to think the Government are trying to quietly get rid of council houses?

[Memoo]

I may well be wrong because to be honest I don't completely understand the way its going to work.

So, they announced today that council tenants will be able to buy their properties with a discount of to to 50%. It seems to me that's too good an offer to turn down so lots of tenants will buy their homes.

Now this is where I get confused.

The money raised will go towards building affordable housing which is great and everything but that means the council housing stock is going to reduce drastically, possible even completely.

I may have got this completely wrong though ???

Sounds a bit short sighted to me Half Term Hero. You always need somewhere to live so the money isn't liquidated until the house is sold. You then have to buy somewhere else. You don't go to the council again for housing.

If you lose your job you don't get the roof over your head paid for.

CogitoErgoSometimes Unless I'm mistaken, under the original Right to Buy scheme councils weren't allowed to use the money from the sale of social housing to build more, hence to decline in the number of available properties since then. The (very nice) housing estate I lived in in the 80s is now pretty much all privately owned/privately let - there were maybe only 3 or 4 when I was there.

Adamschic, yes, she will use the money from the sale of the council house to move up the housing ladder. Her Dad has said that he will help her buy the next house (as he is getting on and wants to gift her money several years before his death).
The whole thing gives her a great leg up onto the property ladder. She has paid rent on the council property for years and it is good to see people like her getting a break.

It is HalfTermHero.

It's a pity that private tenants won't be getting a break creating quite an interesting parabolic curve of wealth/home ownership.

When people who own private houses talk of the nest egg they will leave their children it is largely rounded on by the MN massive, in fact there was a thread recently...widening social divisions etc, in fact you'd think baby boomers created all the world's ills. This is no different, bar being govt enabled as against market forces.

I read this and thought it sounded like a terrible idea. One of the biggest problems in the UK is the lack of social housing, so in order to "solve" that the govt are planning to give social tenants the chance to buy their homes at half the market rate (decreasing the stock even more) and invest that money in building more homes to buy, not to rent. Seems bonkers to me .

Typical tory ideals.

Can imagine Half Term Hero's friend voting Tory for the rest of their lives now. Talk about pull the ladder up from behind you mentality .

I think it probably will apply to Housing Association stock, sadly, all built from public funds.

The way that council houses exist at the moment is ridiculous.

Get rid of all of them and simply subsidise rent for people who can't afford to pay their own rent. No strict line between council tenants and private tenants, simply a sliding scale of subsidy according to need.

Trills. Council and HA properties are are low cost rentals. Supply and demand would see rents going through the roof at more cost to the treasury to subsidies people who cannot earn enough to pay these rents. It already happens so I don't understand what you mean.

I think she means why do the govt hold own properties?

They were built out of government funds for people who couldn't afford market rents, low earners etc to give them a secure home.

Many were built in the 40's and 50's for returning soldiers 'homes fit for heros' was the buzz word and they cleared alot of the insanitary slums.

I think it's a good idea as the shortage has meant that many working families are relying on housing benefit to pay high rents to private landlords.

Thanks Ninky, I mean why do the government hold their own properties, or if they do why don't they rent those properties out (with appropriate subsidies for those who need them) rather than giving them to people at a time of need and letting them stay there when the need has passed?

I'm not suggesting we demolish any houses, the total stock of housing won't go down.

She is the cat's mother, sorry .

surely then, if a persons income is not high enough to be able to pay a market rent, the answer is not for the governement to build them a home but for their income to be increased so they can pay a market rent. I am talking a liveable minimum wage here rather than yet another government subsidy.

As an non-brit living in britian for the last umpteen years i have always thought the reliance on social housing by otherwise gainfully employed people odd. It seems to serve to keep them in the low income brackets as there is no pressure on employers to offer a true living wage.

If true market forces were allowed into play then wages must inevitably rise.

lyn, great idea but doubt it will happen anytime soon.

Social housing is designed to give people a habitable, low cost house to live it. The alternative might be to set up trailer parks which might not go down too well.

Surely it's cheaper to rent out state-owned house at reasonable rents than for the state to line the pockets of private landlords through housing benefit??