[Closed] Conservative 'Right to Buy'

What are the Tories thinking with regards to extending this policy.

buying votes

Just another classic example of how modern politics is broken and how they just focus short term and as you say, winning votes.

The solution is to expand the settlement boundaries of towns and villages around the UK, encourage more house building by small and self builders. A lack of affordable housing is the issue here, allowing people to buy houses at knock down discount is not the answer.

Listening to Teresa May now, it's an absolutely bonkers idea

I think it's great

They should extend it - [b][i]everyone[/i][/b] renting privately should have a right to buy, too 😀

Oh it's revolting. The interview is gross, and the content too.

Please please please can we get these eejits OUT OF SODDING BUILDING!!!!!

AARRRRGHHHHHHH.

rant:paused

The right to buy IMO was a huge mistake. There was something on TV last night that a council is now renting back (via housing benefit) a huge amount of properties that they used to own themselves. The are also starting to buy them back at market value after selling them years ago at a massive discount.
I bought my first house at 20. Got a mortgage, bought a place that needed done up a bit, sold it a few years later and then done the same thing again.
My sister and her hubby, always lived in council owned homes, had their rent paid as they hardly worked, moved about 6 times, all repairs etc done for free.
They eventually got out to work and put straight in to buy. Paid £19k for it with their discounts (strangely for not paying their own rent) sold it after the 3 years for £96k.
I know quite a few people that have done exactly the same.

I'm ****ing lost as to how anyone has let this be a flagship policy

Only thing I can see in its defence is that there seems to be a legal duty to replace stock on at least a 1:1 basis (the extent of that isn't very clear, but it's where the whole thing went wrong last time)

I'm guessing that this is to get round the 'bed blocking' of properties with secured tenancies, ie. Once you are in a HA property, you're entitled for life, no matter your future financial situation, so it [i]could[/i] be better to let people who can afford to buy do so, because you can't force them out, and use that money to build more.

They should extend it - everyone renting privately should have a right to buy, too

I agree, that's the natural extension - would certianly set the cat amongst the pigeons...

I think it's great
They should extend it - everyone renting privately should have a right to buy, too

They have got the right to buy. Just not the house their living in and not at a discount.

If they had announced it with a 'must build two new social houses for every one sold' caveat, then it would probably be an election winning policy

As it is it's just bonkers!

I am not a hipster. I do not have a beard or read the Guardian. I have always voted Tory but even I think this is a rubbish policy. It screwed the whole social housing stock when it became policy under the Thatcher government. Do not make the same mistake twice.
Right to buy at market value with all proceeds ring fenced for new social housing is fine but don't sell it off cheap to win a few votes.

Encourage ownership but keep out of the market - yet more distortions in our so-called capitalist society! They can't help themselves.

Didn't they make this mistake before?

Just to add, I know a good few people that had elderly relatives in council owned property and they fronted the cash for to buy the house. Let them live their rent free but had them leave the house to them in their will.
Nice little earner!

I'm increasingly convinced, both by his attitude and by bonkers policies like this, that Cameron really doesn't want to win this one.

Why can you buy a house from the council cheap anyway?

I don't get why it seems necessary for everyone to own a house, and that the tax payers should help low earners have this necessity...

Surly owning a house is a privilege for those who can afford it?

Those who can't, can rent cheap enough from the council... The council would have loads of cheap, rentable housing if they hadn't sold it all off for peanuts 25 years ago.

I am predicting a STW first - a political discussion where everyone, irrespective of habitual voting habits dislikes the policy.

I'm increasingly convinced, both by his attitude and by bonkers policies like this, that Cameron really doesn't want to win this one.

Cheap vote winner imho. in terms of winning votes in areas with high levels of social housing (where people either vote labour/ukip or not at all) it is genius. But as above, in terms of the overall housing stategy it is far from "fiscally responsible" 😆

I have a feeling that this might be a STW first - a political discussion where everyone, irrespective of habitual voting habits dislikes the policy.

Not so fast! Jambalaya to the thread please. 😀

I'd love to know when this idea was proposed and by whom in the cabinet.

They eventually got out to work and put straight in to buy. Paid £19k for it with their discounts (strangely for not paying their own rent) sold it after the 3 years for £96k.

Do they get to keep all the proceeds from the sale?!

If so, that's just nuts.

It's all absolutely batsh1t mental X1000^99.

Doing everything to stimulate demand with little focus on supply side.

- Help to buy
- This crazy idea
- Part owndership
- propping up dodgy banks
- Low interest rates

To what end? Get people trapped in debt and lock the rest of the people into renting for life paying money to the rich (multi) property owners.

Magic.

If so, that's just nuts.

[img] [/img]

right wing press are lapping it up, cannot contain their glee !

Do they get to keep all the proceeds from the sale?!

If so, that's just nuts.

Yip, you had to keep it for three years, used the £77k gifted to them to put a deposit on a 4 bed terraced house.

yep - it (for me) hightlights the fundamental difference between running the country properly on a long term basis and the self serving interest of getting 5 years in power

I would also love them to get the butts kicked but am possibly/probably even more worried about a Lab/SNP shitilition (it's like a coalition but smellier, messier and not something you want to be covered in)

It's in the tory interests to have more people property owners and give them a leg up so they're not a burden on the state. So this policy is ideal. They've committed to replace each one sold and are funding it by selling high value properties, which seems reasonable.

Obviously it grinds a bit for people who bought a house off their own back, but it beats the primary motivation of the left which is to generate more people dependent on the state.

[i]The right to buy IMO was a huge mistake[/i]

Right to Buy has always existed, even before Mrs T's time. All she did was open it up by giving out huge discounts to existing Voters/Tenants 🙂

Taxpayer subsidised gerrymandering at its best.

[i]It's in the tory interests to have more people property owners and give them a leg up so they're not a burden on the state. So this policy is ideal. They've committed to replace each one sold and are funding it by selling high value properties, which seems reasonable.[/i]

Yea, right...

There's also this:

[img] [/img]

This is very negative for Housing Associations who work hard to provide affordable housing. As posted above we need more affordable housing built and run by government/local authority/housing associations. This policy will just reduce the available affordable housing stock.

@5thelephant - I agree with your general thrust on home ownership/tories but renters in housing associations are not a burden on the state.

Forcing Councils to sell high value housing stock is a great bit of social cleansing.

"Let's get the oiks who rent from the council out of areas with decent house prices."

5thElefant - Member
It's in the tory interests to have more people property owners and give them a leg up so they're not a burden on the state. So this policy is ideal. They've committed to replace each one sold and are funding it by selling high value properties, which seems reasonable.

The net outcome of selling the more expensive houses is to cleanse certain parts of our cities of people on lower incomes.

Obviously it grinds a bit for people who bought a house off their own back, but it beats the primary motivation of the left which is to generate more people dependent on the state.

Stop talking nonsense.

jambalaya - Member
This is very negative for Housing Associations who work hard to provide affordable housing.

That's a very good point. Richard Coles was tweeting about this earlier - housing associations have to raise capital to build social housing, they have plans and strategies for future development. Now they are being told they have to sell off their assets.

Yip, you had to keep it for three years, used the £77k gifted to them to put a deposit on a 4 bed terraced house.

I am (for the first time in a while) genuinely surprised!

So, as far as I understand it...

The government let them buy their house at way below market value (I'm OK with this in principle)

But, when they sold it, they get to profit from the difference in its market value v what the government let them have it for (this is absurd), and at the same time the gov has just lost a bit of social housing stock.

They then take their profit and start competing for houses along side everyone else in the already over inflated private sector? Meanwhile, the gov has just pissed £77k up the wall and worsened the already serious social housing shortage.

Apart from the short-termism, which is endemic to the system anyway, I thought Dave's "Big Society" idea was transferring responsibility for the less well-off from the State to the "Charitable" sector? Isn't that what Housing Associations are part of? For the less well-off to get somewhere to live?

He just seems to make it up as he goes along. What ever happened to the Conservative green agenda with the dog-sledging in Iceland or wherever it was? Or has he dropped his Big Soc idea yet again?

Anyway. It doesn't really matter what Dave thinks. It's Gideon next door in number 11 who calls the shots.

@CaptJohn - I used to live opposite a daycare center in Guildford owned/run by the council. From memory they sold it for £2.5m and it was converted into a private house. The council where able to replace the center in a much cheaper building. There are many council owned properties which are located in what have become expensive neighbourhoods, there is a logic in selling them off to be replaced by cheaper property

IIRC from a TV program on a few nights ago a lot of the councils are selling these houses off cheap under the right to buy scheme and then having to buy them back at full market value to meet housing shortages.

[i]The government let them buy their house at way below market value (I'm OK with this in principle)[/i]

What, with YOUR taxes?

[i]But, when they sold it, they get to profit from the difference in it's market value v what the government let them have it for (this is absurd), and at the same time the gov has just lost a bit of social housing stock.

They then take their profit and start competing for houses along side everyone else in the already over inflated private sector? Meanwhile, the gov has just pissed £77k up the wall and worsened the already serious social housing shortage. [/i]

Er, yes. That is how it has worked for 30 years now - where have you been?

Gobsmacked at this site.

jambalaya - Member
@CaptJohn - I used to live opposite a daycare center in Guildford owned/run by the council. From memory they sold it for £2.5m and it was converted into a private house. The council where able to replace the center in a much cheaper building. There are many council owned properties which are located in what have become expensive neighbourhoods, there is a logic in selling them off to be replaced by cheaper property

There's also a (non-economic) logic which says diverse communities are better for social resilience and inclusiveness. This country is obsessed with the property market as a source of economic growth, and there are huge negative impacts which get ignored because people point to the bottom line and claim success.

1. Sell off council/HA homes cheaply
2. They're bought up by private buy-to-let landlords
3. They're rented back to social tenants, paid for through housing benefit at a much higher cost to the state
4. Profit!

Gobsmacked at this site.

Oh do please elaborate. 😀

I know some one that lives in Scotland. They have 4 kids and he has a low paid catering job.
The council is renting a 5 bed house on a new development for him as they can't house him. He's got the biggest house in the estate!

[img] [/img]

I wonder what caused the rise in house prices?

I know some one that lives in Scotland. They have 4 kids and he has a low paid catering job.
The council is renting a 5 bed house on a new development for him as they can't house him. He's got the biggest house in the estate!

It's a shame councils don't have a load of houses they could put him in cheaply.

Er, yes. That is how it has worked for 30 years now - where have you been?

Busy 🙂

The only aspects I have issue with are the windfall gain that can be realised when you sell (surely this system is wide open to abuse?) and the fact that we're wiping a huge chunk of stock off an already insufficient social housing sector.

[quote=Sancho said]Gobsmacked at this site.

26" wheel user and not been on here recently ?

@russ, yes its this sort of thing which is total madness. The bedroom tax was the wrong solution to the problem of under utilised housing stock. The other point worth making is there are plenty of families who's kids share bedrooms

@russ, yes its this sort of thing which is total madness. The bedroom tax was the wrong solution to the problem of under utilised housing stock. The other point worth making is there are plenty of families who's kids share bedrooms

He's a system player, his kids are registered as having ADHD and bed wetting etc and can't share rooms.

He's a system player

If this policy doesn't prove to people where Tory loyalties lie then nothing will...

Housing bubble inflation is Osborne's fall back position on everything

I think this is a response to the, non Dom thing that they handled badly

Doing everything to stimulate demand with little focus on supply side.

Yep, that's what the government want, to keep house prices high, all their housing policy over the last few years has been geared towards that. Despite buying a house this year I'm hoping for a crash, a sodding big crash in house price values. It's what's needed to get the market moving and things affordable again for most.

The other thing that's desperately needed is more 2-3 bed starter homes. Round here the only things they build are apartments without gardens and with limited parking (perfect for BTL investors) or 4-5 bed luxury houses (perfect for the greedy BTL landlords who own the aforementioned apartments). There's nothing in between. Madness!

"The other point worth making is there are plenty of families who's kids share bedrooms"

It is against some guideline* for siblings over 13 of different genders to share a room in this country.

*IIRC Illegal, but working on a citation.

It is against some guideline* for siblings over 13 of different genders to share a room in this country.

The world's gone mad - but at least material for an update of python sketches!!!

"The other thing that's desperately needed is more 2-3 bed starter homes. Round here the only things they build are apartments without gardens and with limited parking (perfect for BTL investors) or 4-5 bed luxury houses (perfect for the greedy BTL landlords who own the aforementioned apartments). There's nothing in between. Madness!"

This....... and the planning know it. they refused planning for more flats in the village on these grounds and the developer said the site was not economical for 2-3 bed houses so they wouldnt be developing it and leaving it dormant - in quite a prominent position on the main street.

They got permission 🙁

@Kimbers - Housing bubble inflation is Osborne's fall back position on everything

There's also the rank hypocrisy of evangelically preaching that the benefits bill needs to be reduced, then coming out with a policy that reduces social housing stock still further, forcing more people into private rented accommodation.

What do they think this will do to the housing benefit bill? It'll skyrocket!!!

But then that's public money being funnelled directly into the pockets of b-t-l landlords. Who I suspect an awful lot of this about-to-be-sold housing stock will ultimately end up in the hands of! And that's a good thing, right?

He's a system player
is that a matey way of calling him a fraudulent "benefits scrounger"?

In a nice way, but yes.
Problem is I know quite a few that are at it. Registered carers for their own kids because of imaginary illnesses.
DLA is another thing that needs a shake up in this country. There is an ex union guy that works at a peoples centre next to me that offers to form fill and attend interviews for a cash back hander if your claim goes through! I should have opened a walking stick factory a few years ago, sales would have gone through the roof!

I really should be doing something else but here's a bit from the [url= https://www.gov.uk/housing-benefit/what-youll-get ]government[/url] WRT Housing benefit:

Sharing bedrooms

The following are expected to share:

an adult couple
2 children under 16 of the same sex
2 children under 10 (regardless of sex)

This....... and the planning know it. they refused planning for more flats in the village on these grounds and the developer said the site was not economical for 2-3 bed houses so they wouldnt be developing it and leaving it dormant - in quite a prominent position on the main street.

They got permission

Part of that is to do with the price and rarity of land for building. Apartments (or building upwards) will generate a bigger return per m2 than small houses will. Equally though if a council have a blanket policy against apartments then the value of this land would decrease, making it more attractive for builders to build 2-3bed homes. There's a lot of brownfield land available in the UK (enough for around 2 million homes by some estimates). This is all owned by someone.

A timescale on planning and ownership of land by builders, developers etc could help. Land that's been purchased by housebuilders with permission for housing needs to be built on within say 3 years, otherwise it automatically goes to a forced auction where it's back up for sale again with the original owner not elegible to bid. Same applies to all the land banked by supermarkets etc.

DLA is another thing that needs a shake up in this country. There is an ex union guy that works at a peoples centre next to me that offers to form fill and attend interviews for a cash back hander if your claim goes through!

Lots of agencies "form fill" for people - there is a box to tick if you do this where you explain who you are and why you did it

There's also the rank hypocrisy of evangelically preaching that the benefits bill needs to be reduced, then coming out with a policy that reduces social housing stock still further

Its hypocrisy on many levels.

Conservatives tend to promote the benefits of the free market for efficiency, and apply this to the NHS and railways etc., but then come out with a series of policies to artificially prop up the housing market with "help to buy", "right to buy" etc etc

I wonder if i complain about iPhones being too expensive they'll give me money to buy an iPhone?

convert - Member

I am predicting a STW first - a political discussion where everyone, irrespective of habitual voting habits dislikes the policy.

Good call.
Personally I hope an argument ensues before the universe collapses in on itself. 😕

a policy that reduces social housing stock still further

Does it?

We Brits like living in houses but apartments are more efficient use of space. We did a horrible job with the social housing apartments we built in the 70's but low rise 2 and 3 bedroomed apartments is what we should be building. There should be no right for social housing over 4 beds.

ninfan - Member

a policy that reduces social housing stock still further

Does it?

Yes.

Which bit are you struggling with?

The counting bit I assume.

Ninfan at least make a[s] credible[/s] tenuous point as that just wrong

I've enjoyed paying exorbitant rent on several ex-council houses. 😡

any council houses sold have to be replaced one for one, and the housing association gets the full market value of any property they sell (ie. The government fund the discount not the HA) to build new

So how is it a net reduction in social housing stock?

(and that's as someone who has clearly criticised the policy)

any council houses sold have to be replaced one for one

Because they're not replaced? (See earlier graph showing that local authorities build fewer houses post-right to buy.)

I get the feeling this one, if the tories get into office, may spend a long time in the courts. As some housing associations are not that far removed from private landlords.

Saying your going to do something , and then actually doing it, especially when it comes to politicians self-serving promises, are two entirely different things.

Given this governments policy of using ever rising house-prices as a fig leaf for the absence of any proper economic growth (not that labour would be any different), does anyone seriously believe that that housing stock will be replaced, one for one?

And if you do believe that, I have some magic beans here. Would you be interested in buying them?

I also have a very rich uncle in Nigeria, who would like to use your bank account to get his millions out of the country. You will be handsomely renumerated for your assistance in this matter.....

Indeed it was on Today programme

20,000 sold in the last year 2 000 homes built

May was unable to "explain" this and said she was going to legislate to make sure they had to build a replacement for everyone sold so I am not sure if they have to or they are expected to

I was only half listening as she was avoiding answering the questions so I avoided listening intently

I was only half listening as she was avoiding answering the questions so I avoided listening intently

😆

Make your mind up Binners, you said the policy led to a reduction in housing stock - you are now saying the policy is OK but you don't trust it will be implemented

[img] [/img]

He would be seen by the same person at each interview so I am going for urban myth
He may well attend with them but that is different

He attends with them, tells them how to answer the questions, park close to the office, not to use the stairs, wear new shoes so the soles havent been worn down, take a member of family to help you undress to be examined and help get you out of the car, the list goes on.

I'm not kidding you, my step father is on full DLA with his help!

I suggest you report him and your father in law

He said it had not been implemented and stocks fell
This is what happened
Behave yourself ninfan and pick your scribbles as this is 😳

So selling 20,000 houses and building 2,000, year on year, isn't actually leading to a reduction in social housing stock?

Could you talk me through that? And show your working out in the margin please....

The Tories have always been like this. They think owning a home is a right but having a home is not.