101
Govt selling off HS2 land at a loss to prevent future administrations reversing its decision
(www.thelondoneconomic.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
101 points (100.0% liked)
UK Politics
3091 readers
234 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But how does selling it at a loss prevent future governments from compulsory purchasing it back, at that cost?
It just means more has to be spent to do so. It's to sabotage the costs of going back on their decision.
It would be pretty unpopular and therefore unlikely, but there's technically nothing stopping a law being created specifically to buy the land back at the price it's being sold for.
Hell, since we're not in the EU any more, we don't have the laws preventing the government from just taking it for free, but that would be politically suicidal.
Still makes it harder than keeping the land. They could have finished the first leg, then completely replanned/redesigned the second, using the same path.
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree they shouldn't be selling it.
But it's clearly the Tories being fucking children and trying to make it difficult for a successive government to do the job they were unable to do themselves.
It's actively malicious
They will sell it off cheaply. The beneficiaries will then sell it quickly for a profit at the right price. If people start building work on the land, then all this has to be factored into the repurchase price. It will mean court battles for each piece of land where there is dispute over the price. You will need very single piece of land to make the purchase viable. It is not like you skip a housing lot or two and just build a bridge over it.
Because it's doubly expensive. A future government will have to explain why, when they've already lost money, they're spending more on the same thing.
For sure they could do it, but the argument is worse this way.
I wonder if the people they're selling it to have some corrupt business dealings with the people doing the selling. I can imagine this being a way to make a lot of money if you're corrupt. I have no reason to believe the Tories or anything but corrupts so I bet you if you follow the money you'll find somebody who just made a whole bunch