Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

So now the Tories are bringing back the Right to Buy scheme. Anyone else think they're losing the plot?

227 replies

AyeAmarok · 14/04/2015 08:13

We have a housing crisis, especially in affordable social housing, so they are going to offer tenants the right to purchase it for up to 70% discount Shock

It seems like every day brings new nonsense.

I quite liked about 80% of what the Tories have done, until this week. It seems such a desperate attempt to buy "working-class" votes.

Election 2015: David Cameron to pledge right-to-buy extension - www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32295970

OP posts:
rollonthesummer · 14/04/2015 09:41

If this was supposed to be a big Tory vote winner-I haven't seen many in favour of it?!

Why can't I leave a comment on the BBC news article either...

MrsFlannel · 14/04/2015 09:42

Angela that is bloody offensive. DH and I live in social housing. We've worked hard too...both working for the last 20 years like you....we've saved and saved but can't ever seem to get enough together. Your attitude isn't nice. We can't help that our work isn't well paid.

MaliceInWonderland78 · 14/04/2015 09:45

I'm not particularly against this. I do think though it should come with more stringent conditions. For example I think that the length of time which you actually have to hold the asset before you can sell it should be much greater.

I'd also be in favour of using the proceeds to build more houses which would then be sold (at cost) to buyers (with State underwritten mortgages if necessary). I would then only permit the subsequent re-sale of those houses at cost (plus CPI inflation).

My parents exercised their right to buy under Thatcher. Had they not done so, they'd likely still be living in the house as council tennants.

sweetkitty · 14/04/2015 09:46

This is disgusting when you have families in cramped privately owned houses lining the pockets of their landlords.

My SIL is an example of this policy, she was homeless and was housed in a one bed council flat, fair enough, 3 years later she bought it for 18K, 3 years after that sold it for 55K. Moved into another ex council house.

That's a flat off the market now for another homeless person who will need it. Up here in Scotland you here of people boasting of buying their council houses for 6K and now they are worth 100K.

Where is the financial sense in that?

MrsFlannel · 14/04/2015 09:47

MAlice that's ridiculous....selling homes and then building more? Why? What's wrong with people renting them for life? Then there's a constant supply.

I don't think there is anything wrong with living as a council tenant. Ok so you don't have anything to pass down...but you've had a home and tenancies can be passed along!

ElectraCute · 14/04/2015 09:48

It's the 'dream of the property-owning democracy' apparently, sweetkitty.

According to the multi-property owning democrat Cameron.

OrlandoWoolf · 14/04/2015 09:49

35% discount?

Does Cameron realise how hard is it to get a mortgage nowadays?

Even at 35%, that is a lot. And what about those people in privately rented accommodation.

Hard working families doing the right thing?

GiddyOnZackHunt · 14/04/2015 09:50

My gran could have bought her council house for about 5k in the early 90s. My aunt was all for it but my father talked them out of it. That house is still AFAIK a council property. We didn't need the money or the hassle of maintaining it and I hope someone else is happy there now.

Delilahfandango · 14/04/2015 09:51

I'm sure they promised this last time. I could be wrong but have a vague notion. So yet another empty promise/threat?!?

suzannecanthecan · 14/04/2015 09:51

surely a shot to the foot?

Damnautocorrect · 14/04/2015 09:52

Clearly there's an abundance of housing association properties to think this is a good idea.
They need to catch up with the number that's already been sold not sell more off with no idea how to replace them.

There will be a huge influx of people needing HA properties when generation rent hit retirement.

MaliceInWonderland78 · 14/04/2015 09:56

MrsFlannel There's nothing wrong with being a council tennant. The point I was making was that my parents not having the right to buy would not suddenly mean that there was available housing for someone that needs it.

We need to build more homes as it's the only way the market will function correctly. As it happens, there is a massive under supply.

I'm not worried about passing anything down. I'd happily abolish IHT on estates and have the recipient/beneficiary pay tax on any bequest at their marginal rate (which already has a degree of progressiveness built into it).

Madasabox · 14/04/2015 10:00

There is actually a little more to it than that. According to the radio anyway, they are also going to force councils to sell their most expensive third of houses, which will fund the discounts and then use the remainder of the money raised to fund mandatory 1 for 1 housing replacement. Labour doesnt have a better policy. No-one has a good policy on housing because the problem is that as a country we don't build enough houses for the growth in households.

I am writing about housing policy at the moment and contrary to popular belief, never has housing supply been sufficient in this country even before right to buy came in. We need according to the Barker report 250,000 new houses each year to meet demand. This is an unrealistic target. The closest we have come to this since the 1970s was in 2007 when 219,000 houses were built, but this was peak level and is unsustainable over a multi-year period. The problem is private housebuilders need to make a profit - land is expensive, housing margins are low on mass builds. There is no incentive for them to build the number sufficient to meet demand, but even if there was, they are physically incapable. So many building firms have gone under in the last 7 years.

So what are the choices? Neither the Tories nor Labour are able to fill the gap with social housing, because the country could not afford the capital investment required to build houses and where would they get the land and the builders from? The best they can do is try to force housing associations and councils to try and use land more efficiently.

In actual fact the best thing that could be done for housing prices and housing supply is to shrink the green belt and free up planning - but loads of people object to that too!

LornMowa · 14/04/2015 10:01

The only way that this would be a remotely good idea would be if they were to place a covenant on all sold houses meaning that they could not be bought and rented out by a private landlord in the future. Otherwise the tax payer is going to be paying twice - once when subsidising the sale and again when someone in poorly paid work in the future is forced to claim Housing Benefit in order to afford a roof over their heads.

I can't understand why the Tories think that this would be a vote winner.

Damnautocorrect · 14/04/2015 10:03

Tories have got the wealthy vote, so now they are going for the council tenant vote.
That will secure it and ignore the ticking time bomb middle

GiddyOnZackHunt · 14/04/2015 10:04

MadasaBox - surely given what you say about being unable to keep up with demand etc then the obvious conclusion is that flogging off housing stock at a discount is utterly insane.

MaliceInWonderland78 · 14/04/2015 10:09

Not if the capital receipts are used to replace the housing stock.

I

MaliceInWonderland78 · 14/04/2015 10:09

I especially like the idea of restrictive covenants preventing the private rental of such properties in future.

Fatstacks · 14/04/2015 10:11

cold and lonely in the ghetto, in the ghettooooooo

When they sell the social housing in the naice areas the undeserving vulnerable people can all live together in sink estates where there will be a block on social mobility better understanding of their needs lazy workshy feckless ways

What's not to like? Hmm

Damnautocorrect · 14/04/2015 10:12

God no don't shrink green belt. There's plenty of brownfield to develop, we need to build smarter. There's no point cramming everyone into little boxes when we've fucked up the Eco system so there's no bees to pollinate and produce food.
Look at the 1930's developments, maisonettes with gardens, bungalows, houses with gardens big enough for hedges and trees. The house building was massive but had little impact as the wildlife could re-establish. There has to be happy medium to keep the balance between our housing need and the channels of green wildlife needs to keep us fed and pest free.

specialsubject · 14/04/2015 10:18

ok, so to compound this stupid idea we have an even stupider one of making the house unrentable in future. Now, you might think that will get one over on those nasty landlords. Remember it also means the owner can't ever rent it out, so if they have to move for any reason and can't sell the place they are screwed.

surely the whole point of council and HA properties is to ensure that everyone has a roof over their head? As and when you can afford to buy or rent elsewhere, you do. If you never can, then you stay. Sell off all these and we exacerbate the problem.

and building all over the green land is even stupid. Where do you think food comes from?

ihategeorgeosborne · 14/04/2015 10:22

I've just been reading the comments about this in the telegraph, guardian and independent. It would seem that no one thinks it's a good idea across all political spectrums. Not sure what they were hoping to achieve with this. It's got disaster written all over it.

rollonthesummer · 14/04/2015 10:36

It's got disaster written all over it.

I agree. I hope it loses the Tories votes.

DoraGora · 14/04/2015 10:40

The good thing about creating a politician-made disaster is that a grateful public will then vote you back in again to dream up even more ideological solutions for fixing it.