Kevin and Tony on land redistribution

[Tony Gosling]

Thanks Kevin

Six rejoinders here mostly answering specific points.

Tony

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Globalnet mail uk" <ros at globalnet.co.uk>
> To: <tony at resourceforge.net>
> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 6:09 PM
> Subject: Re: land ownership and redistribution
>
>
>> Tony,
>>
>> Good of you to reply. here is real haste, first comments
>>
>> A real quickie as I have to get to London and Switz. (Only 30% of people
> own
>> their own homes in Switz, by the way)
>> I appreciate your eurosceptic view, but wonder have you ever looked at
> your
>> bed mates ?

1.
EU has only a shred of democracy - and the parliament can't initiate
anything - its a corporate superstate - a fascist's wet dream. The fact
that dubious racist goons like the BNP are against it doesn't mean I, or
anyone else, should be for it.
If I could stop the counties being run from Westminster I'd do it tomorrow
- but I cant - so I say go the whole hog - give sovreignty to ordinary
people in the form of land to each family. And dissolve the superstate -
it appears to be dissolving itsself in warmongering madness anyway.


Why is it the facists in Europe and the UK, and the
>> newspaper
>> owners in the UK, all of whose companies are held in tax havens, are
> leading
>> the sceptic bandwagon ?. Are you sure you are not missing something,
>> somewhere ?
>> The ECHR is modelled in part on Magna Carta - its not foreign, just some
>> ancient English feudal landowners ideas come home to roost. (Ever wonder
> why
>> the Tories want to repeal it ?) All the sovereign state idea you want
>> gave
>> us was 100,000,000 dead between 1914 and 1946. Think you need to look at
>> something else. I know your neither a Tory nor a facist but that's whose
>> camp your in, on these issues. Couldnt join you there under any
>> circumstances. I'm Tory allergic.

2.
Me too - and if I'm the only person in the world refusing to jump on any
of these deadful bandwagons so be it. Actually I'm not the only one -
sorry to sound like john lennon here ;-) - and having worked in
broadcasting I know people don't acknowledge movements as credible unless
the media goes on and on about them.


>> In relation to banks and homeownership, 28% of the 16,500,000 dwellings
>> ,
>> about 4,620,000 homes, are morgtage free. The rest are on your 'banding'
>> concept from 100% down to 1%.
>> And no Tony, its not 3% own 50% of the land. Its 0.67% own 69% of the
> land.

3.
Are you sure that squares with the other statistic you gave
70% of the UK population own 75% of the land of the UK.


>> That may be a statistic, but it is also a fact. That is where so many
>> fall
>> down. They never look to see what are the hard actual facts, under the
>> statistics. But governments do and if you are challenging governments,
> thats
>> what you have to do too. A bank which has a mortgage does not own, in
>> law
> or
>> in fact, the land on which it has a lien. That is the kind of semantic
>> politicing that puts people off. Until you come up with a workable
>> alternative scheme, we are stuck with the banks/building societies as a
>> means of getting hold of any land at all. No ordinary person will accept
>> your assertions about bank 'ownership' because they are neither legally
> nor
>> factually true. The Wyndham acts generally imposed 20/30 years rent as
>> the
>> purchase price. The paid price was above the going rate, after the
>> agricultural collapse of the 1890's, maybe  alittle below it earlier.
>> But
>> there was never a pepper corn situation except over ground rents,
>> seperate
>> issue.
>> I do agree that there is a way forward, and let me give you an
>> alternative
>> fact, to show you where the 'enemy' is actually vulnerable. The overall
>> Ag
>> subsidy has been about £4.5 Bn, up to £6bn pa if you throw in BSE and
>> F&M.

4.
Isn't the subsidy there because of cheap imports? - that's what I thought?
A total failure of the market.


>> This is £6bn to an industry whose total turnover is £15bn. Unbelievable.
> but
>> it implies huge inefficiency in the ag industry, about 40% on the above
>> figure. Now apply that to acres. About 16m acres are uneconomic. Apply
> real
>> economics to farming and you theoreticall free up 16,000,000 acres.
>> There
> is
>> however, no way on earth that there are the people in the UK willing or
>> wanting to take that up. But that is where you go for the landowners.
>> The
>> law, ours and Europe's, protect all property owners from what you are
> trying
>> to do.
>> And with 69% of the country in their own homes, there is simply no
>> constituency in the UK for your 'community' concept. The days when that

5.
People who've paid for homes are not going to begrudge the minority who
want to subsistence farm and live an eco-freindly lifestyle - and this
subsistence farming aka smallholding etc. really isn't for everyone



>> could be done, are well over, or yet to come, but right now, you have to
>> deal with the realities on the ground. Super aspirations get you
>> nowhere,
> if
>> you have no constituency. I cant see any constituency amongst
>> homeowners,
>> for what you want. And they are 69% of the population.
>> And never overlook the fact that you are potentially attacking the right
> to
>> ownership that was won at such cost, is still so limited, but is a step
>> in
>> the right direction. You are really and truly going nowhere, if you are
>> saying to 69% of the community, that you are going to damage the only
> asset

6.
yes - I'm happy to damage what is a crazily inflated price for homes


>> they have, probably the first asset most families have ever had. The
>> solution to land is to have the maximum number of people own the maximum
>> amount they can usefully use. To date that's a home.
>> Must rush.
>> Look forward to your reply as soon as I get back. Note in the post to
>> you
>> too.
>> Regards. Kevin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tony Gosling" <tony at resourceforge.net>
>> To: "Globalnet mail uk" <ros at globalnet.co.uk>;
> <diggers350 at yahoogroups.com>
>> Cc: <james36armstrong at hotmail.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 5:22 PM
>> Subject: land ownership and redistribution
>>
>>
>> > 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,