twas the biggest failure of the Blair/Brown government not to invest in social housing.... but for it to work you'll have to remove the right to buy, and unfortunately that has, like the nhs, become a sacred cow 😕
No right to buy in Scotland IIRC. It can be stopped easily.
Nothing wrong with right to buy in principle, it's a good way to prevent social housing being blocked by people who no longer need the support but don't want to move from a family home. Just needs a covenent to prevent the house being commercially rented in the future. Like most things the devil is in the detail.
Any money raised obviously needs to go straight back into building more social housing.
Nothing wrong with right to buy in principle
just needs to be applied to the private sector
Plenty wrong with right to buy. this is assets belonging to all of us being sold off cheaply. councils were forbidden to spend the proceeds on building new houses.its wrecked the stock of publicly owned properties meaning that support isd no longer available for others.
I think there’s a good argument that Right to Buy, as popular as it was, has run its course (and let’s not forget the entire policy was build round a correlation between Tory voting and home ownership); a massive part of the housing problem is the lack of decent amounts of social housing and as above there’s no incentive for councils to build more if they know they'll just end up having to sell what they’ve built on cheap.
@morecashthandash We also need more medium density building as this makes it easier for people to be, dare I say, within a 15 min walk/cycle of amenities and transport hubs.
TJ, I said in principle, how right to buy was implemented (which was criminal, Thatcher used it as a form of gerrymandering) doesn't mean the concept is bad. Done properly the assets can be sold off at a fair price based on rent already paid etc. Of course the money should go back into building new housing which should mean a continual renewal of social housing stock built to the latest energy standards in good condition.
Unfortunately I can't see it working in the private sector. However get public social housing sorted and it will significantly reduce the private sector.
@stumpyjon Isn’t this is back to anyone who can fix the public sector will be massively popular?
Rishi’s declaration that causing problems in Ireland is a measure of success really isn’t going to go down well there, is it.
Done properly the assets can be sold off at a fair price based on rent already paid etc.
Ie cheaply and thus the council do not have the money to build a replacement house nor a plot to put it on Its fundamentally flawed and is a huge subsidy from the public purse to the buyers.
Right to buy isn’t a problem provided the sales proceeds are returned to the relevant council to be used to build replacements - the problem was the proceeds went back to the Treasury to be handed-out as tax cuts.
We could also invest in the means to produce, large-scale, energy efficient pre-fab homes that be constructed efficiently rather than using traditional trades - hence addressing the skills shortages. In many remoter areas, there simply aren’t enough builders to build enough new houses using traditional methods.
It’s the law of unintended consequences. Preventing councils from building replacement stock cut the supply. So what happens in the future when social housing is needed? Councils paying for hotels/ private sector rentals at a higher cost.
Bit like other Tory decisions in the 80’s.
Let’s save a few £m by not having a Navy research vessel in the S Atlantic. How much £m did the Falklands war & subsequent increased military presence cost?
Let’s shut a few pits- the resulting dole to miners who don’t get jobs costs less than what propping up some mines cost. But completely ignores all the external support businesses that relied on the pits.
so much for being the “party of business”.
proceeds went back to the Treasury to be handed-out as tax cuts.
they didn’t- they were retained by the LA as it was their property being sold, just that they were prevented from using these funds to build new stock. It left LAs with surplus cash- which quite a few invested with Icelandic bank. It gave good returns for a while…..
so much for being the “party of business”.
Its a well worn cliche but the Tory party knows the price of everything and the value of nothing
so much for being the “party of business”.
They are though.
Its just they represent the asset stripping businesses.
The sort of company who sells off all its assets and slashes R&D which gives a nice boost to the share price and the directors performance related pay.
They then all leave before the business crumbles with no new products and a hefty bill for renting those assets back.
This has just popped up on the Guardian front page. Performative cruelty to appeal to the nastier elements in society (their core voter base) ahead of the local elections on Thursday 🙄
Home Office to detain asylum seekers across UK in shock Rwanda operation
Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: “The government is determined to recklessly pursue its inhumane Rwanda plan despite the cost, chaos and human misery it will unleash. We know it is likely to cause a catastrophic system meltdown.”
3 days before the locals, Id expect every possible populist angle to hit the headlines in the next few days
all of which will be instantly forgotten by friday
my bingo card has...
Quitting the ECHR
Going to war with France
A program to round up Travelers
Angela Rayner gave Kate Middleton cancer
Sadiq Kahn to pedestrianize everything inside the M25
Elon Musk to buy the NHS
The problem with sorting out housing is it’s going to make a lot of people who’ve had all their eggs in one basket a lot less well off.
Only if its enough to build replacements which means selling at a premium not a discount
But that's not true, the cost of building a house isn't the same as the market value for that house, the actual cost of building a house is way below what they sell for, particularly if you control the market for land as well.
I see there was a little debate earlier on, "are all Tory voters horrible". Well, like all generalisations, of course they are not.
However I suspect, as a percentage of the party vote, they hold a bigger percentage than the other parties. Reform excluded of course.
The Tory voters I know don't even vote Tory out of financial self interest, they are on the Alf Garnett spectrum I'm afraid.
Seemingly very proud of it too.
For balance, I'm sure a lot of labour voters are as well but not as high a percentage.
I think that's a pretty fair comparison of the average Tory (and Reform) Vs Labour, Libdem, Green** voter demographic?
** The only green voters I have ever met have all been better far better individuals than myself. I suspect a shrinking small Alf Garnett type vote green.
It’s the law of unintended consequences. Preventing councils from building replacement stock cut the supply.
How is/was it an unintended consequence?
Thatcher set out to 'roll back socialism', affordable/social housing provided by the state and which didn't reflect the market was considered socialist and unacceptable.
I don't doubt that faith in the market, and its ability to deliver, was a genuinely held belief by many in the 1980s, including many Tories.
Thatcher mainly did right to buy as home owners were more likely to vote conservative at the time. She was selling the property owning dream to the masses and everyone else could get in the sea.
But that’s not true, the cost of building a house isn’t the same as the market value for that house, the actual cost of building a house is way below what they sell for, particularly if you control the market for land as well.
ONly in a few areas- but the plot of land has also been lost in the sale and the huge discounts meant in most of the country that the money coming in was a huge amount less than the coisat6 of a new house
Why should the general taxpayer give huge subsidies to the middle classes?
Edit - as lot of the properties sold off where 30s and 50s properties - much bigger rooms and much better built than modern properties
I see there was a little debate earlier on, “are all Tory voters horrible”. Well, like all generalisations, of course they are not.
I am happy making generalisations on an MTB forum, but as I said I wouldn't do so in a serious discussion/debate.
The question is though, given they have the past 50 years to go on and the tory party seem to be now getting as bad or even worse than Thatchers low points (did she have anything else?) what do you call someone who chooses to vote for them. Even if you don't like that commie Labour Party who will take all your money you don't have to actively go and vote for the tory party do you. I see making that choice the choice of a ****er.
But that’s not true, the cost of building a house isn’t the same as the market value for that house, the actual cost of building a house is way below what they sell for, particularly if you control the market for land as well.
Yeah - this is the bit you're overlooking. The state can't compulsorily acquire land at less than market price just to build new housing. It has to pay the current landowner market rate (and in fact it costs more with all the legal costs and delays).
There is no world in which councils can make money by selling housing at market price or less and replacing it with equivalent housing at market price or more.
As expected, making the already incredibly difficult lives of a few foreigners even worse isn’t enough. All about attacking the supposedly workshy Brit now… PiP reform talk sounds a lot like “destitution will cure them” to me.
"The problem with sorting out housing is it’s going to make a lot of people who’ve had all their eggs in one basket a lot less well off."
Exactly. We have had decades of tory *and labour* policies which encourage wealth inequality. It needs unwinding, but to try to do so quickly would most likely backfire. The middle class are going to have to take some of the hit, but it is important that the super rich become less so as it is their spare £€$ which are distorting asset values. A dysfunctional housing market is a symptom. Try to treat it by all means, but the cause must be attacked as well.
Fwiw I support a Piketty style wealth tax.
The idea of people making money from renting houses needs to be socially up there with drink driving to make any meaningful change.
All about attacking the supposedly workshy Brit now… PiP reform talk sounds a lot like “destitution will cure them” to me
Its all part of their ‘undeserving poor’ narrative and their continuing commitment to dismantling the welfare state. Coming from someone as rich as Sunak, it’s got more than a whiff of ‘let them eat cake’
Sounds like a nice little earner for the UK. How much is the Irish government willing to pay?
Humorists in Ireland are suggesting the government should fast track citizenship and pay their return fare to Britain with their new Irish passports in hand.
There is no world in which councils can make money by selling housing at market price or less and replacing it with equivalent housing at market price or more.
Yup. I guess in theory a council could refuse all planning permission and then offer pennies on the pound for the land before changing their mind but in reality it would end up in court and they would lose unless of course they are backed by the government with enough cash they might win some cases.
Jenrick and Desmond show the flaw in this argument though.
I think in a handful of areas it would work but it relies on the local council getting a headstart on housing whilst starting on attracting interest. So the edge case of edge cases.
Overall its difficult to see why subsidising someone who has had subsidised rent helps anyone.
Surely if they had had the help then they can buy at market prices rather than being helped twice to the detriment of those who didnt get the subsidised rent.
Sounds like a nice little earner for the UK. How much is the Irish government willing to pay?
Considering how porous the border is I expect sod all.
After all anyone deciding sod the tories is going to be able to learn to quickly lie about how they got to Ireland.
I am curious to see how true this claim is. Given how low the likelihood of being sent to Rwanda is I cant really see people going sod it Ireland is a better choice.
Manchester ran a scheme which helped some friends of mine. If you were in social housing but had decent incomes then the council would help you with a deposit so you could get a mortgage and thus free up a social house. Much cheaper than giving away good housing stock for peanuts
Much cheaper than giving away good housing stock for peanuts
I would challenge the idea of "if you were in social housing" considering that those, since the tories and new labour had sold most of cheap, had an advantage over those who missed out and had to pay "market" rents.
Given how low the likelihood of being sent to Rwanda is
While we know how unlikely it is we are not at the end of any propaganda, rumours, misinformation between people that has taken place. A lot of people in the firing line may see it as much more likely to happen to them than we do so moving to the 'safety' of Ireland is seen as a good choice.
Meanwhile, while everyone’s talking about sending a few hundred unlucky souls to Rwanda, more blundering, post-Brexit red tape is pointlessly imposed on UK business to further hobble the countries international trade and further increase prices for us all
Less choice and higher prices? Britain braces for Brexit checks on food imports
Taking Back Control eh? 🙄
Cue …” I don’t know why the eu are punishing us just because we left.”
So many apparently normal people say it.
Did anyone see that ridiculous NI cut video thing? The one with the cup of tea?
It looks like someone who has never made a brew in his life!
Why do they get someone who looks so awkward doing everyday things, make videos of him doing everyday things?