Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
ilovechristmas1 · 14/04/2015 15:12

as a homeowner you can get some help with interest cost if unemployed,sick etc

though compared to HB it is peanuts,if you had a crystal ball you would be better of in local HA/Council even private then having a morgage

it's a very unfair system

RufusTheReindeer · 14/04/2015 15:13

pink

Always seems quite evenly split on these sorts of threads

I think it's a dumb idea and I would usually vote Tory

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 14/04/2015 15:16

I'm really confused about how this is supposed to n work?

The government/councils don't have any housing stock anymore - it is all owned by HAs which are private charity charities/not for profits. Is the government seriously going to force private companies to flog their assets off at a massive loss? Its not just about selling at a discount, it is the permanent loss of rental income from that property - will that be reimbursed too? And what about those HAs whose rules forbid them selling assets at beliw market value.

Whoever said this is short term thinking is right. This will cripple HAs/force them out of business, meaning even less affordable housing.

A home is a right, owning your own home isn't.

ElectraCute · 14/04/2015 15:17

Meanwhile, we have been saving so long that now we face struggling to get a mortgage at all as hubby is over 40....oh yes, David, this is a good life....

Yep. Dp and I are both in professional roles - supposedly roles that are important to society too (healthcare and education). We earn a decent salary between us but I am now over 40 and so mortgage brokers just laugh when they see me coming. We live in a 2-bed flat, private rental. We would like to move, get a little garden perhaps, but due to the rocketing of private rents around here that would mean spending an extra £500 pcm, which we do not have.

I am increasingly aware of the fact that I will have no security in my old age. God forbid I should get ill. And ds will have even less.

I don't begrudge anyone the security of a home. It's a basic right. But this is pure madness.

howabout · 14/04/2015 15:45

I agree with the Times. Another subsidy to the housing market will only bid up prices and make everything worse. Also there are massive inequities in this and all the other subsidies. DH and I set up home in the 90s. We chose to rent as prices were stable and rents were affordable. I feel very grateful to have been able to choose the freedom of renting and in terms of my career I was far more mobile, had better job and paid far more tax as a result. Cannot square current policy with small c conservatism at all.

nauticant · 14/04/2015 15:49

Another subsidy to the housing market will only bid up prices and make everything worse

Keeping the bubble inflated = electoral gold

Longer term outlook = who gives a shit

TedAndLola · 14/04/2015 15:49

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?

No it won't. Fewer than 10% of homes sold under the so-called "right" to buy have been replaced. We will end up with one less housing association property, probably another BTL landlord once you sell and another family forced into private rent because they have no other options. The only person who wins is you.

Feellikescrooge · 14/04/2015 16:19

Dame Shirley Porter is not a role model even David Cameron should follow. The biggest issue in the 80's was all the people who bought without realising the cost of the upkeep which caused them financial misery. Also with the benefit cuts both parties will impose anyone relying on even health based benefits will be very vulnerable. Surely having a home is more important than owning one.

GratefulHead · 14/04/2015 16:31

I would not buy my house, it's HA but it's my home. I don't need to own it and I quite like the idea that when I don't need it anymore it will go to another family who need a home,

SoonToBeSix · 14/04/2015 16:35

Mummy you would t be rejected you would just not be able to continue claiming as you would no longer be renting.

BreakWindandFire · 14/04/2015 16:36

Here's an article from the Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation, the representative body for HAs, setting out why this is a total disaster.

Basically, if they are forced to sell with up to a £100k discount (and give some money back to the Treasury as well) they won't have enough left to build a replacement house.

Also, many of these HAs are private independent charitable associations who (a) don't want to be forced to sell off their stock against their will, and (b) as charities aren't currently allowed to sell off property at below market value.

Finally, many HAs have borrowed money to build new stock, and got the loans from the banks on the grounds they had an income stream (rent) to repay it. If they income stream is removed against their will, then they are financially in dire straits.

The BBC is reporting that HAs are thinking of mounting a legal challenge.

SoonToBeSix · 14/04/2015 16:39

Malice HA homes are not subsidised, it's the private rents that are artificially inflated.
Fixed term rentals of HA/council houses are not retrospective for current tenants.

Cretaceous · 14/04/2015 17:07

"charities aren't currently allowed to sell off property at below market value"

That may well be the case. However, this new policy doesn't need to actually happen, though, does it? They can just put it forward as a policy, get the votes from the marginals to win the election, then (if the HA have a good case) drop it/delay it when the HA begin mounting a legal challenge.

Meanwhile, with all this buy-to-let ponzi scheme etc, it's in no major party's political interest for the housing market to correct itself. Not until a majority of actual voters for whichever party are renters with no hope of getting on the housing ladder.

Mummybabyboo · 14/04/2015 17:12

Soon you would be rejected from the mortgage to cover the rest of the price of the house. Hence benefit claimants are not eligible.

Viviennemary · 14/04/2015 17:13

I hope they do mount a legal challenge. I've never heard of such an unfair policy. It's bad enough that just certain people are entitled to cheaper rents. Never mind the right to buy a house at a massive discount. Are they mad. I think this policy will be quite unpopular apart from being popular with those who benefit. It has certainly put me off voting conservative.

MaliceInWonderland78 · 14/04/2015 17:14

I've never known a HA home not to be subsidised. Where I live, they're built under the Rural Exceptions policy- which is a ridiculous scheme that enables housing associations to build on the green belt (so they buy the land at c. 10 per plot)

Where I used to live, the houses were subsidised by private developers who were building them under s.106 arrangements.

I'm not against HA properties and I think that there's a difference between a Right to Buy and being compelled to buy. The reality is that very few people will be in a position to exercise the right anyway.

MaliceInWonderland78 · 14/04/2015 17:15

That should be 10,000 per plot. Which is obscenely cheap.

TheListingAttic · 14/04/2015 17:19

Haven't RTFT so apologies if someone has mentioned this, but: my favourite part of this madness is that they'll fund the massive discounts for flogging off what's left of social housing by requiring council's to sell off their most expensive properties. So they'll fund the sell-off with a sell-off.

Why aren't Labour screaming from the rooftops that this is madness?!

TheListingAttic · 14/04/2015 17:22

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?

If this was correct (which it's not, as has been pointed out) where exactly is this 'needy family' supposed to live while that house is being constructed? You can't build a house overnight and even if these cheap sell-offs funded new builds (which given the discount, they can't be expected to replace like for like) what on earth happens in the gap between raising the money via selling off one house and building the next?

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep · 14/04/2015 19:01

They're just throwing absolute bollocks out there in the hope we fall for it, aren't they.

They can't afford the IHT cut they're dangling, this bonkers idea is clearly financially and legally impossible... these things are never going to happen.

But on both threads there have been people saying, 'ooh this is a great idea, they've got my vote', so it doesn't really matter.

They get the votes, get into power, and then they can reveal that oh whoops we can't do that. Who knew?! Nevermind.

And it's not like the press will make them suffer for it.

BreakWindandFire · 14/04/2015 19:16

my favourite part of this madness is that they'll fund the massive discounts for flogging off what's left of social housing by requiring council's to sell off their most expensive properties.

Yes, so not only will they asset strip charities, probably driving some into insolvency, they'll attempt to plug the black hole by forcing councils to sell off more council homes, and hand the money over rather than use it to replace the depleted stock. And within a few years those sold-off council homes will be with big corporate landlords who will fill them with people who can't get social housing, and charge the council huge amounts of housing benefit...

Why aren't Labour screaming from the rooftops that this is madness?!

They are. They just pointed out in ITV news that the Tory plans would force Councils to sell off 210,000 properties and the replacements would have to be higher rent 'affordable homes' which they estimate would push the housing benefit bill up by £3bn.

HappydaysArehere · 14/04/2015 19:59

They are desperate so someone has come up with this Thatcher revival. Social housing.....well long time gone. They say they are supporting the working man. Well social housing used to offer those in need security at a price related to their earnings.

ElectraCute · 14/04/2015 20:04

Unworkable, unfundable, destructive, morally reprehensible and probably actually illegal.

And after all this, there will still be ordinary 'hard-working' people out there who genuinely believe that the Tories give one shiney shit about them. That Cameron and his cronies are actually sorting things out and have their best interests at heart.

If this bribe policy announcement has made you think you might vote Tory, you're a fucking idiot. I've said it before, I'll say it again - they wouldn't piss on most of us if we were on fire.

Lardylassnomore · 14/04/2015 20:12

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/14/conservative-manifesto-party-pledges-guardian-writers Intersting read especially about HA S being a charity

Mummybabyboo · 14/04/2015 20:18

ElectraCute gets my vote! Wine

Swipe left for the next trending thread