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

[AyeAmarok]

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

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

Right to buy is widely cited as the cause of the housing crisis, why would anyone think that resurrecting it would be a vote winner?

I don't get this one at all

Houses are very expensive in many areas

We keep getting told that houses may get so expensive that virtually every future generation may have to rent

Private rents are expensive

Buy to let landlords are (apparently) the scum of the earth and only out to line their own pockets (there are always exceptions to this obviously)

They are selling off (cheaper) HA/council rented properties

None of this makes any sense, it's all contradictory

Rents have risen in 11 out of 12 regions across the UK comparing Q1 2015 to Q1 2014
The average rent in the UK is now £902 (£720 excluding Greater London)pcm
The average rent in Greater London is now £1,427 pcm

The trouble is, they are all short-termists. None of them think about the future and the knock on effect that their crazy policies will have on future generations. They don't care. They just want to be elected. How about a law which stipulates that they, the politicians, have to pay out of their own pockets, any shortfall or deficits that their crappy policies have caused. They might actually, you know, give it some proper thought then

The problem is that Theresa May didn't seem able to say how much all of this would cost, so how can they know that it can be funded? Also, a mandatory requirement to replace if sales don't raise enough revenue, plus further it's to LAs planned could put even more pressure on other budgets - such as social care. And we don't need to replace we need to increase. It seems like a very risky, convoluted way to bribe some voters.

That should read further cuts to LAs.

The final thing is that this is helping people who are relatively secure in housing already. Seems like an odd priority.

Giddy, yes to some extent, but the problem is two-fold I think. Firstly the structure of the housing market has changed such that people now think that they SHOULD own their own home and that renting for life is somehow lesser. This is a legacy of the mass house building programmes of the 1920s, 30s, 40s and of right to buy, but given the latter is over 30 years ago we need to accept that ship has sailed. In 1918 only 25% of homes were owner occupied compared to over 65% today. Therefore governments are under pressure to increase the housing supply so people can BUY. Note that Labour's policy is to build 125,000 affordable homes to BUY not to reintroduce council housing.

No government can afford to reintroduce a government funded social housing programme - the capital investment would be immense and unsustainable - in fact as has always been the case.

In terms of social housing, there are actually 1m more social houses now than in 2000, but this basically transfer from local authority housing. There are 2.1m more homes than in 2000, 700,000 more than in 2008, but all of this growth has been privately rented housing. This is the highest level of private rented accommodation since 1969.

In terms of private rental costs, on average private rents have risen by a total of 4% over the last 4 years in England, an average of just over 1% pa. This is clearly an average and I am sure a lot of people will rush to point out that this is not reflective of personal experience, but of course incomes have fallen over that period, which makes it feel worse. To provide some balance while everyone criticises private landlords, English house prices have risen by far more over the period so yields have fallen.

London has suffered much worse as has been well publicised, rent is up almost 7% over the last 4 years. This reflects growing global status of the capital and compares to 24% increases in a decade in Paris and similar growth levels in New York. It is just a function of the growth of the city-state unfortunately.

I think there are no easy solutions, but I don't think either the Tories or Labour have a good plan. In a way the Tory plan is slightly better as it will force more local authority building rather than the Labour plan which is to force more private building. What is needed is a deregulation of planning, the abolition of NIMBYISM and a mass opening up of land for building. Then land prices will fall, which will make houses more affordable to build.

It's not all that odd if your focus is people who are either relatively secure, secure or very secure, in the first place. In fact, it makes perfect sense. It's not only pulling the carpet out from under, but selling it, too.

Mass opening of land for building? Flooding the housing market, not that it's possible. But, in an evening depressing the entire housing market. That's bound to be widely supported.

I have a HA house that I love, but I would never want to own it. I really appreciate the security of a tenancy for life with free repairs etc. Owning my own home would be really worrying.

Suzanne, right to buy, which was introduced 34 years ago is actually a very small contribution to this problem. The biggest contribution is people exercising their right to live differently and population growth. The UK population has grown by 5 million since 2001 - these people need to live somewhere.

In addition the number of lone person households has increased. Some this is old people living alone after the death of the spouse, BUT the number of single occupant households of working age has increased by 2.4m.

So in summary while it is fashionable to blame right to buy and that did have an impact on the amount of available council housing, the reason private rents and house prices have increased and are increasing is demand driven as well as supply driven.

Orlandos posts is spot on IMO. Highlights the vicous cycle.

And this someone who has:

Been renting privately with DP looking to buy
Split from DP and rented unsuitable accommodation alone.
Claimed HB towards rent whilst not working.
Claimed HB towards rent whilst working
Moved to HA accommodation.
Continued claiming HB towards rent.
Worked way up to receive enough income not to receive HB. Would get/need HB on private rental.

This has been over a decade - so not a particulary long period of time IMO.

Who could now probably just about afford a mortgage for my 2 bed with 70% discount and no deposit , as I don't have a particulary 'low' rent but probably equivalent to a mortgage. But who could not afford expensive repairs and mortgage iyswim?

DoraGora and therein lies the problem - everyone wants an answer, but the only viable answer would be massively unpopular. People need to be realistic about the choices available.

I would be pleased if a party decided to look at the housing market and decided to look at the rights of tenants - such as security of tenure etc.

Angel I don't understand your point. We rent a housing association. My dh and I are both university educated, dh has an MA. He also earns a decent wage.

A person who earns a decent wage shouldn't need to be renting a HA / council house as in theory they are aimed at the less well off.

But the reality is in this country that earning a decent wage does not mean you can always afford to rent privately, let alone buy your own place.

That says something about this country. And it's not a good thing.

But the great thing about having such a house is - the security of a long term rental. That is worth its weight in gold.

Just knowing you can stay somewhere without being kicked out. A dream for many private renters.

Orlando I am disabled and can't work , I have two disabled dc. If anything were to happen to my dh I would want the security of a H A home. Why shouldn't we rent a HA home. And when I say a decent wage I mean not minimum wage.

"A person who earns a decent wage shouldn't need to be renting a HA / council house as in theory they are aimed at the less well off."

Orlando- Peoples circumstances change you know??, I was in a HA/Council house in the first place due to divorce/homelessnesss, and worked hard to to pay rent, struggling to bring up 3 Dc alone on one part time wage,when I would have been better on on benefits. Years later then met another partner, I got promotion at work with a pay rise and only now im a position to be able to afford a right to buy mortgage!!`

I'm not begruding people in a HA / council house - far from it.

What I'm saying is that in a decent world, people should be able to afford to rent privately and not have to rely on the Government / HA support.

But it's not a decent world - and people who are on ok money still have to use the safety net. That's not right - not because they have to use it but because we should live in a society where people don't need to rely on a safety net.

The fact people who are a decent wage have to use HA / council homes says a lot about our housing crisis.

We are in private rented house but need to move as rent is too high and not covered by LHA (disabled husband). On list for for social housing but only a tiny number left, BTL landlords are not allowed a mortgage if they intend renting to LHA recipients - we are completely stuck. This policy will just make the situation worse for people like us.

A person who earns a decent wage shouldn't need to be renting a HA / council house as in theory they are aimed at the less well off

Which meant that people in our society should be able to afford to rent or buy. But they can't because rents are high

So they have to use a safety net designed for the less well off.

I'm wondering whether this is one of the disposable policies. Wave it around to please the core vote and the bribe-ables, think it would be nice to have but don't be too attached to it, and be ready to dump it when the Tories' coalition partner (it is comes to that) raises strong opposition.

They think it is a vote winner and it probably will be.

I think it's an insane policy. It's like going to sleep and waking up in 1981.

They've done nothing for commuters since they've been in power yet weeks before the election, they announce they will freeze fares.

We desperately need a plan for housing that involves providing more social housing (not less) yet they come up with a policy that will take more off the market.

It's a vote grabber and that's all you can see it as. But from an economic perspective, I think it's hugely unwise and it actually doesn't benefit that many people.

I am not sure who they are trying to appeal to with this - I can't see many Labour voters switching because of this. Maybe they think it will appeal to some of the voters they've lost to UKIP.

I think this will end up costing all of us a lot of money tbh!