Extension of Right To Buy Scheme

[Mr Bloom 10]

So, Cameron announces the extension of the Right To Buy policy today.

 

Now, giving housing association tenants the right to buy at a dramatically reduced rate.

 

And this alongside a new commitment to build a few thousand new homes up and down the country.

 

How does he propose this will all be funded? By councils being forced to sell off their more valuable housing stock.

 

Well, the private landlords will be laughing all the way to the bank.

[PeteMorris 10]

So, Cameron announces the extension of the Right To Buy policy today.

 

Now, giving housing association tenants the right to buy at a dramatically reduced rate.

 

And this alongside a new commitment to build a few thousand new homes up and down the country.

 

How does he propose this will all be funded? By councils being forced to sell off their more valuable housing stock.

 

Well, the private landlords will be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

He's obviously riding on the back of the very successful Maggie innovation of selling council house stock. Now extending it to housing association stock.

 

I can't see the housing associations being too happy about it. Nor do I see the proposed funding coming from forcing councils to sell their more valuable homes....Sell them to who?....Private landlords?

 

Oh and of course we have an abundant stock of social housing don't we?

[El Cid 214]

It may help to boost the housing market, it seems this is a goal, at any price.

[Berberis 10]

Well, the private landlords will be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

The council house sell off was/is to people already living in the houses.

[Mr Bloom 10]

The council house sell off was/is to people already living in the houses.

 

Yes, thus ensuring rapid decreases in social housing stock and therefore pushing up house prices and rents, so private landlords will be laughing all the way to the bank.

[Berberis 10]

Yes, thus ensuring rapid decreases in social housing stock and therefore pushing up house prices and rents, so private landlords will be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

If 1.3 million people now require social housing but buy their homes, that's 1.3 million LESS people needing social housing, plus an additional 400,000 new homes built of the back of the sales.

[harvey19 541]

If a person is in a council house and stay in it for all their life that house is already unavailable for approx. 60 years to others wanting a council house.

Does it really matter who owns it ?

The real problem is the rising population and lack of building.

[Grandad.Malky 11]

If a person is in a council house and stay in it for all their life that house is already unavailable for approx. 60 years to others wanting a council house.

Does it really matter who owns it ?

The real problem is the rising population and lack of building.

 

But after 60 years it will pass on to someone that needs it rather than be used to line the pockets of the previous tenants kids or grandkids

[Mr Bloom 10]

If 1.3 million people now require social housing but buy their homes, that's 1.3 million LESS people needing social housing, plus an additional 400,000 new homes built of the back of the sales.

 

The houses will be sold to people occupying them now, not people in need of social housing and on waiting lists.

 

This is all going to be funded by selling off MORE from council stock, so stocks will be depleted double-fold.

 

As far as I'm aware there has been no stipulation that the more desirable council properties that Cameron says have to be sold to raise funds are to be sold exclusively to tenants. In fact then, councils will be wanting to get the best value for them, so these will not go to sitting tenants at knock down prices, but private landlords, wishing to increase their portfolios.

[Berberis 10]

If a person is in a council house and stay in it for all their life that house is already unavailable for approx. 60 years to others wanting a council house.

Does it really matter who owns it ?

The real problem is the rising population and lack of building.

 

Like Bob Crow (deceased), who was the General Secretary the RMT and earnt £145,000pa while still living in his council house paying just £150 a week rent.

 

Until social housing is for people who need it, its always going to fail to provide the support its meant too.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Berberis

[Mr Bloom 10]

Like Bob Crow, who was the General Secretary the RMT and earnt £145,000pa while still living in his council house paying just £150 a week rent.

 

Until social housing is for people who need it, its always going to fail to provide the support its meant too.

 

Exactly, and someone who can afford to buy, doesn't need it, do they?

 

Or are people happy with plundering the public purse yet again to furnish the private sector with wholesale bargains for them to profit from?

 

Let's not forget, as well, as soon as interest rates rise rapidly, many of these properties will fall in to the hands of the bank.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Mr Bloom

[Berberis 10]

Exactly, and someone who can afford to buy, doesn't need it, do they?

 

Or are people happy with plundering the public purse yet again to furnish the private sector?

 

I firmly believe social housing should be for people who need it. But as, by the example I gave (which is extreme I know) some people do not. Maybe a large proportion do not need it, but rather then turfing them out and putting even more pressure on the private sector rents (read higher rents per month for all), allowing these people to buy their property enables them to take ownership. This not only creates a wealth of low prices housing, it also takes away the burden of maintenance from the councils and housing associations.