do the tories ever learn?

[lcg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17330035

[Quizmonster]

Had the mad Tory idea of selling off council houses involved some sort of "replacement" scheme, it might have made sense. That is, for every house thus sold to a tenant, another would be built to take its place.
However, it didn't and in towns such as the one I live in - where property costs are high and council/housing association accommodation is now low specifically BECAUSE of the scheme - it is virtually impossible for young people to get onto the housing ladder.
And the nutty Housing Minister actually believes they are in this position because of the last Labour government! You couldn't make it up, as they say.

[emmie]

depends what you mean, had i the finances i would have bought our place ages ago, it would have been the only way could have afforded it. Besides the fact is that these discounts were set at that level years ago, then changed to lower discounts, perhaps they will go back to what they were when the scheme was first implemented.

[tonyav]

Totally agree with Quizmonster.

[Paul_M]

My parents purchased their council property under Thatchers tenure and have profited very nicely. Surely these schemes have a Socialist feel to them, so if you want to bash either Labour or the Tories then I suspect it's a case of the green eyed monster.

[jackthehat]

At the time the scheme to buy your council house was implemented, I am sure there was great noise made about the money from these sales being 'ring-fenced', with the council being unable to use the funds for anything other than 'replacing' the housing-stock.
This patently hasn't happened.
Am I mis-remembering or was there subsequent legislation which allowed the LAs to transfer these monies to other areas of their budgets?

[New Judge]

There was no such promise to "ring fence" the funds, jack.

Mrs T's idea was that the State (and local authorities) were to be relieved of the burden of providing subsidised housing.

[jackthehat]

Thanks, NJ.

Mis-remembering, it is, then.....:o/

[anotheoldgit]

Agree with em10, I cannot see how it reduces the housing stock for others.

Those already renting these houses would not be likely to release them back to the councils except of course when they die, and that could be years away.

So if they can afford to buy them, at least it relieves the councils from the expense of maintaining them.

[d9f1c7]

what are they not learning then? Not socialist enough, we all know the left love to keep people crpoor, getting on and aiming for success must be crushed on the alter of their flawed idology I suppose.

[naomi24]

AOG, of course it reduces the housing stock for others. If social housing is sold and not replaced, there is less social housing available. That’s simple logic. The concept that everyone should become a home owner is fine - but the fact is not everyone is in a position to take advantage of that and therefore I never agreed with the idea of selling off council houses without replenishing the stock.

[IggyB]

AOG makes a good point - people in social housing are very unlikely to give it up to allow it to be reallocated (to possibly more deserving folk?), so instead of the govt continuing to pay I can see the utility in getting the resident to buy it themselves then use the money to buy another property which can be allocated to another family in need... then two families have roofs over their heads instead of 1.

I think an issue that should be looked at in this debate is whether social housing should be taken away from people when they are in a position to pay the full market rent or buy their own property - at the moment I believe that you can stay in your housing no matter what you subsequently go on to earn.

[whiskeryron]

IggyB, You are obviously not getting the point. Say a council owns 20.000 houses & has 20.000 tenants paying them rent to live in those houses, they also have a waiting list of people wanting to rent houses. Now of the 20.000 tenants living in council houses 10.000 opt to buy the houses that they are renting, the council now only have 10.000 houses with tenants paying rent. Unless the council uses the money from the sale of council houses to build more houses the people on the waiting list are never going to be offered a place to live & not everyone is able to raise enough money for a deposit to buy. The councils never did use the cash they acquired to re build.

W Ron.

[lcg]

i fail to see how anyone can't disagree with social housing being sold off - especially at such a discounted rate. it costs the taxpayer long term at an enormous rate due to lack of income from rent! ron's last point is the crux of the argument, but also why should people be allowed to buy cheap houses at ridiculously discounted prices and take them permanently out of use from others who may need them? families should downsize if and when their family shrinks and more houses/flats should be built for social housing so more people can have decent, secure housing. private renting is expensive, sometimes in disgusting accommodation making money (in some cases) for scum landlords raking it in for housing benefit with dozens of properties (why should this money not go back to the government?). and the housing market would not suffer if there was more social housing - it would correct itself over time, even out, and allow more private tenants to consider buying too.

[Paul_M]

Under Maggie, the baulk of the Council stock was sold off to housing associations. Since then social housing has been largely privatised and better managed as a result. Also privately run housing associations are building more properties than ever before, with varying discounted options to buy.
it's all good. The problem is population growth.
Now, I wonder who's responsible for that?

[IggyB]

I thought the whole point was...

The government insists all social homes that are sold "will be replaced on a one-for-one basis by a new affordable rent property, ensuring there is no reduction in the number of affordable homes".

though i still think it would be easier to make social housing a temp measure and once your earnings go over a certain threshold you are required to make way for other people.

[rov1100]

It would make sense for any intended immigrant to have somewhere to live when he arrives. Unfortunately most of them are poor and rely on the state to get them housing so with larger families will go to the front of the housing queues depriving others who already live here..

[modeller]

icg 76 # families should downsize if and when their family shrinks #

So what would you do if the OAP widows and widowers who had lived in their houses for 50 years didn't want to leave their friends and neighbours. Send in the KGB or your Marxist friends to evict them.
When people have lived in a house for years it is more than a house . It is a place that they cared for with all its memories but that appears to mean nothing to you .

[Stevee]

Am I missing something here isn't it the Tories who want people to downsize?

The original housing policy led to huge social problems, sold the housing stock, didn't replace it. Tory policy made tons of people redundant, couldn't afford the mortgage, lost the homes. Influx of empty houses devastation of the housing market - Boom and bust.

"There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then to look after our neighbour" Margret Thatcher 1987.

[modeller]

You are missing the point stevee I was answering Ice76 statement that families SHOULD move out and thumping out a anti Tory tirade.
Labour governments never wanted working class people to own their council houses and Labour councils stopped it whenever they came into power. They also tried make people move when their circumstances changed. It happened to members of my own family. So to wave the red flag of Socialism is not the way to protest.

Maggie Thatcher enabled millions of people to own their own homes which included thousands of Labour councillor who hypocritically grabbed at the chance. What is more it turned many sink estates into nice places to live.
That's what happens when you give people pride in their home and neighbourhood.
I travelled around those estates for years and I saw the transformation which started almost overnight . Incidentally I'm not a Tory or a Labour supporter just a realist and speak from experience.

[welshlibranr]

modeller, you are right!........I have no arguement with that, but what happens to folk these days that need social housing?....it's just not there!........the money raised from selling council properties should have gone to building more social housing, but it didn't!.............that's the problem!......