The Labour Party are bloody hypocrites

Yes, quite. Labour encouraged 50% of young people to pay for their degrees, but then forgot to mention there was never going to be a 50% increase in graduate jobs.

Pretty much the same number of new graduates are getting the bona fide graduate jobs as they did years ago. DD2 is doing an under grad placement year with one of the Big Four. When she graduates she will enter their graduate program. Everyone she has met have very good degrees from RG universities.

All the rest of new graduates end up doing non-graduate jobs, earning non graduate levels of pay.

The majority are cheaper than private rental properties. Some new builds can be similar prices to private rentals though.

Mine is a 2 bedroom flat and I pay £500 per month. 2 bedroom flats for private rent in my area are in the region of £650-£700 per month.

Important to remember that Rayner bought her council house 7 years before she became an MP. I still think she shouldn't have done it-but people are allowed to make bad decisions...

It is generally cheaper than private rents (often substantially)

The rest of your life might be the operative words. Before RTB, houses went back to the council, once bought, the houses go to the beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate.

In addition, before RTB, there were tenants who bought on the open market if their circumstances improved. After, they would use RTB as a stepping stone towards buying a better house.

RTB is great for the individual who is able to benefit, but public assets should not be sold for a fraction of what they are worth. A better way might be to keep the scheme but make the discounts considerably smaller.

Yes I am a homeowner. I was born in a council house and my parents moved out when the 8th child was born into a house they bought. The council house, 3 bedroom, was given to another family.

I have always thought that the right to buy was a divisive and terrible idea. I'm also disappointed that Angela Rayner did it.

Are you a home owner?

So in effect @prestatynprlck you wish to pull up the ladder for those who need social housing? I have always thought the right to buy was a terrible idea. It should always remain as stock for social housing. A one bed flat would be super for a care leaver.

What's the deal with the rent on these? Is it market rate?

Social housing should be just that. Not an opportunity to buy property. The right-to-buy just takes rented housing away from people who need it.

I am in exactly the same situation but it doesn't mean we should be able to remove social housing from the market when there already isn't enough. Them's just the breaks. We should at least be thankful that we have a lifetime tenancy at a reduced rate, can't have it all.

I am saddened to read they are looking to remove this- as a single parent with 3 DC I had every intention of purchasing our home In a couple of years - however with the savings threshold being £16k before you completely lose your UC even with a big enough deposit , becoming a home owner will only ever happen for me if I win the lottery 😢

@prestatynprlck Have you noticed the elevently million threads about Rayner's living arrangements?

Right to buy was a terrible policy.

There seem to be certain areas where the working classes have been led to screw themselves over. (Since the 80s maybe? When I was born so not sure!)

RTB is one of those areas. Individual working class people benefit at the expense of everyone else. Of course you can see why each individual does it, whilst still seeing it isn't fair overall.

Inheritance tax is another one. People insistent they should inherit large sums because their grand/parents "worked all their lives" for it. But it's the same people who, two or three generations ago, would have been appalled at the unfairness of wealth being handed down like that, the haves and have nots.

Was this a intentional Tory ploy to break apart working class solidarity? To become like the US where people in dire poverty believe they are just around the corner from being millionaires, rather than organising as a class?

Social housing is available for everyone and is assessed as such. The groups you have mentioned are prioritised over others but you do not have to be poor or disabled to apply.

I'm pretty sure social housing initially was built as affordable housing for anyone that applied/wanted it. But as it has become much more scarce and in short supply (much of this due to losing stock to RTB - and not replacing in the same volume) there is varying criteria on who is allocated, depending on area.

“Market value” is based on profit and unaffordable which is why social housing exists in the first place. Housing accounts have to wash their own faces, the point is that it’s self financing, hence not subsidised.

That is absolutely not what social housing is for! It's there to support people who cannot afford to rent or buy a home on the open market or are unable to support themselves (through disability, ill-health etc). It's a tax payer supported mechanism to support people who need it, not a life choice because the rent is cheaper! Anyone who is living in social housing but has the ability to live in open market housing is sponging off the tax payer and blocking a housing option for someone who actually needs it.

Totally agree. And the council could self build rather than buy stock. Or buy ex nhs nurse accommodation and remodel for socialhousing using grants from the government (this is what dh is looking at doing).

Not to mention the multi-millions in benefits that go straight into landlords’ pockets, rather than on increasing/maintaining existing social housing stock.

Yes, vast amounts of public money paying HB straight into the pockets of private landlords thus paying their mortgages for them. But don't put their taxes up! That will make the sky fall in.

It's really tricky. I live in the south east where everything is so expensive and many working people don't have a hope of getting on the property ladder.

I really like the idea of people on low incomes being able to purchase their own home; I think it's ridiculous that it's so unattainable, especially coupled with how insecure and expensive the private rented sector is.

However, obviously the way RTB has worked out has been hugely detrimental to the provision of social housing, with no extra provision of social homes or affordable private rentals. In fact quite the opposite. The landscape is now that people are really struggling to manage the insecurity and huge cost of private rented, they are going onto the social housing registers, wait for housing stock that isn't there, and councils are having to pay through the nose for privately rented accommodation and temporary accommodation that was once council stock that would have been affordable and available to them.

It's a ridiculous situation from all facets.

Right to buy was a thing in the 1936 housing act and the subsequent 1959 House Purchase and Housing act. But the present Right to buy is what made things much easier and brought about the sale of over 2 million homes to tenants.

Right to buy didn't start until 1980.

Eta: you're right, though! Tenants could buy their council house with the agreement of the LA prior to 1980. I didn't know that. But Right to Buy obviously meant LAs had to agree to sales.