Viewing 2 posts - 441 through 442 (of 442 total)
  • Taking people property away if it's deemed you shouldn't have it – corbyn
  • kelvin
    Full Member

    Well I think there needs to be more focus on moving jobs north and less focus on social housing down south.

    There we ALWAYS be lower paid jobs “down south”, which won’t support purchasing or renting family homes at market rate, jobs that can not be moved.

    Anyway, I came back to this thread to say, that now time has passed and we can see what is actually being done in the wake of the disaster, that I have changed my mind… Corbyn was out of order for mixing up the idea of an appropriate response with the problem of empty properties. It wasn’t the right time or place to brings this up, even if it’s a valid concern. He was stirring things up at the wrong moment. It feels opportunistic in hindsight.

    Rockape63
    Free Member

    So my solution is:

    You don’t mention who pays for all the infrastructure Ed? You know all the roads and pavements, drains, sewers, street lights etc.

    Anyway, I am aware that the next phases of house building in Southwater West Sussex and Cranleigh Surrey, have been reduced due to lack of demand. Not aware of other areas, but likely to be the same. This is on green belt BTW.

Viewing 2 posts - 441 through 442 (of 442 total)

The topic ‘Taking people property away if it's deemed you shouldn't have it – corbyn’ is closed to new replies.