following a question i asked on rtb,i have had a strong reponse from ppl who seem to think anyone who buys a council or ha property are just wanting cheap property handed on a plate to them and it should,nt be allowed becos its taking from the needy when you buy social housing.my parents bought thier council house in the 80,s and still live there now they have been there 35 years and will be there until they pass away.i think anyone should have the rtb if they wish too because the majority just see it as buying the home they love. whats your opinion ??:roll:

I would leave the council stock for the people that need it, if you want to buy a house, apply for one of those shared ownership schemes.

Right to Buy is a mistake..

Right to buy would be fine, if it came with a condition that you had to hand it back to social housing when you'd done (ie couldn't sell it, sign it over or leave it to someone else).

I can't see why you would need to buy your council house? If you are paying rent, that will probably be much cheaper than a mortgage, and you get repairs and maintenance paid for too.

Right to buy would be fine, if it came with a condition that you had to hand it back to social housing when you'd done (ie couldn't sell it, sign it over or leave it to someone else).

I can't see why you would need to buy your council house? If you are paying rent, that will probably be much cheaper than a mortgage, and you get repairs and maintenance paid for too.

Or it could come with the condition that the properties are sold at full market value (no discounts) and the money is ring-fenced to be used by the council to buy or build more houses.

RTB would be a useful tool for councils, for example if they have too many 1 bed flats and not enough 3 bed houses. But what your parents (or anyone who's RTB'd) should remember is that, if the previous generation had this policy, they wouldn't have got their house in the first place.

following a question i asked on rtb,i have had a strong reponse from ppl who seem to think anyone who buys a council or ha property are just wanting cheap property handed on a plate to them and it should,nt be allowed becos its taking from the needy when you buy social housing.my parents bought thier council house in the 80,s and still live there now they have been there 35 years and will be there until they pass away.i think anyone should have the rtb if they wish too because the majority just see it as buying the home they love. whats your opinion ??:roll:

I think that it is a flawed scheme, for example if I wanted to get a property via RTB(which according to Thatcher everyone has the right to do), firstly I would have to get a council house, now being a white, British, non disabled, straight guy with no kids and I work this would be impossible.

If the government wanted a scheme that works maybe they should offer all FTB their deposits (up to a certain value), or something similar that everyone can benefit from not just a select few.

following a question i asked on rtb,i have had a strong reponse from ppl who seem to think anyone who buys a council or ha property are just wanting cheap property handed on a plate to them and it should,nt be allowed becos its taking from the needy when you buy social housing.my parents bought thier council house in the 80,s and still live there now they have been there 35 years and will be there until they pass away.i think anyone should have the rtb if they wish too because the majority just see it as buying the home they love. whats your opinion ??:roll:

At which point you will sell it and pocket the money. How does that help people who genuinely need social housing, or tax payers that help fund the purchase.

As said before, if you want RTB it should be at full market value. If you can afford to buy i question wether the social housing need is even there.

Its a flawed policy that benefits the greedy at the expense of the needy.

my parents bought there 1st home at full market value a few years later they had to move because the corporation wanted the land and they only got a small percent above what they origanally paid for it and not the market value it was at the time.so the couple of grand discount they got when they bought thier council house i deem as fair becos they were ripped off and forced to move in the first place.

I think that it is a flawed scheme, for example if I wanted to get a property via RTB(which according to Thatcher everyone has the right to do), firstly I would have to get a council house, now being a white, British, non disabled, straight guy with no kids and I work this would be impossible.

If the government wanted a scheme that works maybe they should offer all FTB their deposits (up to a certain value), or something similar that everyone can benefit from not just a select few.

You're right, nowadays you wouldn't get a house, however you could get a flat if you have enough waiting time. Your ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and whether you have a disability or children does not preclude you from being eligible or from eventually getting a tenancy. There are many single people of all ages who live in social housing - and some of them have bought their property.

Having got that out of the way I agree that RTB is quite an unfair system. When it was first introduced, people who previously could have bought privately chose to take their first steps into buying - at a discount - especially where they lived in a desirable area. My manager at the time who was on a good salary bought his council house! He could easily have afforded to move out. It did give people who would have had no opportunity the chance too. We can't blame the individual for taking what was offered, but RTB has almost removed social housing from some areas in the UK. Some ex council housing is now rented out for much more than council tenants pay. This is particularly prevalent in London, where property prices and rents are much higher anyway.

Lots of people working in housing thought that the rules would change in 1997 as the Labour party had fiercely opposed the RTB. But the status quo remained. Its an issue that needs to be considered in the future, and when new social housing is built, hopefully it won't apply.

my parents bought there 1st home at full market value a few years later they had to move because the corporation wanted the land and they only got a small percent above what they origanally paid for it and not the market value it was at the time.so the couple of grand discount they got when they bought thier council house i deem as fair becos they were ripped off and forced to move in the first place.

Can I ask what that has to do with anything?

my parents bought there 1st home at full market value a few years later they had to move because the corporation wanted the land and they only got a small percent above what they origanally paid for it and not the market value it was at the time.so the couple of grand discount they got when they bought thier council house i deem as fair becos they were ripped off and forced to move in the first place.

That seems like more of a case of poetic justice than questioning the policy.

Right to buy would be fine, if it came with a condition that you had to hand it back to social housing when you'd done (ie couldn't sell it, sign it over or leave it to someone else).

There wouldn't be any point though.

I can't see why you would need to buy your council house? If you are paying rent, that will probably be much cheaper than a mortgage, and you get repairs and maintenance paid for too.

To get on the property ladder?

At which point you will sell it and pocket the money. How does that help people who genuinely need social housing, or tax payers that help fund the purchase.

As said before, if you want RTB it should be at full market value. If you can afford to buy i question wether the social housing need is even there.

Its a flawed policy that benefits the greedy at the expense of the needy.

Social housing would more likely be cheaper than areas with no social housing. Even at full market value, people who aren't in favour of it, would question the ethics.

Its a flawed policy that benefits the greedy at the expense of the needy.

I can understand why people think this way. Perhaps there are some people that abuse the system out of greed, but I think it's unfair to assume that everyone that's has used RTB is greedy.

Personally I think the idea would be ok if all the money from the sales was put back into building social housing.

Can I ask what that has to do with anything?

the point being the council forced my parents out of thier 1st privatly bought home,and into social housing,so why shouldn,t they be allowed to purchase thier home with a small discount.they own thier house but there is still plenty of council houses in the area.

I can understand why people think this way. Perhaps there are some people that abuse the system out of greed, but I think it's unfair to assume that everyone that's has used RTB is greedy.

Personally I think the idea would be ok if all the money from the sales was put back into building social housing.
here here i totally agree with you,the council should put the right to buy money back into social housing but they dont do they,my parents are not greedy they are decent hardworking workingclass ppl who chose the rtb,and still live there and dont intend to sell it for profit but spend thier remaining days there.

here here i totally agree with you,the council should put the right to buy money back into social housing but they dont do they,my parents are not greedy they are decent hardworking workingclass ppl who chose the rtb,and still live there and dont intend to sell it for profit but spend thier remaining days there.

And then you sell it for a profit. :suspect:

I think the best option would be Council housing is council owned. No RTB, no exceptions. You get it if your in need. If your in a financial position to buy then you go find a private sale. Nice and easy, no messing and everyone knows the score. No additional cost to the tax payer.

If this RTB had been in earlier then this discussion wouldn't be required because you would never have got a Council House to start with. The RTB has robbed a whole younger generation of a chance to get social housing because people bought there houses for a quick profit. Saying you plan on staying in it doesn't negate the fact that its no longer in the housing pool.

And then you sell it for a profit. :suspect:

I think the best option would be Council housing is council owned. No RTB, no exceptions. You get it if your in need. If your in a financial position to buy then you go find a private sale. Nice and easy, no messing and everyone knows the score. No additional cost to the tax payer.

If this RTB had been in earlier then this discussion wouldn't be required because you would never have got a Council House to start with. The RTB has robbed a whole younger generation of a chance to get social housing because people bought there houses for a quick profit. Saying you plan on staying in it doesn't negate the fact that its no longer in the housing pool.

He may live in a council house at present, he may move into the house he inherits and thus, free's up a council house.
I don't think its those that aspire to buy a property but can't afford one at market price that you should be whinging about.
It is the companies, that go into council housing and dupe those that can't afford to buy at all, into buying, then hike up the prices and when the mortgage defaults, claim on the insurance, buy the house and sell for profit.

(my bold)
Then you have the government that encouraged this scenario by allowing the banks to hand out high risk debt.
Demolished hundreds of thousands of homes, without rebuilding.
When the demand to rebuild got louder, they built affordable homes, built for sale.
Unless I'm wrong the public housing sector rarely buys up private stock for public housing use, they don't visit auction houses and buy up cheap stock, or play any other part in the property market other than managing and selling existing and new stock.

The right to buy scheme imo is one of Mrs Thatchers good ideas, it allows those that can't afford market price houses the right to buy a house.
So those that can afford to buy a council property can join the property ladder should they choose.
Stats prove that a family dependant on council housing will have offspring that rely on council housing, so a family buying their council property could remove generations from needing council property.
Also it helps to improve people's lives, so those that seek to buy their council property are seeking to better the lives of themselves and their families, they have a goal, they work harder for it, their children learn these qualities, and it can give people that little boost in life.

The failure from behind my eyes is the current governments game plan.

The right to buy scheme imo is one of Mrs Thatchers good ideas, it allows those that can't afford market price houses the right to buy a house.
So those that can afford to buy a council property can join the property ladder should they choose.


Owning a house isn't a right. If you can't afford it then you can't afford it, just like a lot of luxuries in life. Saying because some people earn less they should have their house purchase subsidized is just nonsense.

Many of us that own our own house did it by saving and working hard. I rented before i bought but i didn't say to my landlord, hey i want to buy and you've had a load of cash off me. Sell me this flat cheap. If i had i can guess his response.

All Council stock should stay that way. If someone is in a position to buy then they don't need subsided housing in the first place. Some will say its not subsidized but a previous thread about this stated £300 a month for a house; thats subsided. To then allow the property to be bought below market value is just wrong.

If you have a fixed tenure, you can't be shifted, your maintenance is taken care of and you like you home you can be buying it for one reason only..profit.

Right to buy would be fine, if it came with a condition that you had to hand it back to social housing when you'd done (ie couldn't sell it, sign it over or leave it to someone else).

I can't see why you would need to buy your council house? If you are paying rent, that will probably be much cheaper than a mortgage, and you get repairs and maintenance paid for too.


Then why would anyone buy it in the first place? As it wouldn't actually be their house if they had to hand it back. They might as well just rent it and get their repairs etc done free of charge instead of buying something to hand back???

Another question, and I'm not having a go just asking, how many people who oppose the RTB and have bought their house that they are living in right now actually live in an ex council house? If someone else didn't use the RTB and buy this house in the first place then you couldn't have bought it off them?

Owning a house isn't a right. If you can't afford it then you can't afford it, just like a lot of luxuries in life. Saying because some people earn less they should have their house purchase subsidized is just nonsense.

Many of us that own our own house did it by saving and working hard. I rented before i bought but i didn't say to my landlord, hey i want to buy and you've had a load of cash off me. Sell me this flat cheap. If i had i can guess his response.

All Council stock should stay that way. If someone is in a position to buy then they don't need subsided housing in the first place. Some will say its not subsidized but a previous thread about this stated £300 a month for a house; thats subsided. To then allow the property to be bought below market value is just wrong.

If you have a fixed tenure, you can't be shifted, your maintenance is taken care of and you like you home you can be buying it for one reason only..profit.

You must think that either money grows on trees, or that everyone in England is going to have had the same lifestyle as yourself.
Some people simply do not earn enough to buy a property at private market prices, they can only afford to buy at public market prices.
Are you saying that because they can afford to buy a council house and can't afford to buy a private house, they don't have a right to own a house at all?

This idea, that council house buyers are somehow profiting from the scheme is fictional.
You see, when you buy a house, if you happened to sell it, you'd be selling it at private market value, but you still need somewhere to live, and because you are no longer entitled to council housing, or 2nd right to buy, you are left with two options, renting private or buying another house at private market price.
Which if it had not been for the discount on the council house, you wouldn't have been able to afford.
Now this so called profit you speak of, would be invested into a house probably of the same size for value than the one you sold.
In my opinion people that sell their council houses, do so to move to another area, is that really a profit?

And the biggest irony, is that you are probably one of the biggest contributors to buying government officials free housing, twice.

Another question, and I'm not having a go just asking, how many people who oppose the RTB and have bought their house that they are living in right now actually live in an ex council house? If someone else didn't use the RTB and buy this house in the first place then you couldn't have bought it off them?

Not guilty m'lud. I've not lived in social housing since 1970 when we lived in Scotland, and we moved to Doncaster. If you dared to move areas you didn't stand any chance of a council house in those days, so after privately renting a slum for a couple of years we had little option but to buy our first home in 1972.

Some ex council properties are priced at a level first time buyers can afford, so helps them get started, but not all of them - some wouldn't be affordable for the majority of house buyers, depends on the area of the UK.

Here's another question - I wonder how many people who opposed RTB on political grounds (before it became law) went on to buy?

Also anyone, be it a doctor on 100K a year or a shop worker on 10K a year can apply to Sheffield Homes to go on the waiting time list and build up time to get a council house and then apply for RTB. Even if people don't agree with RTB they are the rules.

You must think that either money grows on trees, or that everyone in England is going to have had the same lifestyle as yourself.
Some people simply do not earn enough to buy a property at private market prices, they can only afford to buy at public market prices.
Are you saying that because they can afford to buy a council house and can't afford to buy a private house, they don't have a right to own a house at all?

This idea, that council house buyers are somehow profiting from the scheme is fictional.
You see, when you buy a house, if you happened to sell it, you'd be selling it at private market value, but you still need somewhere to live, and because you are no longer entitled to council housing, or 2nd right to buy, you are left with two options, renting private or buying another house at private market price.
Which if it had not been for the discount on the council house, you wouldn't have been able to afford.
Now this so called profit you speak of, would be invested into a house probably of the same size for value than the one you sold.
In my opinion people that sell their council houses, do so to move to another area, is that really a profit?

And the biggest irony, is that you are probably one of the biggest contributors to buying government officials free housing, twice.

I don't think money grows on trees. What i do think is that a right to own a house is bogus. Its no more valid than a right to own an ipod or a right to own a car. If you can't afford it you don't have it. The issue of private market place / public market place is spurious. There should be no public ly funded market place. If as you say it is then traded up within the private market place a tiny percentage of any capital gain is passed back via tax.

You missed a couple of important points out of your scenario. Yes the person may move, but the house always remains in private hands. It never returns to the public housing stock. Secondly (and i know this happened because I've seen it) Older people in Council houses where encourage to buy by children or grand children. This was even if they had no intension of leaving the house or where happy with it being council. The OP stated this herself in the the first post. The house goes onto the market when they die. This scenario which is common place negates all of your assertions.

Also anyone, be it a doctor on 100K a year or a shop worker on 10K a year can apply to Sheffield Homes to go on the waiting time list and build up time to get a council house and then apply for RTB. Even if people don't agree with RTB they are the rules.

Not just in Sheffield though, it applies across the UK. And even if those are the rules, that wasn't always the case, and may not always be in future. Demand for social housing is higher than its been for many years (haven't got the exact dates) so popular opinion about RTB is probably more divided than it was.

If you have a fixed tenure, you can't be shifted, your maintenance is taken care of and you like you home you can be buying it for one reason only..profit.

I know someone who bought theirs back in '81, they'd previously paid for a garage, central heating and numerous other improvements, and correctly forecast that the rents were to go through the roof. The council had made hardly any improvements since the house was built in 1940.

I don't think money grows on trees. What i do think is that a right to own a house is bogus. Its no more valid than a right to own an ipod or a right to own a car. If you can't afford it you don't have it. The issue of private market place / public market place is spurious. There should be no public ly funded market place. If as you say it is then traded up within the private market place a tiny percentage of any capital gain is passed back via tax.

You missed a couple of important points out of your scenario. Yes the person may move, but the house always remains in private hands. It never returns to the public housing stock. Secondly (and i know this happened because I've seen it) Older people in Council houses where encourage to buy by children or grand children. This was even if they had no intension of leaving the house or where happy with it being council. The OP stated this herself in the the first post. The house goes onto the market when they die. This scenario which is common place negates all of your assertions.

It negates nothing, it just adds to the scenario.
Now throw a recession and hiking mortgage prices into the equation and you have more public housing in the hands of banks, estate agents, and more homeless people.
Kind of a nice incentive to be slack with giving mortgages, don't you think.
kind of a nice incentive to create a scenario where this can happen, especially if its your people making money out of it.

Then comes the swine flu, and people will be owning their stock outright due to life insurance payouts.
Does that mean they were making a profit from the swine flu too.

Many people bought RTB properties under the Thatcher government at discounts of up to 60%. Very different rules apply now. Some such properties bought for below £10,000 in that era are now worth £200,000. It was excellent for the people who were given such an opportunity, but was a bad legacy for the youth of today. There were people in that era who bought their property on mortgage because the mortgage was cheaper than the rent.

I don't think money grows on trees. What i do think is that a right to own a house is bogus. Its no more valid than a right to own an ipod or a right to own a car. If you can't afford it you don't have it. The issue of private market place / public market place is spurious. There should be no public ly funded market place. If as you say it is then traded up within the private market place a tiny percentage of any capital gain is passed back via tax.

You missed a couple of important points out of your scenario. Yes the person may move, but the house always remains in private hands. It never returns to the public housing stock. Secondly (and i know this happened because I've seen it) Older people in Council houses where encourage to buy by children or grand children. This was even if they had no intension of leaving the house or where happy with it being council. The OP stated this herself in the the first post. The house goes onto the market when they die. This scenario which is common place negates all of your assertions.

What's the difference between a right to a "publicly funded market place" and a right to a publicly subsidised house. If one were to follow your argument to its ends.. if you can't afford private housing should you live a cardboard box?

What RTB did was to save the country and councils millions of pounds subsidising tenants and repairing dilapidated properties because the housing was held in private hands. That's why it made financial sense to sell the social housing stock. Not only that but RTB did much to increase the perceived wealth of the nation and actually level out class differences. There are now many millions more middle class people thanks to RTB.

I'd agree however that some money should have been put back into building more social housing but we need less now than we did then because so many more people have money to buy their own homes.

I'd agree however that some money should have been put back into building more social housing but we need less now than we did then because so many more people have money to buy their own homes.

What's the weather like in cloud cuckoo land?

What's the weather like in cloud cuckoo land?

Nice actually. Kind of sunny and pretty cheap... So what's your point?

what a load of twaddle to the ones saying about being able to afford it etc, you might as well say if you can't afford to buy a house in cash then don't bother.

I'd agree however that some money should have been put back into building more social housing but we need less now than we did then because so many more people have money to buy their own homes.

This was so not the case pre credit crunch so is even less so now

Nice actually. Kind of sunny and pretty cheap... So what's your point?

ERM.....guess there is no point in attempting to educate pork.

This was so not the case pre credit crunch so is even less so now

How was it not the case? Is it not the case that we have more home owners now than at any point in the history of our nation. How is that a bad thing?

ERM.....guess there is no point in attempting to educate pork.

How am I supposed to be educated by your total lack of coherent argument, but my PhD will do me nicely thanks.

How was it not the case? Is it not the case that we have more home owners now than at any point in the history of our nation. How is that a bad thing?





That may be but the social housing list is at it's highest

How am I supposed to be educated by your total lack of coherent argument, but my PhD will do me nicely thanks.

Not ANOTHER pretend educated idiot. I think that we have seen enough of them. I do not know everything, I am not young enough to!

That may be but the social housing list is at it's highest

True and I don't deny that we need some more. I said that didn't I? But we don't need a load of crumbling terraces or 1960s tower blocks which cost a fortune to maintain. We also need to look at those who are in social housing (on subsidised rents) who have good jobs, drive nice cars, have sky TV spend every evening in the pub and expect the rest of us to subsidise them because they have the right to stay there.

The problems with social housing go way beyond RTB.

Not ANOTHER pretend educated idiot. I think that we have seen enough of them. I do not know everything, I am not young enough to!

That's it, a bit of anti-education inverse snobbery and some ill conceived derision. That's the sort of argument we can all abide by. And if all else fails you can always make it someone else's fault.

The reason that there are more home owners now than ever before is because social housing does not exist in areas that people would really like to live. So we have millions of people living in "their own homes" who can barely afford to. This of course is an excellent situation for governments as they CONTROL interest rates and HENCE people. It is nothing new, it was introduced by the Thatcher government.
Workdonkeys who are afraid of losing their house make a very malleable workforce.
"Divide and rule?"
There is a vast difference between...."OWNING YOUR HOME"....and being at the mercy of bankers because you have a huge mortgage on it. ....I guess we have all learned much about bankers recently.

The reason that there are more home owners now than ever before is because social housing does not exist in areas that people would really like to live. So we have millions of people living in "their own homes" who can barely afford to. This of course is an excellent situation for governments as they CONTROL interest rates and HENCE people. It is nothing new, it was introduced by the Thatcher government.
Workdonkeys who are afraid of losing their house make a very malleable workforce.
"Divide and rule?"

Maybe people want to live there because there is no social housing. :hihi:

I would say that millions of people living in their own homes without government subsidy is better than those millions living off the taxpayer. I would also think that many of those people aspire to own their own homes as a means of avoiding dependence on the state and that aspiration is no bad thing IMO. I very much doubt that RTB was a clandestine attempt to 'control the masses'.

As an aside the government has no control over interest rates they are set by an independent Bank of England.
And nobody forces anyone to over-stretch themselves. People need to take personal responsibility.

Maybe people want to live there because there is no social housing. :hihi:



As an aside the government has no control over interest rates they are set by an independent Bank of England.

I expected this somewhat overused excuse. If the bank of England are so independant how come US the tax payers have recently subsidised them so heavily?....actually I WAITED for that argument!:hihi::hihi::hihi::hihi::hihi:...and you fell in HEADFIRST!

I expected this somewhat overused excuse. If the bank of England are so independant how come US the tax payers have recently subsidised them so heavily?....actually I WAITED for that argument!:hihi::hihi::hihi::hihi::hihi:...and you fell in HEADFIRST!

Fell into what?? The BoE has received no money from the tax payer. :confused: They have even warned recently that the governments economic policy is unsustainable and were opposed to the level of the bank bailouts by Brown.
The current banking crisis, I would agree, is despicable and this LABOUR government should never have allowed it, especially with all calamity Browns blustering about abolishing boom and bust...but this is a totally different argument from the one about RTB and the long term benefit it has had in our society.

Fell into what?? The BoE has received no money from the tax payer. :confused: They have even warned recently that the governments economic policy is unsustainable and were opposed to the level of the bank bailouts by Brown.
The current banking crisis, I would agree, is despicable and this LABOUR government should never have allowed it, especially with all calamity Browns blustering about abolishing boom and bust...but this is a totally different argument from the one about RTB and the long term benefit it has had in our society.

ERM....yeah OK...whatever. Banana republics still exist, go find yourself one.

I agree with RTB but I think the money should used to build more council houses for people who are in work. Council houses should only be availible for working people. Why should scum who have no intention of working be provided with susidised housing?

Quote:
"There are now many millions more middle class people thanks to RTB."

Sorry to disappoint you but they are still working class who just think/feel otherwise because they've got a mortgage. Buying Council properties means getting into debt with hire purchase (mortgage) for many years to come. I'm sure Maggie new that if working class people did this it would be a way of controlling their behaviour and work attitude. It stops people moaning about their job or asking for a rise as if the home is now threatened its unlikely that those people would go on strike.

Labour know that also so it has not changed much. Now they are wanting you to sell that property to pay for any health care needed in the future as it will all be means tested. Repossessions on RTB properties is also far higher. So in effect the working class have been tricked into having something that sounded good, "I own my own home" (not) but it didn't do them any favours.


I think Sentinel has sussed it out.:cool:

@biotechpete

Can you explain what you mean by "those millions living off the taxpayer."

He may live in a council house at present, he may move into the house he inherits and thus, free's up a council house.
I don't think its those that aspire to buy a property but can't afford one at market price that you should be whinging about.
It is the companies, that go into council housing and dupe those that can't afford to buy at all, into buying, then hike up the prices and when the mortgage defaults, claim on the insurance, buy the house and sell for profit.

(my bold)
Then you have the government that encouraged this scenario by allowing the banks to hand out high risk debt.
Demolished hundreds of thousands of homes, without rebuilding.
When the demand to rebuild got louder, they built affordable homes, built for sale.
Unless I'm wrong the public housing sector rarely buys up private stock for public housing use, they don't visit auction houses and buy up cheap stock, or play any other part in the property market other than managing and selling existing and new stock.

The right to buy scheme imo is one of Mrs Thatchers good ideas, it allows those that can't afford market price houses the right to buy a house.
So those that can afford to buy a council property can join the property ladder should they choose.
Stats prove that a family dependant on council housing will have offspring that rely on council housing, so a family buying their council property could remove generations from needing council property.
Also it helps to improve people's lives, so those that seek to buy their council property are seeking to better the lives of themselves and their families, they have a goal, they work harder for it, their children learn these qualities, and it can give people that little boost in life.

The failure from behind my eyes is the current governments game plan.

couldn,t have put it better myself:)

I don't think money grows on trees. What i do think is that a right to own a house is bogus. Its no more valid than a right to own an ipod or a right to own a car. If you can't afford it you don't have it. The issue of private market place / public market place is spurious. There should be no public ly funded market place. If as you say it is then traded up within the private market place a tiny percentage of any capital gain is passed back via tax.

You missed a couple of important points out of your scenario. Yes the person may move, but the house always remains in private hands. It never returns to the public housing stock. Secondly (and i know this happened because I've seen it) Older people in Council houses where encourage to buy by children or grand children. This was even if they had no intension of leaving the house or where happy with it being council. The OP stated this herself in the the first post. The house goes onto the market when they die. This scenario which is common place negates all of your assertions.

errr excuse me but i did not influence my parents into buying thier home at all,i was 11yrs old when they bought thier home.and i,m proud my workingclass parents did get on the propertymarket.

If you can't afford to buy, instead of taking a social-housing property, which someone else needs, why not go for a shared-ownership property to get yourself a leg-up on the property ladder?

If you can't afford to buy, instead of taking a social-housing property, which someone else needs, why not go for a shared-ownership property to get yourself a leg-up on the property ladder?

OR...buy a tent?

i do need my home, i cant afford to buy in the presant climate,and are you suggesting i give up the home i,ve spent time and my own money on improving to go live in a tent with my 15mth old son .bit of a moron arnt you sentinal!

Quote:
"There are now many millions more middle class people thanks to RTB."

Sorry to disappoint you but they are still working class who just think/feel otherwise because they've got a mortgage. Buying Council properties means getting into debt with hire purchase (mortgage) for many years to come. I'm sure Maggie new that if working class people did this it would be a way of controlling their behaviour and work attitude. It stops people moaning about their job or asking for a rise as if the home is now threatened its unlikely that those people would go on strike.

Labour know that also so it has not changed much. Now they are wanting you to sell that property to pay for any health care needed in the future as it will all be means tested. Repossessions on RTB properties is also far higher. So in effect the working class have been tricked into having something that sounded good, "I own my own home" (not) but it didn't do them any favours.


I think Sentinel has sussed it out.:cool:

@biotechpete

Can you explain what you mean by "those millions living off the taxpayer."

More people define themselves as middle class than have done so before which is good enough for me.

Well we better not get started on all that socialist ideology clap trap had we. If by controlling them you mean having them contribute to society freeing them from socialist dependence and giving them upward mobility, then what's the problem. Buying the properties at discount means little chance of negative equity and mortgages which are more manageable. That way rather than paying something for nothing for 30 years you get a house you own and have more involvement and interest in the prosperity of society as a whole. Nobody was or indeed is FORCED to buy their council house. This whole notion of conspiracy is total and utter madness. :loopy:

And what I mean by living off the tax payer is that social housing is subsidised and so FUNDED by the tax payer whereas the private sector is not. My point is that RTB generated and saved the country lots of money which was needed after labour ruined the country and put us in so much debt we were struggling to stay afloat (sound familiar) I have no problem with social housing for those that need it but it shouldn't be an automatic right ad infinitum.

Being middle class is not about what you think, its about lifestyle.

Surprisingly that socialist clap trap you was talking about was responsible in the past for social rights/housing/benefits/pensions/NHS and many more things we now take for granted. I appreciate and understand what was done then even though I'm not a Socialist. I also didn't say that it was a conspiracy but in a sense a useful by-product of that decision. I'm sure the small amount of money generated from the RTB would have all gone to help pay for the Falklands war and not to help the people as that debt was vast. Even today the income from the RTB is small.

Social housing is just that, everybody has the right to apply despite their financial income and it should remain available to all.

Have you not realised that getting into heavy debt for 30 or so years is very stupid. Unless you have or can afford more than one home that ladder only points downwards and that is not "upward mobility." You could even end up with the actual deeds for a few years before you die.

how many ppl that appose rtb are actually from a council estate,or own privately bought houses,it would be interesting to know ?

You must think that either money grows on trees, or that everyone in England is going to have had the same lifestyle as yourself.
Some people simply do not earn enough to buy a property at private market prices, they can only afford to buy at public market prices.
Are you saying that because they can afford to buy a council house and can't afford to buy a private house, they don't have a right to own a house at all?


Precisely.
Although really, no one has the right to buy a house.
Rights are talked about far too much these days, as if god popped down and told everyone they'd be able to buy a house one day.
You don't have the right to foreign holidays, to buy a house, to buy a yacht or to own a ferrari. Why is that difficult to understand?

how many ppl that appose rtb are actually from a council estate,or own privately bought houses,it would be interesting to know ?

You need to appreciate the difference between opposing the RTB in principle (which it seems most people do) and opposing it for individuals (ie thinking bad of them for taking advantage of it).
My grandparents took advantage of it, I don't blame them, if someone offered me that Ferrari at half price because the government was paying, I'd snap it up.
It doesn't follow that I think the government subsidising Ferraris is a good idea though.

I expected this somewhat overused excuse. If the bank of England are so independant how come US the tax payers have recently subsidised them so heavily?....actually I WAITED for that argument!:hihi::hihi::hihi::hihi::hihi:...and you fell in HEADFIRST!

You're going to have to explain?

Last I checked, the bank was printing money in order to buy government bonds. Ie helping out the government.
The two are intrinsically linked, but the interest rates are set to control inflation, nothing but that and the general state of the economy controls it.

Being middle class is not about what you think, its about lifestyle.

Surprisingly that socialist clap trap you was talking about was responsible in the past for social rights/housing/benefits/pensions/NHS and many more things we now take for granted. I appreciate and understand what was done then even though I'm not a Socialist. I also didn't say that it was a conspiracy but in a sense a useful by-product of that decision. I'm sure the small amount of money generated from the RTB would have all gone to help pay for the Falklands war and not to help the people as that debt was vast. Even today the income from the RTB is small.

Social housing is just that, everybody has the right to apply despite their financial income and it should remain available to all.

Have you not realised that getting into heavy debt for 30 or so years is very stupid. Unless you have or can afford more than one home that ladder only points downwards and that is not "upward mobility." You could even end up with the actual deeds for a few years before you die.

At least if people buy a house they eventually end up owning it and is one less thing to pay for when they old, whereas if a person rents they are paying rent until they die.

At least if people buy a house they eventually end up owning it and is one less thing to pay for when they old, whereas if a person rents they are paying rent until they die. theres some pretty strong views on rtb thats all i can say:roll:

how many ppl that appose rtb are actually from a council estate,or own privately bought houses,it would be interesting to know ?

I oppose the RTB, and I live in social housing (I rent from a Housing Association, rather than council.)

I am happy to rent, rather than have a millstone of debt around my neck for up to three decades.

I oppose the RTB, and I live in social housing (I rent from a Housing Association, rather than council.)

I am happy to rent, rather than have a millstone of debt around my neck for up to three decades.
up until i hit my thirtys i had exactly the same view,i was young single having a gr8 life,no responsebilitys.now i,m settled down with a small child i want to invest in his future and for me thats investing in our home.so i applaud the rtb for giving ppl like me the option to buy or shared ownership.i dont see it as milestone i see it as giving my son a better life when i,m gone.

I'd be more concerned with people who have extortionate mortgages on private property and who come out of work to have thier mortgages paid for by the state without having to downsize, and reap the benefit of house prices going up.

I would leave the council stock for the people that need it, if you want to buy a house, apply for one of those shared ownership schemes.

Right to Buy is a mistake..



Utter Rubbish.

Someone I know bought a council home on buy to let scheme and made a massive profit.

I'd be more concerned with people who have extortionate mortgages on private property and who come out of work to have thier mortgages paid for by the state without having to downsize, and reap the benefit of house prices going up.

It doesn't work like that. Homeowners don't qualify for housing benefit, and they don't get help with housing costs immediately they go onto benefits, unlike people in rented homes. They may get some mortgage interest paid, but none of the capital. There are some schemes available to help, often involving the house being sold and rented back, and although they mean folk don't lose their homes, they will probably have lost much of the money they've spent on their deposit etc. And, I can't believe you haven't seen all the information about house prices going DOWN over the last couple of years!

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/benefits/can-i-claim-housing-benefit#whoisnot

Utter Rubbish.

Someone I know bought a council home on buy to let scheme and made a massive profit.

Do you mean Right to Buy? If so it wasn't a mistake for them. I think everyone agrees RTB is a winner for most individuals who are fortunate enough to be able to buy at a discount - but not so good for all the people who need/want social housing.

following a question i asked on rtb,i have had a strong reponse from ppl who seem to think anyone who buys a council or ha property are just wanting cheap property handed on a plate to them and it should,nt be allowed becos its taking from the needy when you buy social housing.my parents bought thier council house in the 80,s and still live there now they have been there 35 years and will be there until they pass away.i think anyone should have the rtb if they wish too because the majority just see it as buying the home they love. whats your opinion ??:roll:

My opinion is to buy it and take advantage. I fail to see how you can be critisiced.

I am also of the the opinion that your parents should not be legally allowed to buy it. It is the RTB policy that should be critisiced.

My opinion is to buy it and take advantage. I fail to see how you can be critisiced.

I am also of the the opinion that your parents should not be legally allowed to buy it. It is the RTB policy that should be critisiced.

Isn't that what the thread is about, the RTB policy, not individuals who exercise their RTB.

I agree with RTB but I think the money should used to build more council houses for people who are in work. Council houses should only be availible for working people. Why should scum who have no intention of working be provided with susidised housing?

Council houses should be available to all.

Without a roof over your head and jobless how the hell are you supposed to live? Your going to be at a disadvantage for getting a job etc. etc.

You'd go bloody mental and do a lot more damage to society than if you claimed housing benefit for a few months before you got yourself on your feet and got a job and started paying back into the system.

At the end of the day people are just statistics nowadays.

If £1 spent on social housing only returns whats deemed to be a 99p return to the state by some overpaid consultancy firm which states the bleeding obvious, then they won't spend the money.
Sod your mental health, sod your right to a roof over your head, sod your dignity too. Who the hell do you think you are?

Your sod all compared to £0.01, your just a piece of human filth and your costing society a penny.
(Btw you need to pay £20000 to your country to help it balance the books)

Isn't that what the thread is about, the RTB policy, not individuals who exercise their RTB.

I was under the impression this thread was about pornography contained upon microscope slides :roll:

My opinion is to buy it and take advantage. I fail to see how you can be critisiced.

I am also of the the opinion that your parents should not be legally allowed to buy it. It is the RTB policy that should be critisiced.
what are you talking about? you say take advantage,but parents shoudn,t have rtb.who should then the kids in school!!what a load of bull,why dont you go comment on bb 10 or something more apt to your brain cells.

What are you talking about? You say take advantage, but parents shoudn't have rtb. Who should then?, the kids in school?! What a load of bull, why dont you go comment on bb 10 or something more apt to your brain cells. *edited for easier reading*

You appear to have misread my post, what is bb10 is it some sort of childrens forum?

True and I don't deny that we need some more. I said that didn't I? But we don't need a load of crumbling terraces or 1960s tower blocks which cost a fortune to maintain. We also need to look at those who are in social housing (on subsidised rents) who have good jobs, drive nice cars, have sky TV spend every evening in the pub and expect the rest of us to subsidise them because they have the right to stay there.

The problems with social housing go way beyond RTB.

But this is just it, they do have the right to stay there, it's a secure tenancy. How do you know a person won't get a house via priority status and let's say not have a job etc and then find work and get back on their feet, and be able to afford a car, sky etc etc. So they should then be get chucked out of their house? Even if they are then paying full rent and council tax for it to be say passed over to someone on benefits, paying nothing??

seems to me theres a class issue underneath a lot of these negative comments on social housing,bet most of you own large houses have never lived on a council estate in your entire life,but think its ok to pass judgement on the workingclass that want to better themselves.because you dont want us selling our homes at profit and buying a home next door to you god forbid!!!!

You appear to have misread my post, what is bb10 is it some sort of childrens forum?

well elaborate on why parents shouldn,t be able to buy whats your point:huh:

up until i hit my thirtys i had exactly the same view,i was young single having a gr8 life,no responsebilitys.now i,m settled down with a small child i want to invest in his future and for me thats investing in our home.so i applaud the rtb for giving ppl like me the option to buy or shared ownership.i dont see it as milestone i see it as giving my son a better life when i,m gone.

I am in my middle forties, and have always believed it is wrong to take social housing out of the equation, by purchasing under RTB, whether legislation allows it or not.

As I said in my earlier comment, If you wish to enter the housing market on the lower rungs, the better option is shared ownership:- you buy a part-interest in the property, and you can, in many cases, purchase further interest in the property (25%/ 50%/ 75% etc) or you can sell the interest that you own, in the property, and use it to purchase a property further up the ladder as the time comes to expand or upgrade.

You can still leave the interest you own in that property to your child, too.

and the best thing about it is, you aren't depriving those who need social housing of the availability of properties!

I am also of the the opinion that your parents should not be legally allowed to buy it. It is the RTB policy that should be critisiced.

As far as I am aware, only the legal tenant, and members of his family who live there, can purchase the house. I think the case you may be referring to is that parents can assist financially.

Fell into what?? The BoE has received no money from the tax payer. :confused: They have even warned recently that the governments economic policy is unsustainable and were opposed to the level of the bank bailouts by Brown.
The current banking crisis, I would agree, is despicable and this LABOUR government should never have allowed it, especially with all calamity Browns blustering about abolishing boom and bust...but this is a totally different argument from the one about RTB and the long term benefit it has had in our society.

The government, the bank of England and the banks all do it in the same bucket. They see everyone other themselves as the bucket, no matter which government is in.

seems to me theres a class issue underneath a lot of these negative comments on social housing,bet most of you own large houses have never lived on a council estate in your entire life,but think its ok to pass judgement on the workingclass that want to better themselves.because you dont want us selling our homes at profit and buying a home next door to you god forbid!!!!

You seem to be creating the class issue, going on about people on here in big houses never having lived on estates and people on council estates wanting to better themselves. I have no problem with anyone trying to improve their situation, your the one complaining about your over inflated cheap rent and not being able to buy a house becuase you can't afford it. If your trying to better yourself why did you not trying to get off the council estate before having kids? Most people seem to be of the opinion that council houses should remain council owned for people who need them and it has nothing to do with you buying the house next door.

seems to me theres a class issue underneath a lot of these negative comments on social housing,bet most of you own large houses have never lived on a council estate in your entire life,but think its ok to pass judgement on the workingclass that want to better themselves.because you dont want us selling our homes at profit and buying a home next door to you god forbid!!!!

Thats a little bitter just because people don't agree with you. IF, and thats a big if, we live in 10 bed houses in the country is irrelevant. Those houses will have been paid for at full market value and at no cost to the taxpayer. If you wanted a big house then buy one, just don't expect it at a reduced cost.

The issue is that you are trying to get support for the sale of social housing stock on the cheap. RTB in my and many others opinion is wrong.

That doesn't mean you are wrong to buy, if its allowed by your HA and is all legal then it no one else's business. We are commenting on the principle of RTB.

One poster also said RTB was good because people from families who own there own home aren't likely to go back into social housing. Your case has shown that to be incorrect.

Because people don't agree with you doesn't mean that they have issue of class, race or social background. It means they think the idea is a bad one.

I have no problem with you buying a house on my street. Just don't expect me to indirectly subsidise it.

You seem to be creating the class issue, going on about people on here in big houses never having lived on estates and people on council estates wanting to better themselves. I have no problem with anyone trying to improve their situation, your the one complaining about your over inflated cheap rent and not being able to buy a house becuase you can't afford it. If your trying to better yourself why did you not trying to get off the council estate before having kids? Most people seem to be of the opinion that council houses should remain council owned for people who need them and it has nothing to do with you buying the house next door.

totally agreed, neeeeek!

well elaborate on why parents shouldn,t be able to buy whats your point:huh:

I am against RTB I don't think it is fair, I thought that was clear. If I myself could take advantage of it I would, I would still think it unfair, but if it worked to my advantage it would be a very attractive option.

I don't think anybody should have RTB, neither me, you, the OP, their parents or anybody else. Obviously though, we can't change the past and take back the RTB from people who have used it.

Having lived in council houses from being born to the age of 30
I fully understand the need and requirement for council houses to ppl that are NOT in a position to buy!

Once we were in a position to buy we turned down RTB so someone else could have the house and we bought somewhere (Not ex council either) thats the way it should be IMO

It appears to me that the council are lining there pockets in more than one way or another with the RTB and demolition .

Large council estates are being demolished and have been i.e Norfolk Park , Scowderns @ hackenthorpe, alot of the BAdger estate @ woodhouse , kelvin flats etc etc... the land has been SOLD off and private houses built

The council houses that were any good MOST have been sold as RTB at a large loss or discount . As a result ppl that are in need of social housing are struggling to find suitable homes at least in the south east of sheffield .

Another major problem in this is that ppl that have RTB buy then sell there houses at a large profit usally after 5 years or 3 ?

If things continue like this surely sheffield is heading for large housing problems ? I note that already the councill have been buying WESTONE appartments to let out ,proof that new councill / social housing is required

Having lived in council houses from being born to the age of 30
I fully understand the need and requirement for council houses to ppl that are NOT in a position to buy!

Once we were in a position to buy we turned down RTB so someone else could have the house and we bought somewhere (Not ex council either) thats the way it should be IMO

It appears to me that the council are lining there pockets in more than one way or another with the RTB and demolition .

Large council estates are being demolished and have been i.e Norfolk Park , Scowderns @ hackenthorpe, alot of the BAdger estate @ woodhouse , kelvin flats etc etc... the land has been SOLD off and private houses built

The council houses that were any good MOST have been sold as RTB at a large loss or discount . As a result ppl that are in need of social housing are struggling to find suitable homes at least in the south east of sheffield .

Another major problem in this is that ppl that have RTB buy then sell there houses at a large profit usally after 5 years or 3 ?

If things continue like this surely sheffield is heading for large housing problems ? I note that already the councill have been buying WESTONE appartments to let out ,proof that new councill / social housing is required

Also Arbourthorne, Manor, PARK HILL. £$€ £$€ £$€

Then they have the cheek to say apply for funding for new houses in the areas where they have demolished perfectly good houses.

Decent homes, whats the point when there is not enough :(

We have paid to knock down good houses to give private companies a profit making opportunity, to then be asked to pay to build the houses we need, some of which we already had in the first place.

Even if we extended parkhill upwards to 150 storeys to make it the tallest building in the world and bring it back into its original purpose of providing adequate housing to the needy I doubt we would have enough properties to clear the waiting list.

Slightly off topic but i wonder how many people on the waiting list are applying with the sole intention of getting RTB on a property, rather than genuine need.

It might not be huge but it will still be falsely inflating the perceived need based on waiting list size.

Another reason RTB should be abolished.

Scotland and Wales authorities along with "shelter" think its been a disaster.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/07/09142119

England shelter also want the RTB reduced or stoped.

yeah agreed goodpost CHEM1ST

Back in 1980, the situation was somewhat different. The Conservatives had won the election and one of the main planks of their manifesto was the RTB policy. In Sheffield, the socialist council had, for generations, presided over the large council estates which were suffering from residual neglect and disinterest, little had been done to them since they were built. Many tenants felt that they were subjected to a paternalistic attitude that had characterised the Labour council who regarded council tenants as "their own". When the RTB opportunity arose, many tenants that were or had been staunch Labourites leaped at the chance, but it was certainly controversial, in fact the Council did everything they could to deter tenants from exercising their RTB to the point where Michael Heseltine, the Housing Minister, was poised to assume the sale process directly away from SCC.

The legislation was partly political but it was also intended to develop a more mixed tenure amongst these huge estates. It is conceivable that the rents then were being subsidised by either central goverment or SCC rates, and also the huge investment required for their renovation was not readily available, no doubt due to the state of the public finances left by the outgoing Labour government. The valuations were low as much of the older stock was in need of modernising and there were doubts about the saleability of such houses, particularly within a large estate.

However, at that time, RTB was seen by many as a refreshing and inspirational policy which gave many families their first rung on the housing ladder which they would otherwise never have had.

You seem to be creating the class issue, going on about people on here in big houses never having lived on estates and people on council estates wanting to better themselves. I have no problem with anyone trying to improve their situation, your the one complaining about your over inflated cheap rent and not being able to buy a house becuase you can't afford it. If your trying to better yourself why did you not trying to get off the council estate before having kids? Most people seem to be of the opinion that council houses should remain council owned for people who need them and it has nothing to do with you buying the house next door.

what has my rent or whether i have kids anything to do with this thread!you seem to be just making a personal issue with me,so back off and go an bother someone else.whether i choose to buy the home i,m in a private home,or shared ownership in THE FUTURE is my buisness,there is a recession going on and not many ppl are in a position to buy at the moment,so yes at the moment i do need my bloody social housing home.and saying if i wantedto better myself why did i not try getting off the council estate before having kids,is a snipe at ppl that live on council estates not being better than yourself perhaps!:mad:

Back in 1980, the situation was somewhat different. The Conservatives had won the election and one of the main planks of their manifesto was the RTB policy. In Sheffield, the socialist council had, for generations, presided over the large council estates which were suffering from residual neglect and disinterest, little had been done to them since they were built. Many tenants felt that they were subjected to a paternalistic attitude that had characterised the Labour council who regarded council tenants as "their own". When the RTB opportunity arose, many tenants that were or had been staunch Labourites leaped at the chance, but it was certainly controversial, in fact the Council did everything they could to deter tenants from exercising their RTB to the point where Michael Heseltine, the Housing Minister, was poised to assume the sale process directly away from SCC.

The legislation was partly political but it was also intended to develop a more mixed tenure amongst these huge estates. It is conceivable that the rents then were being subsidised by either central goverment or SCC rates, and also the huge investment required for their renovation was not readily available, no doubt due to the state of the public finances left by the outgoing Labour government. The valuations were low as much of the older stock was in need of modernising and there were doubts about the saleability of such houses, particularly within a large estate.

However, at that time, RTB was seen by many as a refreshing and inspirational policy which gave many families their first rung on the housing ladder which they would otherwise never have had. and most of the council propertys are only just being modernised to decent standards now,as part of the 2010 project.like you say some of these propertys haven,t been touched since they were built.ppl that choose the rtb then had the chance to inprove the propertys to a decent standard.

what has my rent or whether i have kids anything to do with this thread!you seem to be just making a personal issue with me,so back off and go an bother someone else.whether i choose to buy the home i,m in a private home,or shared ownership in THE FUTURE is my buisness,there is a recession going on and not many ppl are in a position to buy at the moment,so yes at the moment i do need my bloody social housing home.and saying if i wantedto better myself why did i not try getting off the council estate before having kids,is a snipe at ppl that live on council estates not being better than yourself perhaps!:mad:

Get a grip, I was just replying to one of your posts on this thread.

Slightly off topic but i wonder how many people on the waiting list are applying with the sole intention of getting RTB on a property, rather than genuine need.

It might not be huge but it will still be falsely inflating the perceived need based on waiting list size.

Another reason RTB should be abolished.

Scotland and Wales authorities along with "shelter" think its been a disaster.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/07/09142119

England shelter also want the RTB reduced or stoped.

If you have a genuine "need" ie homeless, fleeing domestic abuse, overcrowding etc etc then you wouldn't be on the waiting list, you'd be on the priority list.
Anyone can apply to be placed on the waiting list and wait their turn, even someone who already has a house for example, that they bought private. They could go on the waiting list and sell their house and keep the profit and then rent cheap, wonder how many people do that?

I have no problem with you buying a house on my street. Just don't expect me to indirectly subsidise it.

You are more likely to be subsidising it, if it isn't bought!.

Slightly off topic but i wonder how many people on the waiting list are applying with the sole intention of getting RTB on a property, rather than genuine need.

It might not be huge but it will still be falsely inflating the perceived need based on waiting list size.

Another reason RTB should be abolished.

Scotland and Wales authorities along with "shelter" think its been a disaster.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/07/09142119

England shelter also want the RTB reduced or stoped.Lets be honest about genuine need here for housing,if the government stopped being so slack on illegal imigrants there wouldn,t be the demand on social houseing that there is today.i myself was moved out of a council masisonette in 1991 so they could demolish them and build 4+5 bed houses for the somalian asylam seekers.the government are to blame for high waiting lists because they let so many immigrants in,who suprise suprise go on to buy with rtb.oh the irony:roll:

Lets be honest about genuine need here for housing,if the government stopped being so slack on illegal imigrants there wouldn,t be the demand on social houseing that there is today.i myself was moved out of a council masisonette in 1991 so they could demolish them and build 4+5 bed houses for the somalian asylam seekers.the government are to blame for high waiting lists because they let so many immigrants in,who suprise suprise go on to buy with rtb.oh the irony:roll:

Ahh i wondered when that would come up. It was longer than i thought.

So lack of housing stock isn't down to RTB and the subsequent cashing in. Or the selling off of the better properties leaving councils with only the more costly to maintain and less desirable. Its all the immigrants fault. And god forbid they where even given the same rights that you want. How dare they.:roll:

If you had to resort to that to make a point then your argument is truly debunked.

I dont agree with the statement or argument either
"many families their first rung on the housing ladder which they would otherwise never have had."
OF COURSE if someone has the chance to buy at RTB then they have the same opp. to buy something of the same value ie WE got offered a RTB @ 75k we turned it down and instead bought a house somewhere cheeper at the SAME price 75k so that arguement is VOID imo

was'nt RTB Bloody margret thatchers Idea n all ?

Ahh i wondered when that would come up. It was longer than i thought.

So lack of housing stock isn't down to RTB and the subsequent cashing in. Or the selling off of the better properties leaving councils with only the more costly to maintain and less desirable. Its all the immigrants fault. And god forbid they where even given the same rights that you want. How dare they.:roll:

If you had to resort to that to make a point then your argument is truly debunked.you are banging on about waiting lists i am merely pointing out that the need is greater since the more immigrants were allowed in ,that is a fact!i do not appose anyone having the right to buy i was merely stating the irony of the issue.and you was waiting with baited breath was you ,oh go get a life m8 your boring me now!:gag:

you are banging on about waiting lists i am merely pointing out that the need is greater since the more immigrants were allowed in ,that is a fact!i do not appose anyone having the right to buy i was merely stating the irony of the issue.and you was waiting with baited breath was you ,oh go get a life m8 your boring me now!:gag:

So you admit that there is a greater need for Social Housing now than there has every been. Yet you support the removal of houses from the stock of social housing because of the RTB (as long as its not immigrants buying). Do you see the discrepancy there.

What i am saying is ban right to buy altogether. That way no one gets preference, more people have access to social housing and waiting lists go down. The only people that suffer then are those who wanted to buy; people who economically a probably on the fringe of the definition of requiring social housing. This is not a dig at you but a fact. If you people can afford to buy then its difficult to suggest they are in dire social need.


I wasn't "waiting with bated breath". I wasn't however surprised when someone losing an argument because of spurious assertions lashed out at those with reasoned opinions or those of a different racial group. Its almost predictable.

There you go. A reply with resorting to play ground insults.

Lets be honest about genuine need here for housing,if the government stopped being so slack on illegal imigrants there wouldn,t be the demand on social houseing that there is today.i myself was moved out of a council masisonette in 1991 so they could demolish them and build 4+5 bed houses for the somalian asylam seekers.the government are to blame for high waiting lists because they let so many immigrants in,who suprise suprise go on to buy with rtb.oh the irony:roll:

Brilliant! It's all the bloody immigrants again, coming over ere, stealing our houses and our jobs and our women! It took you quite a while though.

Who are you going to blame when it's pointed out that what your saying is complete rubbish?

Brilliant! It's all the bloody immigrants again, coming over ere, stealing our houses and our jobs and our women! It took you quite a while though.

Who are you going to blame when it's pointed out that what your saying is complete rubbish?

wondered how long b4 you put ya pennys worth in why dont you get back to the immigrants thread and carry on banging on about the WHITE CHAVS OFF COUNCIL ESTATES ATTACKING PPL!:gag:

Just replying to your post, remember, the one where you brought immigrants into the conversation!
:rolleyes:

So you admit that there is a greater need for Social Housing now than there has every been. Yet you support the removal of houses from the stock of social housing because of the RTB (as long as its not immigrants buying). Do you see the discrepancy there.

What i am saying is ban right to buy altogether. That way no one gets preference, more people have access to social housing and waiting lists go down. The only people that suffer then are those who wanted to buy; people who economically a probably on the fringe of the definition of requiring social housing. This is not a dig at you but a fact. If you people can afford to buy then its difficult to suggest they are in dire social need.


I wasn't "waiting with bated breath". I wasn't however surprised when someone losing an argument because of spurious assertions lashed out at those with reasoned opinions or those of a different racial group. Its almost predictable.

There you go. A reply with resorting to play ground insults.

i do not apose anyone having a right to buy,but yes there is a greater need for housing stock because we are overrun by immigrants if they were sent home then the small minority that do buy council homes would hardly make a dent in the social housing.and i,m not a racist i,ve got plenty of british ethnicly differant friends who feel the same way about immigrants as i do.it isn,t racist its about this country being on its knees.and rtb hasn,t done that to this country.but then thats a whole new issue and theres already one on here.

i was making the point that it is the immigration that is having a greater effect than ppl with rtb on housing waiting lists.

i do not apose anyone having a right to buy,but yes there is a greater need for housing stock because we are overrun by immigrants if they were sent home then the small minority that do buy council homes would hardly make a dent in the social housing.and i,m not a racist i,ve got plenty of british ethnicly differant friends who feel the same way about immigrants as i do.it isn,t racist its about this country being on its knees.and rtb hasn,t done that to this country.but then thats a whole new issue and theres already one on here.

Read this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/29/immigration-social-housing

A couple of quotes in case you can't be bothered.

In terms of the overall proportion of new lettings, out of 170,000 new council or housing association tenants in 2006/07 in England fewer than 5% went to foreign nationals and under 1% went to east Europeans.

Separate research by Sheffield city council for the government's migration impact forum confirmed this picture, and reported that 90% of those who had arrived in the biggest wave of immigration in Britain's history had crowded into the bottom end of the private rented sector

Read this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/29/immigration-social-housing

A couple of quotes in case you can't be bothered.

In terms of the overall proportion of new lettings, out of 170,000 new council or housing association tenants in 2006/07 in England fewer than 5% went to foreign nationals and under 1% went to east Europeans.

Separate research by Sheffield city council for the government's migration impact forum confirmed this picture, and reported that 90% of those who had arrived in the biggest wave of immigration in Britain's history had crowded into the bottom end of the private rented sector

Officially, migrants from outside the European Union cannot get access to social housing but the local picture may appear different when significant numbers of say, large Somali families, come to live in Britain from elsewhere in the EU.

Part of the problem may lie in the fact that this is not a problem which is evenly spread around Britain. For example, slightly higher than average percentages of foreign nationals are in council homes in Yorkshire, the east of England and the north-west. This is a question where perceptions are very important, and a couple of Polski Skleps on the high street can be enough to change the terms of the local debate]
the number is higher here and the survy doesn,t include immigrants inside the eu coming from france germany ect...

On the street where we live (coundil Estate) most have purchased thier home, we was perfectly happy to carry on renting but! When we moved in, the house was in need of desperate modernisation, So we paid and did all the modernisation. We have spent quite a few thousand in doing this which included re-plastering throughout the whole house, total re-wire, new bathroom and shower, Double Glazing the whole house, new kitchen, landscaped the garden new boundry fencing etc again all this while renting.

Then we got a letter asking if we would move out to a flat (same number of bedrooms) We have never claimed any benefits, always paid full rent and council tax of which we have no problem in doing, now for me to do that kind of exchange I would want compensating for the work and labour for bringing our house into the 21st century, however the answer we got was because we would be moving into another council property then we would not qualify.

So rather than risk it becoming law to make us move, we decided R.T.B again as I said we were happy to continue with renting, as for getting a mortgage being self employed makes it alot harder than if you are in secure full time employment, the fact that we had done ALL the modernisation on our house made it affordable to us, so to me we have done nothin wrong, we have paid into the system kept within the law........... do we feel guilty? NO, because as has already been mentioned in this thread there has been loads of houses that have been demolished unnessasary.

Hopefully they will use not only the money we paid in rent on social housing but also the money from the purchase price.

Another way of looking at it is it's one less house for them to rent out free and have to maintain, sounds harsh but true!

Officially, migrants from outside the European Union cannot get access to social housing but the local picture may appear different when significant numbers of say, large Somali families, come to live in Britain from elsewhere in the EU.

Part of the problem may lie in the fact that this is not a problem which is evenly spread around Britain. For example, slightly higher than average percentages of foreign nationals are in council homes in Yorkshire, the east of England and the north-west. This is a question where perceptions are very important, and a couple of Polski Skleps on the high street can be enough to change the terms of the local debate]

the number is higher here and the survy doesn,t include immigrants inside the eu coming from france germany ect...

The number is higher here? what do you mean?

Lets be honest about genuine need here for housing,if the government stopped being so slack on illegal imigrants there wouldn,t be the demand on social houseing that there is today.i myself was moved out of a council masisonette in 1991 so they could demolish them and build 4+5 bed houses for the somalian asylam seekers.the government are to blame for high waiting lists because they let so many immigrants in,who suprise suprise go on to buy with rtb.oh the irony:roll:

Ahh i wondered when that would come up. It was longer than i thought.

So lack of housing stock isn't down to RTB and the subsequent cashing in. Or the selling off of the better properties leaving councils with only the more costly to maintain and less desirable. Its all the immigrants fault. And god forbid they where even given the same rights that you want. How dare they.:roll:

If you had to resort to that to make a point then your argument is truly debunked.

Too true cuey.

I wondered how long it would be before this hackneyed old argument lie got trotted out. *beats head repeatedly against wall*

The illegal immigrants can't GET social housing, for crying out loud, because the very bloody fact of their illegal status prevents them from applying for it in the first place. You have to have at least "leave to remain" status to apply for social housing.

God! There are some real planks about. (- yes, in pairs, and short ones at that)

Ok some facts;

As of jan this year around 1,600,000 homes in total have been bought or mortgaged on the RTB scheme. That is not a big percentage of council stock.

Most council people will carry on living in the property till death so that does not impact much on availability of current stock.

Its anecdotal and a myth that the private sector encouraged people to use their RTB and then sell the property on for a quick profit.

The maximum discount in S.Yorks area is around £24,000 and that's generally on leasehold. Some but not all houses can be freehold.

SCC have knocked down and demolished many (figure not known yet) houses and flats over the past years that could have been refurbished. Many other councils have done the same. Because of lack of money they were levelled and the land sold to private enterprise as that money could be kept. They have caused more damage than RTB.

Central government take around 75% of the revenue from RTB.

The council still have outstanding loans to pay off on some of those properties that have been demolished.

People who buy under right-to-buy schemes are far more likely than other home owners to get into mortgage arrears and risk losing their homes.

Hope that helps.

Ok some facts;

As of jan this year around 1,600,000 homes in total have been bought or mortgaged on the RTB scheme. That is not a big percentage of council stock.

Most council people will carry on living in the property till death so that does not impact much on availability of current stock.

Its anecdotal and a myth that the private sector encouraged people to use their RTB and then sell the property on for a quick profit.

That's 1.6 million properties that will never again be available within the social housing market. When you compare that to the numbers of people needing (that's needing, not just "desiring") social housing, it's a HUGE loss.

The maximum discount in S.Yorks area is around £24,000 and that's generally on leasehold. Some but not all houses can be freehold.

That may be the discount now but before the cap was put on the amount of discount offered, properties worth (back then) 60k were being sold for 8-10k to the RTB tenant, which was a damn sight more than a £24k discount off the market value.

SCC have knocked down and demolished many (figure not known yet) houses and flats over the past years that could have been refurbished. Many other councils have done the same. Because of lack of money they were levelled and the land sold to private enterprise as that money could be kept. They have caused more damage than RTB.

Central government take around 75% of the revenue from RTB.

The council still have outstanding loans to pay off on some of those properties that have been demolished.

The lack of upkeep of those properties, such as those in Shirecliffe and Parson Cross, particularly, was more than a little to do with the fact that Central Government was not just taking 75% of the monies raised from RTB sales, but the rules they laid down forbade local government from ploughing the 25% they could keep back into repairs/ maintenance/ refurb of existing stock, or the building of new housing to replace that lost to the social housing stock through RTB.

This money that councils have been "given" recently for "Better Homes" refurbs, when you sit down and think about it, is money filched from the councils, over the years from RTB sales... is it not?

The only option the council had was to sell the land on to housing associations and private developers, who could obtain monies for development.

People who buy under right-to-buy schemes are far more likely than other home owners to get into mortgage arrears and risk losing their homes.


which surely goes to show that

a) people are being sold a false dream when it comes to home ownership,

b) people are going into purchasing with their eyes "wide-shut", and not thinking "Hmm! Well, actually, If I cannot afford a mortgage this small, I really should not be thinking about allowing myself to get into that amount of debt?"

c) social housing is very necessary because people actually cannot afford to buy.

Read this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/29/immigration-social-housing

A couple of quotes in case you can't be bothered.

In terms of the overall proportion of new lettings, out of 170,000 new council or housing association tenants in 2006/07 in England fewer than 5% went to foreign nationals and under 1% went to east Europeans.

Separate research by Sheffield city council for the government's migration impact forum confirmed this picture, and reported that 90% of those who had arrived in the biggest wave of immigration in Britain's history had crowded into the bottom end of the private rented sector

If you read the report in detail, it does show a slight favour to immigrants in the distributiion of social housing. It also lacks a lot of information which could be very relevant. Especially the allocation of housing as it becomes available, opposed to total numbers in social housing.

Discussed on the forum here:
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495002

On the street where we live (coundil Estate) most have purchased thier home, we was perfectly happy to carry on renting but! When we moved in, the house was in need of desperate modernisation, So we paid and did all the modernisation. We have spent quite a few thousand in doing this which included re-plastering throughout the whole house, total re-wire, new bathroom and shower, Double Glazing the whole house, new kitchen, landscaped the garden new boundry fencing etc again all this while renting.

Then we got a letter asking if we would move out to a flat (same number of bedrooms) We have never claimed any benefits, always paid full rent and council tax of which we have no problem in doing, now for me to do that kind of exchange I would want compensating for the work and labour for bringing our house into the 21st century, however the answer we got was because we would be moving into another council property then we would not qualify.

So rather than risk it becoming law to make us move, we decided R.T.B again as I said we were happy to continue with renting, as for getting a mortgage being self employed makes it alot harder than if you are in secure full time employment, the fact that we had done ALL the modernisation on our house made it affordable to us, so to me we have done nothin wrong, we have paid into the system kept within the law........... do we feel guilty? NO, because as has already been mentioned in this thread there has been loads of houses that have been demolished unnessasary.

Hopefully they will use not only the money we paid in rent on social housing but also the money from the purchase price.

Another way of looking at it is it's one less house for them to rent out free and have to maintain, sounds harsh but true!your situation sounds alot like ours minus the asking to move out part,we have done extensive repairs and inprovements to our home,new kitchen,bathroom,replastering all the rooms ect...because my ha haven,t got the money to do all these improvements,so we,ve spent alot of our wages on our home,we are happy to rent ,we know at presant we are in a much better position,we also know we will find it difficult to get a morgage as my partner is also self employed and in the building trade,but we will be buying in the future and like you say its one less house for the council to have to maintain and government to pay housing benifit for.we were ready to test the water then the recession kicked in so for the moment we will stay in our home and pay rent,damned if i,m going to let someone else reap the benifit of all our hardwork.you were right to buy your home makes sense to me.:clap:

Lets be honest about genuine need here for housing,if the government stopped being so slack on illegal imigrants there wouldn,t be the demand on social houseing that there is today.i myself was moved out of a council masisonette in 1991 so they could demolish them and build 4+5 bed houses for the somalian asylam seekers.the government are to blame for high waiting lists because they let so many immigrants in,who suprise suprise go on to buy with rtb.oh the irony:roll:

Get your story straight, it can't be both illegal immigrants (who qualify for no assistance and don't get any accommodation except in a detention centre) and asylum seekers (who we have <40,000 a year mostly in London). If you want to blame immigrants at least work out which group you are incorrectly blaming.

some good points raised tbh, but a couple i would pick up on are

Bruno imo just because you have maintained your council house that doesnt make it a god given right you should buy it? Thousands of ppl renovate their council homes as I did then move out and leave it for the next person , you said youve done nothing wrong well the "improvements" you made
"re-plastering throughout the whole house, total re-wire, new bathroom and shower, Double Glazing the whole house, new kitchen, landscaped the garden new boundry fencing etc again all this while renting."
Erm When i was in council housing THE ABOVE improvments wouldnt have been allowed ? not sure how you got around those rules ?

Apelike "As of jan this year around 1,600,000 homes in total have been bought or mortgaged on the RTB scheme. That is not a big percentage of council stock."

NOT a big percentage what a fooking JOKE , so if 1.6 million have been sold ,Plus the number of demolitions must be at least 2miliion in total
I wonder how many new council homes have been BUILT

Bruno imo just because you have maintained your council house that doesnt make it a god given right you should buy it? Thousands of ppl renovate their council homes as I did then move out and leave it for the next person , you said youve done nothing wrong well the "improvements" you made
"re-plastering throughout the whole house, total re-wire, new bathroom and shower, Double Glazing the whole house, new kitchen, landscaped the garden new boundry fencing etc again all this while renting."
Erm When i was in council housing THE ABOVE improvments wouldnt have been allowed ? not sure how you got around those rules ?

The "right" you speak of was a key part of the 1979 Conservative manifesto and it proved to be a vote winner (see post 84). For years afterwards, the Labour opposition threatened to buy them back which further alienated many of their supporters. As far as improvements in the older properties are concerned, the Council didn't care two hoots what you did as long as the rent was paid on time. Now, it seems that when a tenant moves out, any of the fittings like new kitchen units, doors etc are ripped out, even the garages are knocked down. Not even a thankyou.

If you tour around some of the estates and observe the general appearance of many of the properties, it would suggest that, like the Council, many of the tenants have a disinterested and dispirited attitude towards them.

I believe they are now under new management by Sheffield Homes.

Get your story straight, it can't be both illegal immigrants (who qualify for no assistance and don't get any accommodation except in a detention centre) and asylum seekers (who we have <40,000 a year mostly in London). If you want to blame immigrants at least work out which group you are incorrectly blaming.i am not blaming immigrants i was merely pointing out that there is more of a demand due to the population growing in numbers,at the end of the day i dont think rtb has caused these issues thats my oppinion,your oppinion is differant fair enough.we are all entitled to a differant oppinion.if we all thought the same life would be pretty boring dont you think.i accept i should have said immigration and not illegal immigrants.my mistake ok.

When i was in council housing THE ABOVE improvments wouldnt have been allowed ? not sure how you got around those rules ?

Whenever I made any improvements I always wrote submitted plans etc to the council and had permission from them, the reason was so that it was logged that I had done the work and not the council, on the decent homes scheme I'm not sure how much it costs to do up a whole house for the council, but i know I save them thousands and probably in line with the discount I saved.

i am not blaming immigrants i was merely pointing out that there is more of a demand due to the population growing in numbers,at the end of the day i dont think rtb has caused these issues thats my oppinion,your oppinion is differant fair enough.we are all entitled to a differant oppinion.if we all thought the same life would be pretty boring dont you think.i accept i should have said immigration and not illegal immigrants.my mistake ok.

In post 90 you blamed imigrants, and illegal immigrants particularly

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5258506&postcount=90

where you said

Lets be honest about genuine need here for housing,if the government stopped being so slack on illegal imigrants there wouldn,t be the demand on social houseing that there is today.i myself was moved out of a council masisonette in 1991 so they could demolish them and build 4+5 bed houses for the somalian asylam seekers.the government are to blame for high waiting lists because they let so many immigrants in,who suprise suprise go on to buy with rtb.oh the irony

In post 90 you blamed imigrants, and illegal immigrants particularly

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5258506&postcount=90

where you saidhaven,t you got anything better to do than make pointless arguements,i,ve already said i shouldn,t have said illegal immigrants mr bloody pc.the >removed< q was what ppl thought about rtb not what do you think of me using rtb,and a few you included are putting your ops about my freedom of choice,nothing but a bunch of forum bullys,do you ever have anything positive to say on this site.there are alot of reasons for high demand,heres a few-council knocking down homes and not rebuilding and that includes homes that were bought under rtb,these ppl still lost thier homes so rtb didn,t make a blind bit of notice to the housing stock,the council still knocked them down for no reason-immigration-kids having kids-bad scc management.the list could go on.if it bothers you so much when ppl mention immigration,start a bloody thread of your own.i wont be adding anymore to this thread because ppl like you always turn it into another argument,an i dont >removed< care if i said the I word 1st.go awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.:rant:

haven,t you got anything better to do than make pointless arguements,i,ve already said i shouldn,t have said illegal immigrants mr bloody pc.the >removed< q was what ppl thought about rtb not what do you think of me using rtb,and a few you included are putting your ops about my freedom of choice,nothing but a bunch of forum bullys,do you ever have anything positive to say on this site.there are alot of reasons for high demand,heres a few-council knocking down homes and not rebuilding and that includes homes that were bought under rtb,these ppl still lost thier homes so rtb didn,t make a blind bit of notice to the housing stock,the council still knocked them down for no reason-immigration-kids having kids-bad scc management.the list could go on.if it bothers you so much when ppl mention immigration,start a bloody thread of your own.i wont be adding anymore to this thread because ppl like you always turn it into another argument,an i dont >removed< care if i said the I word 1st.go awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.:rant:

A bit touchy. You wanted people to say yes buy your house and welcome to the middle classes. The only one that lost their temper was you when we actaully said that RTB is a bad idea regardless of who is buying.

Nice and simple RTB is wrong.

As for homes considered beyond repairs or deemed too expensive to repair, you have to ask the question why? is it because there are a minority of people in social housing who don't give a toss? when i used to live in a flat before here it was certainly the case with some of the other residents, luckily i got a exchange to where i am now, oh i did the flat up too so decent homes did not have to do a thing there, im so glad im on a area at min where every takes care and has a bit of pride about thier home, whether they are buying it or renting.

Im not saying everyone does not give a toss, but there is a good few out there that dont and possibly cause most of the damage in thier homes causing more of a burden on expenditure.

In post 90 you blamed imigrants, and illegal immigrants particularly

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5258506&postcount=90

where you said

I'd say she blamed Somalis.

If we look at the report which was mentioned in the guardian article linked to by neek. We can scroll down to the appendix and look at A4.

Where it says that 80% of Somalis in the UK live in LA, council or HA accomodation (social housing). That is a larger percentage than any other race in the UK. Often with large familes they take up more 4 and 5 bedroom houses.

(Sourced from http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/ehrc_report_-_social_housing_allocation_and_immigrant_communiti es.pdf )

Nice and simple RTB is wrong.

Why?

The only reason where I see it's wrong is if the person living in the house has lived of state benefits for years without paying rent and then find themselves in a better financial possition, in that case what ever benefits has been claimed should be in accordance to the discount offered.

If they have paid thier way then fine, but I'm gonna say that cuz I've done it.

haven,t you got anything better to do than make pointless arguements,i,ve already said i shouldn,t have said illegal immigrants mr bloody pc.the <masked swearing> q was what ppl thought about rtb not what do you think of me using rtb,and a few you included are putting your ops about my freedom of choice,nothing but a bunch of forum bullys,do you ever have anything positive to say on this site.there are alot of reasons for high demand,heres a few-council knocking down homes for <masked swearing> and not rebuilding and that includes homes that were bought under rtb,these ppl still lost thier homes so rtb didn,t make a blind bit of notice to the housing stock,the council still knocked them down for no reason-immigration-kids having kids-bad scc management.the list could go on.if it bothers you so much when ppl mention immigration,start a bloody thread of your own.i wont be adding anymore to this thread because ppl like you always turn it into another argument,an i dont care if i said the I word 1st.go awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.:rant:

Ok, bye, and don't let the door hit you on the way out...
A bit touchy. You wanted people to say yes buy your house and welcome to the middle classes. The only one that lost their temper was you when we actaully said that RTB is a bad idea regardless of who is buying.

Nice and simple RTB is wrong.

yup, touchy and then some... :nod:

Like I said earlier on TiredMummy (if you're still reading) you need to separate criticism of RTB from criticism of you.
The policy is wrong because it depletes the stock of housing, which you accept is under significant pressure now.
Exercising that right since it exists is common sense, why wouldn't you buy a cheap house.

You're not wrong for buying, the policy is wrong for existing (today). It may not have been wrong in 1979, and it always difficult to take something away after it's been given.

PS - buying a house no more makes you middle class than buying a piano makes you a musician.

PS - buying a house no more makes you middle class than buying a piano makes you a musician.

Is it time for me to change my sig? :P When I was a kid in the 1950s, there were plenty of middle class people, teachers, managers and other white collar workers who lived in council housing. However, not on all council estates. Some estates were actually quite posh, and some ... weren't. Middle classness had much to do with the behaviour and attitudes of those people though, and its the same really whatever housing tenure we look at.

Like I said earlier on TiredMummy (if you're still reading) you need to separate criticism of RTB from criticism of you.
The policy is wrong because it depletes the stock of housing, which you accept is under significant pressure now.
Exercising that right since it exists is common sense, why wouldn't you buy a cheap house.

You're not wrong for buying, the policy is wrong for existing (today). It may not have been wrong in 1979, and it always difficult to take something away after it's been given.

I agree. Now that the best has been sold, surely its time to at least remove it from new tenants.

PS - buying a house no more makes you middle class than buying a piano makes you a musician.

Very true cyclone, no matter what ill always be working class n nowt will change that!

It appears to me that RTB is something that gets abused and used to ppls advantage, personally I know 3 sets of couples that have bought on RTB then sold a few years after to make a profit and due to the fact they dont want to live in a coucil area LOL .

It also seems one of those things like MP expenses where its within the rules / laws but everyone surely knows whats right or wrong .

RTB is WRONG pure and simple

Is it time for me to change my sig? :P
I stole it and changed it shamelessly :dWhen I was a kid in the 1950s, there were plenty of middle class people, teachers, managers and other white collar workers who lived in council housing. However, not on all council estates. Some estates were actually quite posh, and some ... weren't. Middle classness had much to do with the behaviour and attitudes of those people though, and its the same really whatever housing tenure we look at.



I agree. Now that the best has been sold, surely its time to at least remove it from new tenants.
I suppose you could phase it out, anyone not in a house right now won't get the RTB, that couldn't upset too many people as they'd be loosing something they never had...

Very true cyclone, no matter what ill always be working class n nowt will change that!

It appears to me that RTB is something that gets abused and used to ppls advantage, personally I know 3 sets of couples that have bought on RTB then sold a few years after to make a profit and due to the fact they dont want to live in a coucil area LOL .

It also seems one of those things like MP expenses where its within the rules / laws but everyone surely knows whats right or wrong .

RTB is WRONG pure and simple

Totally dissagree with you, that can and has happened in the private sector too, yes we know the market in down at min and im sure there is people who RTB a few years ago who will be seeing a reduction now if they have paid into the system then fine, in ref to my bold, they may have wanted to move because of maybe un-desired tenants movin next door the ones the councils re-home in a decent area in the hope it may spur them to take a bit of pride etc.

I agree. Now that the best has been sold, surely its time to at least remove it from new tenants.


My bold, I'ts more probable the ones sold were bought by tenants who did give a damn about thier home

My bold, I'ts more probable the ones sold were bought by tenants who did give a damn about thier home

I didn't say that, that was MsMacbeth, I'd messed up the quotes in the previous post (fixed now).

There's not just RTB, there's what used to be called the Cash Incentive Scheme.

Say you were the sole tenant of a three bed flat. The council say you're under-occupying, but they can bump a family up the list by paying you to move out. You hand them the keys to the flat, you walk away with £12k

I didn't say that, that was MsMacbeth, I'd messed up the quotes in the previous post (fixed now).

Appologies Mr Cyclone :)