[Closed] Conservative 'Right to Buy'

A policy that has only just been announced, with legislation yet to be written, has not been implemented?

Like I say, I'm a critic, but you do nobody any favours by claiming that the policy announced today contains a reduction in social housing stock, as it doesn't.

Ok. You're right! It definitely, categorically won't lead to an actual reduction in housing stock.

Anyway.... about my Nigerian uncle, and his millions..... seriously, he's as honest as the day is long. You can't lose...

Are you in?

It's OK folks, the universe is safe, normal STW service has been resumed 😆

I am pretty sure she said that they had to do this now under legislation but they had not

extra homes sold under Right to Buy will be replaced by a new home for affordable rent nationally, with money from extra sales put towards the cost of replacement

So they have already said this has to happen and it has not

What makes you think this will now happen?
As I said the Home secretary was most unclear as to what would magically happen to alter this fact. Perhaps you can clarify for us? [ you are wrong please stop digging]

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-people-to-buy-a-home/supporting-pages/right-to-buy

I was absolutely incredulous when I heard this on the radio as I drove to work this morning. And apparently the best rebuttal Labour came up with off the cuff was 'it's not fully funded' Jeabus!

If I was a housing association, and this gets through I'd just sell all the houses and shut up shop. Penalise a HA by legislating right to buy, then again by mandating they replace/build another . You'd really not bother would you?

Anyway, it's such a stupid idea, it will be easy to blame it's abandonment on a coalition agreement come mid-may. Cretins.

A policy that has only just been announced, with legislation yet to be written, has not been implemented?

Like I say, I'm a critic, but you do nobody any favours by claiming that the policy announced today contains a reduction in social housing stock, as it doesn't.

You're aware that this is an extension of a 32 year old policy?

[i]If I was a housing association, and this gets through I'd just sell all the houses and shut up shop. Penalise a HA by legislating right to buy, then again by mandating they replace/build another . You'd really not bother would you? [/i]

Would those be the houses that they were given in the first place?

Where did you think they got the houses from?

[i]led to many councils transferring their housing stock to housing associations. [/i]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_association

I can't see the problem with this policy. The old big house that require a lot on maintenance are sold and replaced with more a modern house requiring less money to maintain and better energy efficiency too. As a tenant I know which I would prefer.
As for councils not building enough they should stop wasting money so they could build more homes. My dad is a council tenant. Him and his wife only in a 4 bedroom property. In a period of a year whilst the council were modernising the street they fitted double glazing and decorated all the rooms due to the plaster repairs around the windows. The kitchen was replaced 2 months later, it had only been in for no more than 3 years and the council decorated the kitchen again. The central heating boiler was then replaced, no faults with the previous one. The new one had to go on an external wall so they ripped out the new cupboards and fitted a whole new kitchen then decorated it for the third time that year. This was the same scenario for the whole side of the street. The other side had a handful modernised then nothing.
On the flip side of that a mate also a tenant of Leeds Council. His house might as well not have windows they leak so badly, boiler is constantly being repaired and the most of the sockets are broken and have been for the years he has lived there. He could do with the extra bedrooms as his boys are bit big and old now for bunk beds.

great article:

[i]This is a very ineffective way to support the aspiration that many have to become home owners. Apparently, the Conservative Party believes it can raise £17.5billion to support this policy. Over the course of one parliament, that is enough money for housing associations to build over a million new homes for shared ownership. That is a million households getting a foot on the housing ladder and a million new homes built. That, to me, is aspiration and ambition.[/i]

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/davidorr/right-to-buy_b_7060418.html ]http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/davidorr/right-to-buy_b_7060418.html[/url]

[quote=craigxxl said]My dad is a council tenant. Him and his wife only in a 4 bedroom property. In a period of a year whilst the council were modernising the street they fitted double glazing and decorated all the rooms due to the plaster repairs around the windows. The kitchen was replaced 2 months later, it had only been in for no more than 3 years and the council decorated the kitchen again. The central heating boiler was then replaced, no faults with the previous one. The new one had to go on an external wall so they ripped out the new cupboards and fitted a whole new kitchen then decorated it for the third time that year. This was the same scenario for the whole side of the street. The other side had a handful modernised then nothing.

😯

What local authority is that ?

Can't believe the Tories haven't learnt from the past. Normally I'm right leaning but this failure to grasp the housing issue has at least made this floating voter float the other way.

extra homes sold under Right to Buy will be replaced by a new home for affordable rent nationally, with money from extra sales put towards the cost of replacement

there is another trick being played here - council owned houses are being replaced by 'affordable' housing which has lesser rent controls

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2014/feb/03/affordable-housing-meaning-rent-social-housing ]unaffordable housing (grauniad link)[/url]

the comments about the largest houses being put up for sale as a mild form of social engineering is very true also, Shirley Porter would be proud !

binners - Member

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?

It's because we'll fill them with twenty times as many immigrants, we'll have to, I've been promised!

fin25 - Member

It's OK folks, the universe is safe, normal STW service has been resumed

Best stop masturbating on this train then. 😳

What I find amazing with this is that, if all sides now recognise that there is a housing crisis, the tories solution is to repeat the most influential policy which created that crisis. Of course the reality is that the tories don't recognise a 'housing' crisis, but a 'home owning' crisis, but that's a difference the vast majority of the electorate will neither recognise or be bothered about.

The decline of council housing isn't just due to the right to buy.

Massive swaths of council houses were torn down across the country because they were falling apart.

Go to Elswick/Scotswood/Pottery Bank in Newcastle and see all the areas that have been completely torn down and not replaced.

I remember excouncil housing being sold of for quids in the mid 90s in Newcastle, there were deals on it being redeveloped, but the cost of mainting it was crippling them.

If you know the area opposite M&S Brothers, the Halal supermarket/wholesaler - those houses there were bought of for peanuts, and turned into single bedroom bedsits, owner is doing very nicely now.

What local authority is that ?

Leeds City Council.

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.

Social housing is not a burden on the state it's self-financing, the build cost is recouped through years of rent.

Unless of course it's quickly sold at a 70% discount of course. But who would do something that stupid ?

So the council builds houses with governmnet grants, borrowing or other means, then is told by this lot that they have to sell the properties off cheap to sitting tennants, and loose rental income, while still having to fund the borrowings and maintance on other properties.

What is needed is more social housing paid for by the state without making private landlords wealthy through Housing benefit payments

I'd like to see figures showing the return councils get on their social housing, they get a lower return than the private market?

I am most amused to see that even the Telegraph are breaking with the Barclay Brothers' "to hell with journalisitic integrity, just get Cameron back in" policy with [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11535234/Extending-the-right-to-buy-is-economically-illiterate-and-morally-wrong.html ]this commentary piece. [/url]

Love that Torygraph piece, quite a few of us self confessed Tories on here also very disappointed with this pathetic idea.

What's the difference between the announced policy and the current right to buy housing association properties?

Described here:
https://www.gov.uk/right-to-acquire-buying-housing-association-home/overview

[url= http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/private-landlords-seize-right-to-buy-homes/6526526.article ]6,180 of 15,875 properties sold by Wandsworth Council under the right to buy are now rented out privately .......... 977 landlords own more than one of these properties, with one owning 93[/url]

[url= https://tompride.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/son-of-thatchers-right-to-buy-housing-minister-now-owns-40-ex-council-homes/ ]Multi-millionaire Charles Gow is a buy-to-let landlord who owns over 40 former council flats ..........his father, Ian Gow, was the Housing Minister under Margaret Thatcher[/url]

Labour councils in London are leading the charge in terms of selling council homes. Has anyone actually claimed that currently councils are building as many homes as they sell ? The Tory policy was that balance would have to be maintained in the future. Labour did nothing to stem the flow of sales during their 13 years in charge.

Also as above many Right to Buy tennents sold their houses for a profit and moved to cheaper areas pocketing the profit. As the ex council houses aren't so popular with private buyers many where bought by BTL landlords.

As above Housing Associations are commercial ventures and I do think there would be a legal challenge.

We need more social housing not less and the government should be building it.

What's the difference between the announced policy and the current right to buy housing association properties?

Described here:
https://www.gov.uk/right-to-acquire-buying-housing-association-home/overview

right to acquire has smaller discount which means few do it and it is far more manageable for the housing associations, they can and do budget for it.

Weird thing about this whole thing is that whilst the goverment does subsidise the sector with grants to help build new homes (and these are vastly reduced on what they were) Housing Associations are not public sector. The are not for profit companies. They are not owned by the govnerment. These are not the Government's assets to give away. Not like the council house sell off in the 80s which were at least public owned (albeit even there it was actually local government not national government) This policy is effectively nationalising a company's assets to sell them off. Very weird for a tory government to do.

Right to buy- where will council tenants get their mortgages and deposit from?

Mortgage from a bank like everyone else and as for deposit, what do you think the discount is?

An item on R4 this morning about Holy Island - nothing tao do with the election etc - a woman who lives there says many of the council houses sold cheaply in the 80's are now rented out as holiday homes.

i think any mortage company would be quite happy to lend a 95% mortgage on 30% of the value of a house. I think they'd almost prefer the owner to default. thats a superb return on risk.

This policy is effectively nationalising a company's assets to sell them off. Very weird for a tory government to do.

Not really. The Tories can be bordering on socialists when they choose too. It only seems to depend on who the beneficiaries are.

Mortgages are based on the value of the house, not the sum paid do if there is a 70% discount from valuation to price then rhe mortgage to cover the entire purchase cost would be 30%.

i think any mortage company would be quite happy to lend a 95% mortgage on 30% of the value of a house. I think they'd almost prefer the owner to default. thats a superb return on risk.

Seems an idiotic policy to me, fraught with difficulty - not least if there is demand for rented accommodation in general (assisted or otherwise), how does selling off stock help?

A more pragmatic approach would be to look at:

A.) Supply side; chiefly planning and land use or restrictions to.
B.) Problem of un-utilised (investment) homes.
C.) Demand in terms of having some better control on immigration.

Haven't read all posts so sorry if someone has said it but...

It's this just one of those "throw it away policies" to be used as a bargin chip for the horse trading once coalitions start to be formed.

As such it's still rubbish and leads to the question .... which are the main parties "real" policies and which are just put in or pumped up to be "traded" later?

Guess it's a down side of coalition goverments

Can someone explain to me how this bit works-

councils will sell off their most expensive properties as they become vacant and the money can then be put forward to newer more affordable homes.

So what happens in London boroughs when they sell off large/multi bedroom houses then a family comes into the borough and needs rehoming.

Where are they going to build these houses?

Where are they going to put these families?

In my council- ALL the houses (excluding flats) are exactly the same. Say lots buy up. Where will the 'new' houses go? Space is tight round here.

Green belt?

Cameron (correct me again)- is looking to 'empower' the 'working man' but also create more construction industry need?

Where are they going to put these families?

Nowhere near London, thats for sure. Stoke? Birmingham? Southend? I believe they're some of the alternatives presently on offer. This is all part of the continued social cleansing programme in the capital

Where will the 'new' houses go? Space is tight round here.

As in the past, they've absolutely no intention of [i]actually[/i] building any new ones, no matter what they say now. And you've just highlighted one of the excuses they'll use as to why not!

I'd better get buying some houses round here then to offer to rent. Quids in, cheers for screwing the taxpayer with short term politics, longterm debt.

Are the eligible properties any different to the existing ones in the current HA RTB policy? ie State funded HA houses.

https://www.gov.uk/right-to-acquire-buying-housing-association-home/overview
/p>

Can someone point to a link to the detail of the 'new' policy? The blue party's website isn't especially quick to navigate.

that torygraph piece is pretty amazing when you notice it's written by Julia Hartley-Brewer, who is so right wing I would bet she's on the david icke lizard list!

It's always interesting to hear the criticism of Conservative housing proposals by Labour, but as is always the case, it's instructive to look what Labour run administrations actually do with the powers they have already got.

Two examples that have been in the press down in that there London recently:

Labour run council leaves 100's of their own properties empty for up to 14 years:
http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/empty-homes-hounslow-costing-taxpayers-6685035

Labour council leader with 2 full time political jobs complains about housing shortage whilst renting out his own £1m home as an HMO and himself living in social housing provided for him by a Housing Association:

http://tinyurl.com/m3hvfmw

This is not a new policy, or an exclusively Tory policy. The Right to Acquire Housing Association properties was introduced in the Housing Act 1996 and extended in Housing Act 2004.

I'm yet to be convinced this policy will be a significant change.

Re-anouncing old policies? Very Gordon Brown! 😀

And labour councils are certainly as bad as the Tories for [s]flogging off social housing to their mates and donors[/s] encouraging private sector investment in the provision of housing

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/yacht-cannes-selling-homes-local-government-officials-mipim ]Its tragic really[/url]

binners - Member
Re-anouncing old policies? Very Gordon Brown!

And labour councils are certainly as bad as the Tories for flogging off social housing to their mates and donors encouraging private sector investment in the provision of housing

Its tragic really

No wonder no one by that name will get elected in Hull these days...

Four pages of opinion on this but I still can't find out specifically what this 'policy' introduces that is different to the 2004 Housing Act. Can someone point to the detail of the proposed policy and explain exactly which change is more problematic than the status quo?

Interesting opinion from a housing expert on Five Live just now. He says that what Cameron is doing is fundamentally changing the entire business model for housing associations.

They work in a planned manner, over years, to build housing. Then they manage that stock. But by forcing them to sell their stock, that throws all the planning out of the window. As he pointed out, you can't just tell them to build more houses, and expect them to do it. Its not that simple. They can't just ay 'oh.... ok then' and just totter off and build a new housing estate. Where are they going to put it? Who's going to build it? What infrastructure is it going to need? .... etc, etc....

Once again, a politician announcing a headline-grabbing policy, without giving a second thought as to how it might actually play out. Or maybe... cynically knowing exactly how it will play out....

I think we can all see (ninfan excepted, obviously) that what will end up happening is the housing association will be forced to sell their stock cheap (hopefully to grateful Tory voters), then they won't build any more. What possible motivation is there for them to do so?

Previously, their purpose was to provide, and manage, social housing. Now they're effectively being turned into property developers. Property developers with a difference. As property developers generally tend to make lots of money. The housing associations are being ordered to build houses that they then have to sell well below market rate! All to prop up a dodgy, entirely idealogical political position!

Would you bother?

No..... I doubt they will either.

Once again, a politician announcing a headline-grabbing policy, without giving a second thought as to how it might actually play out.

In this case we know exactly how it will play out because right to acquire HA properties at a discount has been on UK statute books since 1996!

Not at such a discount though. The right to acquire only came with a modest discount the right to buy is much larger.

Having said that I don't see why there should be any discount as this is in effect a massive handout which benefits wider society not one jot.

In this case we know exactly how it will play out because right to acquire HA properties at a discount has been on UK statute books since 1996!

Not at such a discount though.

Can you state the discount increase, I can't find the discount offered in the 2004 Housing Act.

Well a quick bit of googling on the gov.uk site states a limit of £16000 on the right to acquire whereas the right to buy can be over £100,000 in London and £78,000 elsewhere. It doesn't alter the fact that any discount is a bad idea as it limits the ability to replace said stock.

it's instructive to look what Labour run administrations actually do with the powers they have already got.

THANKS

a limit of £16000 on the right to acquire whereas the right to buy can be over £100,000 in London and £78,000 elsewhere.

Thanks that helps a lot with googling.

I think the 16k limit is for 'social homebuy' - a completely different scheme.

Looks to me as though "Right to Aquire" has regional limits, but a quick google suggests this discount can be as little as 9k but a 25pc discount is not unusual which in some places will be way over 100k.

EDIT: I apologize, as of 2010 it looks like you are 100pc right:

Nope social home buy is different again

https://www.gov.uk/right-to-acquire-buying-housing-association-home/discounts

Well according to this site anyway.

Cross post, which now reads a bit harsher than is intended.

Once again, a politician announcing a headline-grabbing policy, without giving a second thought as to how it might actually play out. Or maybe... cynically knowing exactly how it will play out....

What it needs is a short, punchy name that everyone will recognise, I'm not sure 'Right to buy for housing association tenants' works, so how about 'Landlord's Charter'?

Legally it'll be interesting as a lot of housing associations 'bought' the housing stock from the local authorities. It will have massive repercussions on centuries of property law if the government can force a private organisation to sell it's assets at a below market rate.

.... and has already been pointed out, aren't the Tories supposed to be absolutely dead against any state interference in the machinations of the market?

Well as someone in the Grauniad the other day said, they're trying to privatise what they don't even own. It really is the most crackpot, ill-thought through idea I've heard in a long time.

The HAs don't "suffer" the discount it comes out of a government pot so there is no loss. On the face of it not that different to Freeholders being forced to sell to leaseholders, which they are under existing law.

But that's at market rate isn't it? Still seems wrong though.

If, as is planned, the discount is made up by government then so is the sale by a HA under the proposal.

The HAs don't "suffer" the discount it comes out of a government pot so there is no loss.

Of course they suffer. They're being forced to sell assets they've spent a long time planning, funding and building. They exist to provide affordable housing to tenants. Yet now the government comes along and tells them they have to sell off the stock that they've painstakingly built up over over years/decades which completely undermines their reason for existing. As binners says, why would they bother if they know the stock is going to end up in the hands of private owners, and in time probably private landlords?

Yet now the government comes along and tells them they have to sell off the stock that they've painstakingly built up over over years/decades which completely undermines their reason for existing

They have got money for the sale they can build more.

[i]If, as is planned, the discount is made up by government then so is the sale by a HA under the proposal. [/i]

Often handy in sentences like this to remove 'government' and insert 'taxpayers'...

They're being forced to sell assets they've spent a long time planning, funding and building. They exist to provide affordable housing to tenants. Yet now the government comes along and tells them they have to sell off the stock that they've painstakingly built up over over years/decades which completely undermines their reason for existing. As binners says, why would they bother if they know the stock is going to end up in the hands of private owners, and in time probably private landlords?

Right to Acquire SA properties at a discount came in in 1996 and was extended in 2005. So housing associations have been coping with this situation for nearly 20 years, and they do still bother.

Which doesn't make it a good policy, but let's keep some perspective on the impact.

They have got money for the sale they can build more.

But why would they? Whats their motivation?

So as soon as they've built them, the government tell them to sell those too? Then they're back to square one, and the whole process starts again?

Seriously... would you?

Housing associations are not-for-profit organisations. They were set up to provide social housing. They are now effectively being asked to become property developers instead. Thats a hell of a change of job description.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the type of person who works for an organisation providing social housing probably isn't too keen on spending their days propping up Daves latest wheeze to manipulate the housing market for his own political ends. Not to mention seeing the houses they built ending up, somewhat inevitably, in the hands of profiteering private landlords

But why would they? Whats their motivation?

Yes, This is precisely the problem. A lot of housing associations have started to look seriously at expanding their housing stock by building new ones, but like all capital investment projects the financials will be worked out on a long term basis; if they are forced to sell those properties after 3 years the reasons for doing it may not stack up. Also housing associations have invested in renewables to get the feed in tariffs and renewable heat incentives - this is another source of income they would lose if they have to sell the property.

In order to run any business you need to have control over your assets and have the ability to sell them at a time of your choosing

They have got money for the sale they can build more.

So why not take that money, setup a house building government agency, build some houses and then sell them to first time buyers at affordable prices? Of course they won't do that though, because that would be 'big government' interfering in the 'free' market. 🙄

The only rational explanation for this policy is for the current government
to exercise the right to buy on 9,10,11,12 Downing Street SW1A .
You get a discount after 5 years - and even more after 10...

Aye, I never noticed the Camerons being on the receiving end of the bedroom tax and having to move to somewhere smaller

Aye, I never noticed the Camerons being on the receiving end of the bedroom tax and having to move to somewhere smaller

I was going to reply to this with "That's because he isn't lucky enough to live in a state subsidized property." but, on refection, he does. 😀

So why not take that money, setup a house building government agency, build some houses and then sell them to first time buyers at affordable prices? Of course they won't do that though, because that would be 'big government' interfering in the 'free' market.

The Government should be building affordable/social housing for rent.

This isn't a Conservative v Labour issue as Labour did nothing about the situation during its 13 years in office, they sold more council houses than did the Tories (need to double check that but heard it on the TV)

So what happens when these affordably priced houses are sold on for a profit as will undoubtably happen ?

By 'affordable' I didn't mean 'massively discounted'.

The Government should be building affordable/social housing for rent.

I agree 100%. I was just pointing out though that if the aim is to build affordable housing and help first time buyers, they could achieve that directly by building the houses themselves at a fraction of the cost as opposed to forcing HAs to do it by proxy when they don't want to.

Well as someone in the Grauniad the other day said, they're trying to privatise what they don't even own.

But didn't the Tories successfully do that back in 1985 when they privatised the Trustees Savings Bank (TSB) despite it not being owned by the government?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the type of person who works for an organisation providing social housing probably isn't too keen on spending their days propping up Daves latest wheeze to manipulate the housing market for his own political ends. Not to mention seeing the houses they built ending up, somewhat inevitably, in the hands of profiteering private landlords

why not? they would be supporting "profiteering landlords" from the Labour front bench who have bought housing association properties so as to act as a private landlord

seeing as labour have been stuffing the boards of housing association with their placemen it could even be a conspiracy of JHJ proportions 😉

they could achieve that directly by building the houses themselves at a fraction of the cost as opposed to forcing HAs to do it by proxy when they don't want to.

Equally, HA's could go out tomorrow and build new housing, selling half the houses they built on the open market to pay for the construction of the other (social) half

Ultimately the biggest brake on house building isn't the government, but local authority planning and petty nimbyism tied in with house price fears and their chilling effect on the democratic system (after all, no councillor or MP is going to keep his seat by allowing a new housing estate to be built)

No thread on this evening's telly debate?

Another previously lifetime Tory voter who really really wonders what on earth they're playing at with the housing market at the moment... it's economically illiterate and more than a little transparent! I really can't bring myself to vote for them on this basis, it suggests they've not solved the crisis and have no effective ideas for doing so either.

Possibility a) the market is thoroughly overpriced and effectively bust as prices are so far beyond earnings but it's the only way the electorate think they're doing ok so the Tories are just trying to stave off the bust until after the election. If they don't get back in, they blame the new government, if they do get back in they have 5 years (fixed term parliament) to get prices growing again.

Possibility b)
When they stress-tested the banks the other month, which included a 35% drop in house prices, the result showed another bust the impact of which would be even worse than the current situation as BoE can't drop interest rates any lower or print any more QE to try and keep things moving.
It would ruin consumer confidence, ruin consumer spending, and hence business, ruin the 'recovery', all those people who think they're going to sell their house for their pension suddenly find themselves 5 years away from retirement with half of what they thought they had, and expecting the taxpayer to bail them out. In all likelihood the emotional shock to a generation addicted to house price growth would mean people on the street and social unrest.

Possibility b is pessimistic I know but the Tories seem absolutely desperate to keep house prices going up so I do wonder quite what they're trying to gain/avoid that's leading to such blatant manipulation of the market

This was a very interesting program on R4 regarding right to buy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04pc2zz

Enfield Council have created a scheme which enables them to circumvent the central government 'Right to Buy'