Do we need Land Reform in England?

C_Mababejive

antrobus wrote: »

That might well be because the Labour Party didn't exist in 1862. Just a thought.:)

Indeed although those who supported Socialist ideologies existed and existed within other organisations, notably the Fabian Society. The Labour party as we know it did not come into existance until around 1900 although prior to this, there were Socialist Lib/Lab candidates for election.

antrobus

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Indeed although those who supported Socialist ideologies existed and existed within other organisations, notably the Fabian Society. ....

The Fabian Society didn't exist in 1862 either.:)

vivatifosi

I posted some info on the landbanks of major developers earlier in the year. Post here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62910695&postcount=16

Sorry, don't have time at moment to update figs.

CLAPTON

just taking a couple of figures

qrt to Jun 2012 housing starts were 21,540
qrt to jun 2013 starts were 29,510

if e.g. (not actual figures) in jun 2012 landbanks were 4 years worth (i.e. 21540 x 4 x 4 ) = 344,640


now if the same rolling land banks were maintained to 2013 then the land bank would be worth 344,640/ (29,510 x 4) = 2.9 years

I'm sure some observations can be made about the size of landbanks in periods of recession and low demand

C_Mababejive

As suggested, when the Land Registry Act of 1862 was draughted and passed in law, there was very little by way of organised opposition to it. The wealthy and powerful land owners held sway and ensured that such legislation was draughted and passed to their benefit.

In this way , they could conceal their claims to land ownership.

The Current,modern land registry of England and Wales was set up in 1925 and yet even so, and as late as 2006,it held NO record as to who claimed ownership of around 50% of the land mass of those two countries.

Why is that?

Well a proportion of it will be unclaimed and stranded land but for the greater part, the ownership will be claimed by those who inherited that land,stolen from the people and/or gifted to various individuals for services and favours.

It was never traded and therefore due to the Land Registry act,it does not need to be registered.

Fairly recent data suggests that in the UK aloner, there are at least 420,000 millionaires.

around 37% of these are millionaires purely due to their land holdings alone

Of the remaining 60%,almost all of them hold at least 40% of their wealth as land assets.

As to world population, more than 5.5 Billion people claim ownership of no land,not a single blade of grass.

The current world population is estimated at 7.137 Billion.

We can see then that land is important and that land=wealth.

Income does not=wealth
Ownership of assets=wealth.

Given the population density of the UK, one can see that if vast acreages of land are claimed/inherited/stolen and held as income generating assets appreciating in value year on year for the benefit of the very few..then there is precious little left available for THE USE of the rest of the populace,hence the reason why house prices are high and we all live in over priced rat traps.

So how did these people come to "own" such vast areas of land?

Well much of it can be attributed to the Norman Conquest and the dissolution of the monasteries. These two events account for a large proportion of land sequestration.

Lands were gifted for favours rendered by people who had no right to gift them,and to people who had no right to receive and hold them.

Those favours of olde have persisted thorugh to this very day,unchallenged mainly due to public ignorance and lack of willpower by any political party.

For example. the joint Duchys of Lancaster and Cornwall..the personal property of the crown and amounting to around 100,000 acres...never sold or traded so unregistered.

All those living within the duchy are to all intents and purposes simply serfs upon the land,subject to such ancient concept of Bona Vacantia whereby ownerless assets become the property of your lord and master the person who claims ownership of the Duchys. Live on their land and havent left a will ? no direct beneficiaries? great, Charlie ,Lixz and Phil can have it all..why? because you were simply parasitic,,a serf upon their land.

Anywhere else outside the Duchy? the assets are held by the state until they are claimed... see TV series Heir hunters..

Now then,,i am not actually in favour of land ownership. I dont want to own any.
I am much in favour of the Cuban model. You are granted occupation rights and useage rights for as long as you live and then the land is passed to another person until they die and so on...

A much simpler and fairer system.

Whilst the few hold vast areas of land,the ordinary people will become poorer and poorer.

What is needed is land reform and if necessary..revolution...

In a small country such as the UK,we cannot allow the few to control so much land under the guise of ownership,stewardship or whatever. The biggest joke of all is that whilst they hold the land and keep the serfs in their tiny homes, they also claim tax relief's and allowances,paid for by YOU the ordinary taxpayer,,to allow them to kindly look after the land on your behalf !

cepheus

robskillz wrote: »

Could something like making land only registerable to individuals rather than companies work? And limit the amount that can be registered to one person

We need a Land value 'tax' to return to the public the benefits we have donated to the landlords. When land rises in value, the government and the people deliver a great unearned gift to those who happen to own it.

As Churchill, Adam Smith(14) and many others have pointed out, those who own the land skim wealth from everyone else, without exertion or enterprise. They “levy a toll upon all other forms of wealth and every form of industry.”(15) Land value tax recoups this toll.

It has a number of other benefits(16). It stops the speculative land hoarding that prevents homes from being built. It ensures that the most valuable real estate – in city centres – is developed first, discouraging urban sprawl. It prevents speculative property bubbles, of the kind that have recently trashed the economies of Ireland, Spain and other nations and which make rents and first homes so hard to afford. Because it does not affect the supply of land (they stopped making it some time ago), it cannot cause the rents that people must pay to the landlords to be raised. It is easy to calculate and hard to avoid: you can’t hide your land in London in a secret account in the Cayman Islands. And it could probably discharge the entire deficit.

Loughton_Monkey

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Fairly recent data suggests that in the UK aloner, there are at least 420,000 millionaires.

around 37% of these are millionaires purely due to their land holdings alone

This is very hard to believe. If you add the value of any house built on the land, surely there are far more millionaires that this in the UK?

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Income does not=wealth
Ownership of assets=wealth.

That's what I keep saying, but people still keep spending all their incomes every year, meaning they will never be wealthy. Investing in land with a house is one of the best ways of acquiring wealth.

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Given the population density of the UK, one can see that if vast acreages of land are claimed/inherited/stolen and held as income generating assets appreciating in value year on year for the benefit of the very few..then there is precious little left available for THE USE of the rest of the populace,hence the reason why house prices are high and we all live in over priced rat traps.

How are these people making vast incomes if they have not built any houses on it? Or are you saying the houses are very old, all rented, with rent paid to the 'thief'?

C_Mababejive wrote: »

For example. the joint Duchys of Lancaster and Cornwall..the personal property of the crown and amounting to around 100,000 acres...never sold or traded so unregistered.

Are you tarring Prince Charles with the same brush as Fergus Wilson? Luckily I don't plan to retire to Cornwall.

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Now then,,i am not actually in favour of land ownership. I dont want to own any.

That's fair enough. Luckily, it's legal to rent all your life. But it's not very cost efficient in my view.

C_Mababejive wrote: »

What is needed is land reform and if necessary..revolution...

These things happen from time to time. Look at France and Russia. But they need a bit of organisation and, more importantly, quite a strong following by 'the common man'. These days, it probably wouldn't work unless or until you have pretty good backing from another government willing to pump in limitless supplies of weapons, ammunition, and possibly a few armed troops. Maybe you could try China. Virtually no government wants to 'cross' them these days. Look at Syria!

This raises rather awkward questions as to whether the backers would withdraw straight away after the successful revolution, allowing the revolting nationals to become the new landowners. Or whether they would hang around and simply replace the old landowners, plunging the revolting people into the same old serfdom, only under 'new management'.

What I'm saying is that the sort of revolution you propose is quite clearly one against the Monarchy. A lot of people believe in the monarchy as long as it allows democratic government.

If, as I suspect, your post is advocating a republican state of England and Wales, then of course it could be deemed that you have committed an offense under the Treason Felony Act 1848 which prohibits the advocacy of a Republic in print. It is punishable by lifetime imprisonment but although the Law Lords decided not to repeal it, that law needs (today) to be interpreted with the Human RIghts Act of 1998 and so you might get a smaller sentence.

All in all, though, I would suggest a more democratic and peaceful means to get your way. One that doesn't involve revolution or dissolution of the Monarchy or its involvement with land.

C_Mababejive

#18 Great post..

I will just add that though i did mention Liz and her children as they are some of the largest landowners on the earth, I do not really wish to concern myself with the Monarchy/Republic debate. I am only concerned with land reform.

However as HRH was mentioned, i will just add that HRH claims personal owmership of some 637,000 acres in these isles alone consisting of but excluding the freehold of the crown estate..

The Duchy of lancaster 49,000
The Duchy of Cornwall 141,000
The Balmoral estate in Scotland 60,000
Sandringham Estate in Norfolk 22,000


How can one person be the sole "owner" of such land on a small island, how did she come to own it ?

CLAPTON

C_Mababejive wrote: »

#18 Great post..

I will just add that though i did mention Liz and her children as they are some of the largest landowners on the earth, I do not really wish to concern myself with the Monarchy/Republic debate. I am only concerned with land reform.

However as HRH was mentioned, i will just add that HRH claims personal owmership of some 637,000 acres in these isles alone consisting of but excluding the freehold of the crown estate..

The Duchy of lancaster 49,000
The Duchy of Cornwall 141,000
The Balmoral estate in Scotland 60,000
Sandringham Estate in Norfolk 22,000


How can one person be the sole "owner" of such land on a small island, how did she come to own it ?

If you are in favour of land reform then why not present some well thought out proposals for discussion?
Nonsense about glorifying an oppressive communist dictatorship that has kept the Cuban people in great un-necessary poverty for 50 years doesn't really build a case.

Loughton_Monkey

C_Mababejive wrote: »

#18 Great post..

I will just add that though i did mention Liz and her children as they are some of the largest landowners on the earth, I do not really wish to concern myself with the Monarchy/Republic debate. I am only concerned with land reform.

However as HRH was mentioned, i will just add that HRH claims personal owmership of some 637,000 acres in these isles alone consisting of but excluding the freehold of the crown estate..

The Duchy of lancaster 49,000
The Duchy of Cornwall 141,000
The Balmoral estate in Scotland 60,000
Sandringham Estate in Norfolk 22,000


How can one person be the sole "owner" of such land on a small island, how did she come to own it ?

In a previous post, I thought you were claiming that every single square inch of land - plus the 12 mile coastal limit - was effectively owned by the crown? I am no historian but it makes sense. I might "think" I own my little plot of land upon which sits my house, but I am prepared to believe that my "freehold" is simply some sort of license that gives me lifetime exclusive 'rights' to it, plus the ability to pass these rights onto others for a fee.

One assumes that, in principle, HRH could come and knock on my door [I could give her a Gin & Dubonnet since both items are in my cocktail cabinet] and politely request that I give her the land back. In effect she would rescind my freehold and claim the land back for herself.

This makes the value of my freehold very closely tied to the confidence (or otherwise) that she wouldn't do such a thing.

If my very simplistic assumptions above are true(ish) then it would make sense that HRH has some NIMBY sentiments and there are certain parts of her universal land ownership upon which granting further freeholds would be a complete no-no. She doesn't want Balmoral to overlook some brand new council estate as it might lower the price of her Balmoral house.

Rather than vilify her for hanging onto the 'control' of certain pieces of land, we should perhaps be grateful that despite her 100% land ownership, she has allowed so much of it to become "used" by her subjects for our own exclusive use, enjoyment, and profit.

Unlike some of her predecessors, she is not in the habit of selecting supportive individuals, who may have assisted the crown, and bestowing upon them exclusive ownership of (say) Essex.

As to land reform generally, I cannot envisage any fundamental changes ever happening. It is never wise to try and 'unravel' history. Such an approach always stalls because whatever major event you wish to revert to, and 'undo' or 'correct', someone will - with equal legitimacy - go back a bit further and present a totally different scenario.

Again, I'm no historian, but I'm sure we don't have to go back too far to find a situation in which land ownership didn't exist in any legal sense. Land would simply have been 'occupied' and secured by brute force [or consensus] when desirable - in the same way that most wild animals, today, claim some 'ownership' to territory without any recourse to a legal system.