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

Insane policy, I am in a HA house and wouldn't buy now even if I could afford to. I have been there with the home ownership thing, I know how quickly it can go wrong and have no intention of heading back in time. I like this house, I have a secure tenancy and my disabled son has a home for life if needed,

Its a win win for the tories. you get the working class vote and also now they have their house you get to take it off them in their old age to fund their care,

IhateGO above said "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... It's got disaster written all over it."

I can confirm similar comments from The Times. To quote one reply:
"Yet another attempt to keep the housing market pumped up using tax payer cash."

So noone in general thinks it's a good idea. However, they are after the marginals, and must have done complex calculations to work out this will get enough votes to swing those seats.

Agree OP, it's a short term bribe to a group they usually cannot woo. The long term consequences aren't good.

It's simply not a good idea.

Nor is raising the inheritance tax threshold and paying for it out of pension savings. Surely it's more laudable to encourage saving for old age than making sure unearned, family wealth is protected across generations.

IMHO, this is where the Tories fail to see things clearly. For them, money amassed by one's grandparents is sacrosanct. Money earned through dint of one's own sweat and toil, not so much so!

I understand what you mean now Orlando, I agree.

Yes. i think it's a terrible idea and I say that as a Tory voter. I was also glad to hear Ed Milliband say yesterday that he would scrap zero hours contracts. Excellent.

But I still won't vote for Ed and I will still vote for Dave.

At the end of the day my voting choice is based on so many factors and neither of the two things I mentioned above are anywhere near enough to sway me to vote Labour in the grand scheme of things.

I suspect that if this does roll out, anyone who buys their HA house and becomes a 'homeowner' will suddenyl find themselves uneligible for Universal Credit. If child benefit is rolled into that-as the Tories are refusing to deny-they'll find themselves really losing out.

I don't disagree with you orlando but what would you say is a decent enough income to move from HA to private?

I ask because I've posted my circs ^^ and now say I'm in a position not to be entitled HB. Slight lie - I'm entitled to £11/ week but that's 'only' because I have a disabled child and pay childcare. The system is so shockingly shit though I don't claim as they fuck up so often, refuse to accept they are wrong and then decide they've overpaid. That £11/wk doesn't cover my accountancy fees to kept track of their fuck ups I also know that come July when I stop paying childcare I won't be entitled.

Thing is although I can afford my HA rent I could not afford private near me without HB. (I know this is what your saying). Also I don't want to be moving every 6 months - a year or having unknown address etc. with a disabled child I cannot be in that position. And certainly an autistic child can't deal with the threat of moving continously. Or deal with moves!

I'd like to think a sensible solution would be better governing of rentals. More policy, statutory law on long term rentals with buy to let mortgages. Less £200/tenancy to renew contracts (that haven't changed so not really a fair admin charge). And better laws to protect landlords. So it's easier to evict tenants - control how tenants treat property etc. and housing funds available to those who fall on hard times to cover rent whilst they sort out the problems. Far too many miss a rental - have the stress of eviction - and paying back rentals with monthly rents etc. there would have to be clear guidelines about how and why you can apply but so many redundancies etc occurring surely many who've been in a great position financially and renting privately face the threat of eviction. Then they get social housing? Then they get back into their previous employment roles and continue to remain in social housing. Which I understand - why would you leave a secure home for an unsecured one when you've seen the hard blows life can throw.

There is a flaw in the system somewhere. I am working towards qualifying a a teacher. My income will increase significantly. But if I was to switch to private tenancy I would not be better off. And thats where another flaw arises. There's no incentive to a) move and b) actually improve employment if you would then need to move from social housing.

Very interesting discussion.

many people who would benefit from right-to-buy are claiming benefits

Yep-they probably won't be eligible for a penny once they are labelled as 'homeowners'!

piddlemakesmegiggle I'm sure you have, but just in case, have you asked about a housing benefit premium on account of DH's disability? I think you have to get DLA/PIP to be entitled. Also discretionary housing payments. Sorry If I'm just repeating what you already know...

Also, and I know this is a ridiculus suggestion in most circumstances, do you think there's any chance your landlord would lower the rent? Mine did (I was ) because he'd rather have someone long term who pays rent on time and looks after the place... I do live in a slightly dodgy area though.

Meddie and LetsEatGrandma interesting points.

I must say I am looking at this with a great deal of skepticism. Initially thought it was a cheap and desperate vote grabber.

But it seems the benefits of this are to move social tenants out of the expensive areas (because even with over 100k discount, how many HA tenants could afford to buy their 3-4 bedroom property in central London?). This means that rich people can have rich neighbours again.

And yes you're entitled to less benefits if you're a homeowner, aren't you? So if a couple manage to buy their HA house, then fall on harder times (illness, disability, redundancy etc) then they won't get as much help and will have to sell their house, and move out to HA "areas" (see end of first paragraph).

And they'll need to fund their own care. Another winner.

I'm glad to see that posters say this is going down like a lead balloon in all the various papers. It's a terrible idea.

I wonder whether this will affect the polls? I have seen at most 1 positive comment about this in every 10 so far today.

I don't think they could force housing associations to sell their properties. No more than they could force private landlords to sell their properties. Quote elsewhere from a HA spokesperson said it could cost the taxpayer £5.8 billion and that was a conservative(c) estimate.

Ruth Davison, from the National Housing Federation - which represents housing associations - said it was "the wrong solution" to the UK's housing shortage as it would benefit "some of the most securely housed people in the country on the lowest rents".
"You can no more force housing associations to sell their assets at less than they are worth than you could force Tesco to sell their assets or Cancer Research," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"Housing associations would have to be fully recompensed for any sale. There will be a cost to the taxpayer - at a conservative estimate £5.8bn".

I'm an HA tenant, and I agree that this is a terrible idea.

What I'm struggling with is how can HAs be compelled to sell their properties? What if they decide that it doesn't make financial sense, or that ethically it goes against its founding principles? Could the govt. make them sell their property? It seems absurd.

X post.

Even if the government compensated the HA for the full market value of their properties, what if they just didn't want to sell them? How on earth could they be made to do so?

My life long Labour voting husband has said he will be voting Conservative on the basis of this policy alone. He won't be the only one and Dave has played a blinder, along with the 30 hours free childcare hes offering.

We are long term HA tenants and are both in secure employment. Many others like us who will jump at this chance.

The government can legislate to force housing associations to sell and have said that they would recompense the HAs to market value. There is another associated point though which is to make the relevant councils sell their 1/3 most expensive houses as and when those houses are vacated - this apparently equates to 50,000 houses or so a year. The funds raised from these sales would go to: 1) funding the discounts on the HA houses; 2) building on brownfield land and 3) buying less expensive houses in the area to rent out. The aim would be to replace the RTB houses on a 1for1 basis.

I am in favour of the plan personally having spent the morning considering it, but only if they are successful in replacing the sold houses with new houses on a 1 for 1 basis. It does redistribute social housing from more expensive properties within an area to less expensive properties in an area, but I think that's actually quite fair. People will not be forced to move from their area, but new people coming in and looking for a social house will have a different choice of house.

But sure the tenants living in the most expensive 1\3 of properties are the ones least likely to move out?

So if they don't go voluntarily, then what? Forced eviction?

My life long Labour voting husband has said he will be voting Conservative on the basis of this policy alone. He won't be the only one and Dave has played a blinder, along with the 30 hours free childcare hes offering.

We are long term HA tenants and are both in secure employment. Many others like us who will jump at this chance.

How selfish and short sighted.

My life long Labour voting husband has said he will be voting Conservative on the basis of this policy alone. He won't be the only one and Dave has played a blinder, along with the 30 hours free childcare hes offering.

Are you able to claim any other benefits as you are in a HA property, I wonder? I suspect once you own your own home, you won't be able to any more. Child benefit...

How selfish and short sighted.

Why? The money raised by selling this house to me will pay to build another for a needy family. I win, they win. Whats the problem?

Without this policy I will be a HA tenant for another 7 years at least (currently saving for a deposit). Another family will get secure housing much sooner if we have the right to buy.

With insufficient social housing the last thing we need is more right to buy legislation to reduce what we do have. Build more genuinely affordable housing and charge a fortune for any properties unoccupied which is mainly due to property speculators and remove non-dom status.

Are you able to claim any other benefits as you are in a HA property, I wonder? I suspect once you own your own home, you won't be able to any more. Child benefit...

We only claim claim child benefit now and will lose than very soon when our child goes to uni. My husband is in a very secure job, but if he lost it due to illness etc we would be in a difficult position. Its a risk you take when buying.