land ownership and redistribution

[Tony Gosling]

Replying to Kevin Cahill's constructive criticisms and statistics,

First: I'm overjoyed to bin article 1 of the EU convention - or whatever
it is - I believe in seperate sovereign European states not the US of
Europe in its present fascistic (run by big business) form. I'm totally
against this EU concentration of power (good riddance Mr. Mandelson) and
believe in local democracy and autonomy as a great way to politicise
people. get them involved in politics rather than constantly making
decisions more and more miles away from home.
I also think landowners must acknowledge they've had it too good too long.
Of course they'll squeal I need all my land because its security against
bank loans - tough, tough - shouldn't be livinmg beyond yer means boys and
girls.
I deferr to you on the ownership stuff Keving - I don't at all profess to
know my stuff there so thanks for the facts and figures. But I did study
statistics. One can go anywhere along the ownership scale: 70%(ignoring
bank ownership) own 75% of the land - fine. But it's theoretically
possible after that statistic to say that 3% own 50% of the land. Where
you sample the ratios determines the impression you give. Also I totally
agree - the urban and rural situations neet to be looked at seperately.
I know the Irish stuff abt. the Wyndham acts etc. but they did give the
right to buy at a fraction of the previous rents.
The whole point of the bill is to make it a starting position to be
negotiated. Maybe negotiating compensation for old landowners?? But
please, don't give it to them on a plate!
I disagree with you about historical ownership patterns compared to now -
in fact far fewer individuals actually own their own homes than you say -
the banks own them and the misery that can come from owning your own home
and having to work like a slave to pay the death grip mortgage is evident.
In the long gone past there was a completely different population
demographic - copyholds were the commonest form of tenure - and you didn't
own the land - but you did have security of tenure and a rent in man-hours
of work you paid to the lord of the manor.
In fact this was a great system, if you remove the lord of the manor from
the system and replace him with a community meeting or elected 'mayor'
eliminating the need for copyholders to pay time or money rent to anyone.
I envisage a nation - and beyond our borders a world - where every family
has an absolute right to security of tenure with no rent to pay to anyone
- in a way making the individual family sovereign. That's why I love the
crofters they managed to enshrine a great system in law - admittedly theyu
didn't entirely remove the laird's nominal 'ownership' of the land they
rent for peppercorn rents.
This is a dream that - even if aspects of it need to be negotiated away is
about true resiliant freedom and security.

Having said all that I reckon if you and I could agree we'd have a Diggers
style revolution on our hands.

Tony Gosling
<tony at resourceforge.net>
www.tlio.org.uk
0117 944 6119


>
> From Kevin Cahill, author of Who Owns Britain.
>
> Re Tony's bill.
>
> Tony has made an effort to do something about the 'land' situation in the
> UK. It is in good faith and is well meant. Unfortunately, it is nearly
> impossible to imagine a more misconceived approach to the 'land'
> situation,
> one which will injure the only progress we have made in 120 years. The
> land
> situation cannot be dealt with, without knowing the facts. I wrote the
> book in an attempt to show that without the facts, no progress is
> possible on this matter.
>
> Tony states only one fact, either in the bill or in its support. This is
> that 10% of the population own 95% of the land. They dont. This figure is
> totally and utterly wrong. As a matter of fact, 70% of the UK population
> own
> 75% of the land of the UK. Here is how the UK is owned.
>
> The total land of the UK is 60,000,000 acres. This is divided into 1.
> Agricultural land. 41,000,000 acres 2. Urban land 4,000,000 acres.
> 3.15,000,000 acres. Waste land, roads mountains etc. (All figures are
> approx
> as precise accuracy is impossible with present means.)
>
> The Agricultural plot is 68.3% of UK land. It is owned by 158,000
> families,
> about 395,000 persons, at 2.5 per family.  That is 0.65 % of the UK
> population of 60,000,000.
> The Urban plot of 4,000,000 acres is 6.6% of UK land. There are 24,000,000
> dwellings on it, of which 69%, or 16,500,000 are privately owned, by a
> maximum of  41,000,000 persons, at 2.5 persons per family, assuming there
> is
> one family per dwelling (Not neccessarily true, but a workable figure) The
> maximum number of people in the population owning urban land is 68.3%.
> Taking urban with agricultural, you have a maximum of  69 % to 70% of the
> population owning a stake in about 75% of UK land (urban plus Ag) There is
> no way to estimate who owns anything in 'waste' because of the way its
> defined. (Mostly its government and institutions) But it does not alter
> the
> accuracy of the basic figure; that about 69-70 % of the population own
> about
> 75% of UK land .
>
> The sort of headline figure that Tony wants only comes from the
> agricultural
> sector, i.e 0.65% of the UK population owning 69% of UK land. (If
> ownership
> of waste land was established the combination might rise to 0.7% of the
> population owning 85% to 90% of the land)
>
> Tony's bill would, by implication, speak for the 18,700,000 people who
> live
> in the rented sector and who own no land, about evenly split between
> Councils, private and housing associations. The only way to guess demand
> here is to look at the highest home ownership figure in Europe, Spain at
> 85%, and assume that about half the rented sector, about 9,500,000 people,
> 15.5% of the population who do not own a home, would like to own a home.
> But
> 'home' is the first land issue, and not a place in the agricultural
> sector,
> for which there is no evidenced demand whatsoever. If there is demand, it
> ought to be from the 65,000 families who rent in the agricultural sector,
> about 162,500, or 0.27% of the population.
> Tony's bill addresses a maximum constituency of 15.5% of the population.
> There is neither sectoral demand, nor public demand, for a redistribution
> of
> the agricultural sector per se.
> Further, Tony's other basic premis, that either God, or a deus ex machina,
> gave the earth to its people on some kind of pre ordained moral
> distribution
> is untenable. I'm an agnostic. I can see only nature, of which we are
> part.
> There was no preordination, but there is the possibility that as the race
> matures there might be a rational and fair distribution, according to need
> and ability to use. That is where we should be looking for progress and
> the
> first place to give everyone a stake, is for their most basic need,
> shelter.
> Tony also argues away the impact on 69% of the population, of his bill. It
> has taken about 120 years to get from nil ownership of anything by 95% of
> the population, to 69% of the population having a tiny stake in 6% of the
> land. We are not setting off backwards, now, by dimninishing the value of
> that stake. We move on from here, to expand the stake held by the bulk of
> th
> e population, in land and its value. And we dont do that by violating art
> 1
> Protocol 1 of the European convention; no confiscation without
> compensation.
> To get the one third of ag acreage now rented into ownership would cost
> £54bn. (and affect .2% of the population)
> Which brings the matter to another major conceptual error in the bill. No
> one in Ireland was given their title deeds by the Wyndham acts. The Irish
> peasantry were given the right to buy, and the Wyndham acts and
> subsequent,
> set up a government loan fund of about £7bn in modern money. The peasants
> of
> Ireland bought their land from the landlords, paid interest on the loans
> and
> had to repay the capital. There were no gifts, free or otherwise, at all.
> And it took 1,000,000 dead and 1,000,000 evicted to get the loans, and it
> took 20 years or more.
>
> I hope Tony will continue to consider this matter, but on the basis of
> facts
> and reality, and not on concepts from the past, that are or were
> inaccurate
> or errenous and which time has changed, utterly.
>
> Kevin Cahill
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gerrard Winstanley" <tony at resourceforge.net>
> To: <diggers350 at yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 11:56 PM
> Subject: [diggers350] Draft UK Land Reform Bill
>
>
> What with all the talk and slow progress of land reform in Scotland I
> thoug=
> h it worthwhile publishing my very simple and non-legalistic ideas for an
> Ac=
> t of Parliament for the whole UK to bring about fundamental land reform
> and
> =
> the sweeping social justice that would come with the UK population
> regaining=
>  free access to land to live on. This would probably bring about a
> collapse
> =
> on the ridiculously inflated market in houses but - as most of that
> fantasy
> =
> market is fictional mortgage money that would be no bad thing, bringing
> abou=
> t the colapse of most of the UK's private banking system. Phew!
>
> Tony Gosling
>
>
>
> Citizen's land security bill
> http://www.public-interest.co.uk/manor/landreformbill.rtf
>
> September 2004 - Tony Gosling - The Land Is Ours/Ecovillage Network UK
>
> 10-12 Picton Street. Montpelier, Bristol, BS6 5QA - 0117 944 6219
>
> Object:
> To begin the process of returning the land in the UK to the people to whom
> =
> it rightly belongs.
>
> Methodology:
> Given that land - and its associated rights - is a free gift to mankind as
> =
> a whole - not to particular individuals, this legislation will begin the
> pro=
> cess of divesting particular individual and corporate freeholders of title
> t=
> o excessive amounts of that land and distributing it fairly to whoever
> among=
> st the poorest in the land wishes to have it
>
> Current situation:
> With roughly 10% of the population of the UK owning 95% of the land many
> or=
> dinary people are entirely without security - the strain on current
> housing
> =
> stock means prices are spiralling out of all realistic measure of a home's
> a=
> ctual worth and the need for more homes is only being restrained by a
> dracon=
> ian development control system.
>
> Historical models:
> There are two historical models which will be referred to throughout this
> b=
> ill, both occurring in and around the 1880's in the British Isles. Firstly
> t=
> he handing over of title to land in Ireland to impoverished tenants
> through
> =
> a series of acts of parliament culminating in the Wyndham Acts. Secondly
> the=
>  enshrining in British law the customary practices of the Scottish
> crofters
> =
> through the Royal Commission into the grievances of the Crofters and the
> sub=
> sequent Crofting Act.
>
> Powerful landed interests:
> Human beings can be particularly nasty and graspingly territorial when it
> c=
> omes to the idea of controlling or owning land. Dirty tricks