What are the Tories thinking with regards to extending this policy. There is a massive housing shortage already and the Tories want to sell off housing association stock at a 70% discount.

I have always been a Tory supporter, but after this I just hope they get their butts kicked at the general.

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 – everyone 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 **** 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 could 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.

I think you might be on to something and rightly so!

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.

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.

The right to buy IMO was a huge mistake

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.

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.

Yea, right…

There’s also this:

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.

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

What, with YOUR taxes?

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.

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.