Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 13 2015, 10:45 PM

Here we go again!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3037686/A-new-right-buy-revolution-35-years-Maggie-s-visionary-policy-Cameron-pledges-property-dream-reality-1-3million-families.html

Posted by: GMR Apr 14 2015, 03:18 PM

No, what caused the problem was that the money they made wasn't reinvested into building new houses. On top of that it was very popular with the working classes. However, in today's society it could be a gamble... or a clever move!

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 14 2015, 03:49 PM

We are back to selling off council house/HA stock. So people 'lucky enough' to have lived in a home get a decent discount over those who are not so lucky. Eventually this cheap house goes back on the market with the original owners having made a decent profit and we get house inflation again.

If we build enough replacement homes that's not such a bad thing, but I doubt it will happen.

Posted by: Exhausted Apr 14 2015, 05:09 PM

It won't apply in West Berks as the council do not own any housing. It has all been transferred to a not for profit housing association, Sovereign Housing, and their tenants do not qualify.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 14 2015, 05:50 PM

The proposal is exactly that, to open the HA homes to the right to buy too.

"An unabashed extension of the Thatcherite right to buy for 1.3m families in housing association properties will be at the centre of an aspirational Tory manifesto due to be launched on Tuesday in the West Country.

The pledge is expected to see tens of thousands of housing association tenants a year take up a discount on buying a housing association property that will be capped at just over £102,700 in London and £77,000 for the rest of England."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/14/tory-election-manifesto-right-to-buy-housing-association-properties

Posted by: On the edge Apr 14 2015, 06:05 PM

If it's such a grand idea, why don't the Tories extend it to cover ALL rented residential accommodation? That would make it much more fair and equitable.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 14 2015, 06:10 PM

Politicians? Fairness? Equitable? Wash you mouth out with soapy water!

Posted by: On the edge Apr 14 2015, 06:15 PM

Sorry C! Better, I'll take my pills.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 14 2015, 07:03 PM

Interesting article insofar it is a traditionally Tory paper:

"Extending the right to buy is economically illiterate and morally wrong"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11535234/Extending-the-right-to-buy-is-economically-illiterate-and-morally-wrong.html

Posted by: Exhausted Apr 14 2015, 07:10 PM

From the Daily Wail article.............


But most tenants living in homes provided by housing associations – not-for-profit bodies that have gradually replaced councils as the main providers of social housing – do not qualify.

Enabling them to buy their homes is expected to require major changes to the 1996 Housing Act, and is likely to be fiercely opposed by housing associations themselves.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3037686/A-new-right-buy-revolution-35-years-Maggie-s-visionary-policy-Cameron-pledges-property-dream-reality-1-3million-families.html#ixzz3XJQR5rM0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Posted by: nerc Apr 14 2015, 07:31 PM

The right to buy was one of the best things that the Conservative Party ever introduced in the 80s, it gave me and many others the opportunity to step on to the housing ladder.

Since then i have been able to purchase another 2 properties to rent out and still own my original house.

I would welcome this proposal with open arms and would support the idea which would allow others to get ont he housing ladder.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 14 2015, 08:20 PM

So what about giving your tenants the right to buy their homes?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 14 2015, 08:38 PM

Do you think that would be equitable and proportionate? I don't.

In my view people should be free to own property, and be free to lease it without fear of losing it. After all, those really are some of the oldest legal principles in English law.

If there is an iniquity in the housing market that is obliging people to rent when they would prefer to buy then that's the problem to solve, no?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 14 2015, 08:46 PM

Absolutley! This is political bribery at its very worst. You can't give a voter a sausage roll but it's ok to give a few of them a substantial bounty out of the public purse.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 14 2015, 08:55 PM

Are the two things connected? Can you say why your latent entrepreneurial talent only came to fruition after you were able to buy a house. I'd argue that it was a fault of the failed banking system that clearly wasn't keyed up to support enterprise like yours.

So rather than giving unearned increments to just a favoured few, would it not be better to give better financial inducements to emerging enterprise more generally? Or, if this is just to encourage housing, use the money in more direct ways to reduce the price of land?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 14 2015, 08:59 PM

And thus we have a divided Britain. It was an atrocious thing that Thatcher did and we are feeling the effects now. It was immoral as it was economically incoherent (it said somewhere! ) It created the illusion of prosperity.

Posted by: x2lls Apr 14 2015, 09:05 PM

It suited me very well, but I didn't hock my way to oblivion.
Those that did, suffered the huge increase in interest rates!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 14 2015, 09:11 PM

The thing is, the Tories go on about fairness, but this initiative is simply not fair. People who have been subsidised against the cost of private rents will now get a double bonus of a heavily discounted home. Meanwhile, other's less fortunate and probably more in need, don't get any benefit.

Posted by: Strafin Apr 14 2015, 09:41 PM

Other people can't get on the housing ladder because people like you push up the costs all the time. Your attitude and that of the Tories stinks and is probably why they can no longer win a majority, even after the last Labour government did such a bad job. I have said before that no individual should be able to own more than one home, and I still think it's the only way to get the property market under control.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 14 2015, 10:36 PM

Equitable - from the tenant's point of view yes. Proportionate - no, nor do I think giving a right to buy housing owned by housing associations is equitable or proportionate.

I'm with Andy C on this one. If you want to exacerbate the housing problem this strikes me as a good starting point.

It's so predictable what will happen

1 Loads of houses will be sold out of the affordable rental market - many pretty quickly.

2 Replacements will trickle in, probably at no greater rate than they are being built at present - so the availability of housing association properties will fall.

3 In order to pay for it housing associations will apparently be forced to sell their more valuable properties - which will be the ones built under recent planning rules within private developments. So the trend away from social housing ghettos will be reversed.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 15 2015, 06:29 AM

In essence, you are all agreeing that this is a pretty dumb policy - I'd go along with that!

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 15 2015, 07:55 AM

Somebody must think it's not!!

Posted by: On the edge Apr 15 2015, 02:24 PM

Quite clearly, there's lots of talk about politicians 'being in touch'....

Posted by: gel Apr 15 2015, 05:01 PM

Already banned in Scotland & Wales predictably, due to their sad leftish views.
Unsurprisingly we hear that the Great Leader Sturgeon's parents took advantage of it,
before it was verboten