It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The government’s new Infrastructure Bill removes control for decisions to sell or develop publicly owned land from the public sector. In short, before long, a private company will have the power to sell publicly owned land for Fracking, new nuclear, or whatever else it likes – and the public say in the development of its own land will be a thing of the past.
Guess who is exempt from the Act? The Queen, and the aristocracy. Despite being the largest landowner in the world, let alone the country, the Crown is exempt from the land grab. As will be the aristoracy who still own a third of Britain’s land.
The article is called, 'Sale board poised to go back up on Land Registry'.
this proposal is sheer lunacy. the primary function of the Land Registry is to guarantee title to land: that is a State function for which we pay taxes.
treating its secondary purpose of then answering questions about who is registered owner, as if it was its main purpose is utterly ludicrous.
next the politicians will be trying to sell-off the DVLA and Voter registration and the High Court.
none of these are "assets" - they are government functions.
privatise them and there is no reason for citizens to pay taxes.
A Bill to make provision for strategic highways companies and the funding of transport services by land; to make provision for the control of invasive non-native species; to make provision about nationally significant infrastructure projects; to make provision about town and country planning; to make provision about the Homes and Communities Agency and Mayoral development corporations; to make provision about the Greater London Authority so far as it exercises functions for the purposes of housing and regeneration; to make provision about Her Majesty’s Land Registry and local land charges; to make provision enabling building regulations to provide for off-site carbon abatement measures; to make provision for giving members of communities the right to buy stakes in local renewable electricity generation facilities; to make provision about maximising economic recovery of petroleum in the United Kingdom; to provide for a levy to be charged on holders of certain energy licences; to enable Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to exercise functions in connection with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative; to make provision about onshore petroleum and geothermal energy; to make provision about renewable heat incentives; and for connected purposes.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: twfau
Given that this bill essentially permits a great deal of our land to be sold off, I personally am glad that at least a third, that which is in the hands of the Crown, is untouchable. At least that will remain a bastion owned by British interests.
However, what is very interesting about all of this, and by interesting, I mean infuriating, aggravating, one might go as far as to say "conducive to rage induced seizures" is that the Conservative party of the U.K. is doing this, despite the fact that only 24% of eligible voters gave them their support in the last election. Yes, they had the most votes of any one party in the cycle, but I really think that if only 24% of UK citizens select something, that no matter how or why it played out that way, this cannot be said to be a mandate, strong or otherwise, for that party to move ahead with any of its plans, leave alone a plan as utterly UN-democratic and suspicious as this one.
Yet another reason to throw Cameron down a hole and fill it with high molar acid.
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Ia reply to: twfau
I wonder if the British Government would have the balls to do this if they had a 2nd amendment and an armed population ready to reign it in if it ever goes full rogue.
Almost a lesson in what the government of the day is willing and able to achieve, by way of land grabbing when they need not fear an armed uprising from their population.
Maybe they should rename Great Britain to Great, we've been shafted.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: uncommitted
I have been staunchly against most Labour initiatives since the Blair days. If it were not quarter to five in the morning, I could no doubt find you an example with ease. Alas, I am not of sound mind and steady hand.
Suffice to say, the whole lot can "do one".