[Closed] Conservative 'Right to Buy'

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.

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 ?