You may be asked to reset your password when you try to login. This is part of a system update and is genuine, so it's safe to go ahead and do that. If you no longer have access to the email address you used to register, please email us at [email protected] rather than creating a new account. Apologies for the inconvenience.

Should we nationalise the Duke of Westminster?

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote: »
    It is a dangerous precedent though to start seizing peoples assets, even if they have acquired it in a rather unjust way, it is something done by totalitarian states, not democracies.


    :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, people are suggesting we seize the land from him and give it to people who for one reason or another can't afford to pay rent. Despite what his ancestors have done god knows how many years ago, it seems like people want to penalise him because he has made sound buisness decisions and earnt a fat wedge of cash.

    What if he were a property developer who, starting with nothing 40 years ago had bought up a load of land that was now, for some reason desirable, had to hand over his land? Would you be singing from the same song book?
    I think people are getting all agiatated because the bloke has a title and loads of money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Like budda says nobody is suggesting taking it away from him without compensation. Do a compulsory purchase from him for the vast amounts of land he owns in London and for which he ludicrously charges rent for people to buy houses on.

    But no matter. Let's not let the welfare of the many interfere with the feudal right to make loads of money of out of land obscenely owned by one individual.

    Christ.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    What if he were a property developer who, starting with nothing 40 years ago had bought up a load of land that was now, for some reason desirable, had to hand over his land? Would you be singing from the same song book?
    I think people are getting all agiatated because the bloke has a title and loads of money.

    Well thats completely different, has the Duke earnt his money?

    I'm not really suggesting this because I think it will ever happen, and to be honest I still go back and forth as to whether this is a good idea. But, it does make me uncomfortable for someone to own so much land when he clearly has done nothing to earn it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    No, people are suggesting we seize the land from him and give it to people who for one reason or another can't afford to pay rent.
    I wonder what 'that reason or another' might be...

    I might be wrong but I cannot see such situation being allowed to exist in France today. In there at least they have the balls to consider the greater good and to make compulsory purchases when the case for it is obvious.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Yes, but did his ancestors....?

    And even so, are you suggesting people should be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors?

    If not, why should they have such massive advantages from the actions of their ancestors?

    Blagsta is pretty much spot on about the enclosure acts by the way.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I wonder what 'that reason or another' might be...

    I might be wrong but I cannot see such situation being allowed to exist in France today. In there at least they have the balls to consider the greater good and to make compulsory purchases when the case for it is obvious.

    One reason or another could be anything, i wasn't alluding to anything at all.

    Maybe a situation like this will never exist in France, but we don't live in France, we live in the UK. Maybe the bloke hasn't done anything to earn the land, that fact is irrelevant. If we were to purchase the land from him or whatever we are setting the precedent that 50 years down the line we can take away land and holdings from anyone else who was fortunate enough to have a rich parent/s.

    And since when has the welfare of the many had anything to do with it in a capitalist country? You're making out that social housing isn't available and the welfare state doesn't exist, and that if he were to sell his 100 acres a few hundred people would miraculously have somewhere to live. Why aren't you arguing for him to release some of the land he has in Scotland? The land he has there is mostly undeveloped, and quite cheap.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Why aren't you arguing for him to release some of the land he has in Scotland? The land he has there is mostly undeveloped, and quite cheap.

    Does anyone know what percentage of his estate is residential anyway? Mayfair is mainly embassies, private banks, offices, high end restaurants, bars and shops...

    Seizing land and compulsory purchases for the 'greater good' as well as setting a worrying precedent make me feel uneasy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seizing land and compulsory purchases for the 'greater good' as well as setting a worrying precedent make me feel uneasy.

    Thats how the land came to be in his possession in the first place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sometimes looking at the housing market, I feel we're going back a few hundred years. You work to pay for somewhere to live whilst the lord of the land sits back, reaps the cash and does what he likes.

    Call me a socialist but where is the affordable housing? For a middle class person the only option is renting. (unless they get married or something)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seizing land and compulsory purchases for the 'greater good' as well as setting a worrying precedent make me feel uneasy.

    I'm not suggesting that anything really changes for the businesses or the home owners, just that instead of making the Duke very rich, they give their ground rent money to the government.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    One reason or another could be anything, i wasn't alluding to anything at all.

    Maybe a situation like this will never exist in France, but we don't live in France, we live in the UK. Maybe the bloke hasn't done anything to earn the land, that fact is irrelevant. If we were to purchase the land from him or whatever we are setting the precedent that 50 years down the line we can take away land and holdings from anyone else who was fortunate enough to have a rich parent/s.
    More like, whose ancestors nicked obscene amounts of land.

    But we do not need to set any precedent. Can't you really see the difference between the Duke of Westminster's case and just about everyone else's?
    And since when has the welfare of the many had anything to do with it in a capitalist country?
    Since always. It's only savage free market ultra capitalist societies that choose to ignore the welfare of many. Invariably such places turn out to be not very nice to live for the immense majority of the population who isn't very rich- which ironically would include sereral (if not all) of those here defending the right of poor oppressed Duke of Westminster to keep charing ground rent to half of central London.
    You're making out that social housing isn't available and the welfare state doesn't exist, and that if he were to sell his 100 acres a few hundred people would miraculously have somewhere to live.
    Why aren't you arguing for him to release some of the land he has in Scotland? The land he has there is mostly undeveloped, and quite cheap.[/QUOTE] Because as said many times before that is a different case altogether. This is not about 'let's lynch the rich and take all of their possesions. This is about an individual owning large areas of land in a city and furthermore charging ground rent for houses to sit on.

    The absurdity of it all is almost indescribable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    Thats how the land came to be in his possession in the first place.

    There are lots of things people have inherited that might have been originally gained through dubious means. There's questions about how some people got the money to buy certain things - Al Fayed and Harrods for example. It's pretty simple to think that every such wrong can be fairly corrected. And it is absolutely correct to question where it ends. Meanwhile you only need to look at Zimbabwe to see the potential consequences and when it all goes wrong.

    Where is the evidence that the Duke of Westminster's ancestors seized land - or the bulk of land that makes up his wealth today? Buying (and holding on to) land, luck as well as having a hand in the development of areas might seem criminal to you - but it's what property developers do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »

    I might be wrong but I cannot see such situation being allowed to exist in France today. In there at least they have the balls to consider the greater good and to make compulsory purchases when the case for it is obvious.

    It wouldn't happen in France because they don't have any aristocracy, they removed them 'for the greater good' as well, and what a success that was! :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    This is about an individual owning large areas of land in a city and furthermore charging ground rent for houses to sit on.

    The absurdity of it all is almost indescribable.



    The fact that property developers and companies do this all the time doesn't matter then, it's only when it's a duke with inherited land that it riles you up....?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    Thats how the land came to be in his possession in the first place.

    I understood that he came into legal freehold possession of it through inheritance.

    To take things back further, one of his ancestors "married into" it.

    I do believe the Grosvenor family is from "up north".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    This is about an individual owning large areas of land in a city and furthermore charging ground rent for houses to sit on.

    The absurdity of it all is almost indescribable.

    The "Duke of Westminster" doesn`t "own" the land.

    Another extremely wealthy individual legally "owns" it.

    He only(! !) holds the freehold title.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    The fact that property developers and companies do this all the time doesn't matter then, it's only when it's a duke with inherited land that it riles you up....?
    No. It's when the amounts of land in question are nothing short of pornographic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    No. It's when the amounts of land in question are nothing short of pornographic.

    Does that make a small council flat in Brixton erotic ? :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    No. It's when the amounts of land in question are nothing short of pornographic.


    he has 100 acres in Central London that already has buildings on it, and 15,000 acres of mixed land in Scotland and some investments in Liverpool......
    Not exactly a lot, and the only bit of which that makes him any real money is the London stuff.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah I bet it does.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calvin wrote: »
    I have no problem with billionaires or people making money out of property. I just don't feel its right for the Duke of Westminster to own so much land in one of the most expensive cities in the world. It belongs to London and the UK, not the Duke of Westminster.

    So you've no problem with people owning land just as long as it's not in a city?

    Unfortunately, owing to capitalism and various land laws dating back hundreds of years mean that private individuals can own land. The fact that it's London means nothing. What if his property were in the country or somewhere else? It doesn't matter.

    People can dispute the ethics of what he charges but at the end of the day, as long as his charges are within the law, it's his prerogative to do what he likes with his land.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Off with his head!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So you've no problem with people owning land just as long as it's not in a city?

    Correct. London is the powerhouse of the UK. Land within London should be used for the benifit of the city and the UK.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calvin wrote: »
    Correct. London is the powerhouse of the UK. Land within London should be used for the benifit of the city and the UK.



    so no one should be able to own there own land in london?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Yes, but did his ancestors....?

    And even so, are you suggesting people should be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors?

    I'm just correcting you on your history.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seizing land and compulsory purchases for the 'greater good' as well as setting a worrying precedent make me feel uneasy.


    It already happens. M11 link road for example. Of course, they were just ordinary working people, so it doesn't count.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People can dispute the ethics of what he charges but at the end of the day, as long as his charges are within the law, it's his prerogative to do what he likes with his land.


    The point is, that people with privilege and power make the laws to their own advantage.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    It already happens. M11 link road for example. Of course, they were just ordinary working people, so it doesn't count.

    If the government wants to build a new stretch of motorway or extend an airport for example compulsory purchases are sometimes unavoidable. However, it's a pretty long-winded process and compared to most countries compulsory purchases are (thankfully) a lot harder in Britain.

    Without a compulsory purchase in the case you referred to I assume that motorway would not have been built.

    But a motorway isn't being built in Mayfair and Knightsbridge doesn't need an airport terminal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You miss the point as usual.
Sign In or Register to comment.