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 - MemberSo 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 - MemberIt'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 - MemberIt'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.
The bank doesn't get to keep a profit on a forced sale and any charges have to be reasonable as determined by the courts. I assume you've just made a typo but the bank would be lending 95% of 70% valuation using the 30% discount, I strongly suspect the Housing Associations will aggressively challenge any discount as well as the actual right to buy.
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.
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:
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]
Quite, they're not averse to a bit of nepotism in the process either, as the Prescots proved: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/64534.stmbinners - 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.
Aye its always instructive to be a hardened Tory and then cherry pick information that confirms your views and then present it in a one sided party political manner
I particularly liked the way you said up to 14 years when the average is 52.3 days
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?
