a decade like the closest thing yet seen to a mass lottery win.
2 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. paul said...
"Westminster, and Kensington and Chelsea, two expensive boroughs, are the most popular places to own second homes, according to council-tax returns."
"In 19th-century London the squeeze on housing was solved by having those at the bottom of the pile sleep in shifts, or “hot-bed”, thereby cramming several families into a space meant for one. Parts of the city seem headed back there now."
Umm, isn't that meant to be sorted out by taxation? Should MPs be sacked because of their inaction?
Oh no, that's right - we'd have to get rid of the lot.
2. Wage Slave said...
As time goes on more wealth will be redistributed from everyone else to the rich as they effectively control the governments of this world and hence control the laws too.
The logical conclusion is that one person will eventually own all the earths wealth and the rest will have nothing.
The practical conclusion is that at sometime before then, when enough people have nothing and are fed up having nothing, they will take the rich's wealth by force, revoloution, or even (and I know this sounds wierd) by democracy.
The only question is how far can the situation progress until that happens ?