Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder how Labour’s Right to Buy on privately rented houses would work?

421 replies

Bearbehind · 02/09/2019 10:49

Just read something this morning about Labour proposing Right to Buy on privately rented properties - how would that actually work?

How can they force a private landlord to sell at a discounted rate?

Also, if one of the requirements is you have to have been renting the property for several years, that’s just going to lead to less secure tenancies because landlords will make sure tenants cannot qualify for this.

It seems like a bonkers idea to me

OP posts:
MoonageDaydreamz · 02/09/2019 20:53

This is not theft - it's redistribution to make sure everyone has a fair share.

So TomPinch, if you're a homeowner, you don't mind if the government seizes your property for below the market value to 'redistribute' so those who don't have one? Doesn't matter, as you can just buy a smaller one with the remaining money?

Or if you're not a homeowner, your car?

How is it any different for landlords who have legally paid market rate for a house in good faith, pay tax on the rental income they earn?

TomPinch · 02/09/2019 21:00

I have one house and one car. It's all my family needs.

The car is a bad example anyway, because I wouldn't be denying anyone a car by buying a second one.

But this isn't just about you and me. It's about countering the effects of creating a large class of property-less people. Communists may like that, but no one else should.

QualCheckBot · 02/09/2019 21:08

TomPinch It's completely sane. No one needs more than one house. Do you need to live in both?

Well, no--ones' having more than one house if the other one is rented out so other people can live in it.

Do you think human rights to protection of property are equally insane? Because to enact this policy would require the UK to come out of the ECHR.

IAmALazyArse · 02/09/2019 21:11

I am not even a landlord and I am absolutely against this.

Again I ask. How many tenants will be able to afford a mortgage?

TomPinch · 02/09/2019 21:13

Well, no--ones' having more than one house if the other one is rented out so other people can live in it.

The people can own it then.

Do you think human rights to protection of property are equally insane? Because to enact this policy would require the UK to come out of the ECHR

Lol.

TomPinch · 02/09/2019 21:17

Again I ask. How many tenants will be able to afford a mortgage?

More than currently, because if private renting becomes less profitable, the price of houses will reduce to what it used to be. Social housing can take care of the rest, or should.

Passthecherrycoke · 02/09/2019 21:21

“Again I ask. How many tenants will be able to afford a mortgage?“

I don’t know why you keep asking. Who is going to know the financial details of the countries renters offhand to quickly furnish you with?

Nautiloid · 02/09/2019 21:23

This makes me feel sick with worry.
I only own one property. I don't live in it as circumstances changed, we moved areas and we couldn't get a mortgage so we rent and have rented out our property to the same person for years.

TomPinch · 02/09/2019 21:27

If the purpose of the policy is redistribution, it's not going to require people who own one house to sell it.

Autumnintheair · 02/09/2019 21:31

You just couldn't write politics right now.

To come out with this utter blinder right before potential election!!

CendrillonSings · 02/09/2019 21:32

If the purpose of the policy is redistribution, it's not going to require people who own one house to sell it.

Oh, the naivete! Once the principle that the Government can "redistribute" your private property away has been conceded, what's to stop them deciding that your house is too big, or too expensive, or too well-located, or has too big a garden for your needs, and that other people would be more "deserving"?

Be very, very careful what you wish for.

QualCheckBot · 02/09/2019 21:34

Do you think human rights to protection of property are equally insane? Because to enact this policy would require the UK to come out of the ECHR

Lol.

You don't sound very intelligent. "lol" is all you can say to the European Convention on Human Rights? I can't imagine the "people" would be very happy to see it go. The Labour cronies will be all right though.

How to make the UK an international laughing stock.

By the way, your Labour Party manifesto has got the bit about the Posting of Workers Directive wrong. Are any of you even remotely educated in what you're trying to discuss?

Autumnintheair · 02/09/2019 21:35

People saying they only have one house..

But it could be huge with potential to squeeze mini flats in and forced renting out of rooms as well as wasted land for horses etc.

Not fair.

CleopatraTomato · 02/09/2019 21:39

Redistribution of wealth and redistribution of labour, of repsonsibility? Really what is the point in working, saving, taking risks if in the end the payback is the same whether you do or you don't?

And if everyone owns then everyone is responsible for thier property. And when they don't pay their mortgage? And when they can't afford to replace the roof? Who do they sell to? And then where do they live?

We need more social housing and rock-solid pensions. That would have more of an effect.

QualCheckBot · 02/09/2019 21:40

I actually dealt with this kind of left wing, dyed in the wool communist in local government. He actually came out with "all property is theft" when we were having a meeting about HMO policy. All the rest of us looked at him, raised our eyes and ignored him. He did however ignore the legal advice and the policy was passed and awaits legal challenge should someone with a grievance and able to fund it be interested enough to do so, which will be guaranteed to be successful, as it is in breach of the ECHR. And the Charter.

Perhaps that is what this type do. They would pass legislation which would be in breach of human rights and simply not care about the misery and economic devastation it would cause until it was removed.

CleopatraTomato · 02/09/2019 21:45

CendrillonSings - I am reminded of the scene in Dr Zhivago in which the Communists demand that several families move in to the Dr's house because it is too big for him.

TomPinch · 02/09/2019 21:45

@QualCheckBot

This is what the relevant part of the European Convention on Human Rights says:

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

So, Labour's policy would only contravene the ECHR if it could be proved that it wasn't in the public interest. The Court is not going to interfere with essentially political decisions such as this, especially if it comes about because a democratically elected government is implementing a manifesto commitment.

If you are going to accuse other contributors to this discussion of being uneducated, you should at least make the effort to read and understand the arguments you rely on.

By the way I'm not a member of the Labour Party and I live in New Zealand.

TomPinch · 02/09/2019 21:50

Communists believe that the State should own all property. What the Labour Party appears to be proposing is a policy that would encourage redistribution of private property into other private hands.

This is much close to what Mrs Thatcher wanted: a property-owning democracy. The alternative is a plutocracy in which a small number of people own everything. People like Thomas Piketty for example have written about it at great length.

IAmALazyArse · 02/09/2019 21:50

I kept asking because number of posters sounded like they think nearly everyone will suddenly afford to buy.

You don't need to know everyone's financials. It's simple statistics.
4.7 million rent privately. 1.7 is on HB. So 1.7 will not get a mortgage most likely. Then you have high percentage of lower wage earners. Will they get a mortgage? Most likely not. Then you have people who earn enough and manage to save. These can do it without the compulsory sale. Takes few years longer, but doable.
All these "poor" families people keep throwing around will not be able to afford it anyway.

All this "redistribution of wealth" and everyone should be equal rings way to near to commies. Everyone has everything yet everyone has nothing.
Except the state.
Wanna share of someone's savings too? Because why should someone have 100k in pension saving while you don't?
Ridiculous.
If this happens, restitutions will happen in few decades too.

QualCheckBot · 02/09/2019 21:51

And what does the case law say on that very point TomPinch? I'll give you a clue. It doesn't allow the state to force the sale of private property except in very, exceptional, individual cases.

Is there any chance some of you who advocate this could employ some people with half a brain and slightly more than half an education? You are making utter fools of yourselves and come across as incredibly stupid.

As for your New Zealand story. You must be very scared of someone tracing you on social media for some reason, if you have to come up with something like that.

Autumnintheair · 02/09/2019 21:51

Same cleopatra which is why I think, why stop at second home when many have homes large enough to be divided not only into many mini flats but also land wasted on horses.. AND stables...

Autumnintheair · 02/09/2019 21:53

Someone from new Zealand flooded our local fb with similar posts

CleopatraTomato · 02/09/2019 21:53

QualCheckBot - interesting about the legal challenge.

I am in agreement with those who think this mad and will cause massive upset. How will you enforce mortgage payments if everyone owns? By slave labour? Or would property ownership be funded by benefits payments? And if I don't need to work to fund my home - why would I bother?

TomPinch · 02/09/2019 21:53

And what does the case law say on that very point TomPinch? I'll give you a clue. It doesn't allow the state to force the sale of private property except in very, exceptional, individual cases.

Cite some.

The text is very clear that a convention nation's law can provide for the involuntary taking of property, if it is in the public interest. It happens all the time.

As for your New Zealand story. You must be very scared of someone tracing you on social media for some reason, if you have to come up with something like that.

Check my posting history.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 02/09/2019 21:58

I actually dealt with this kind of left wing, dyed in the wool communist in local government. He actually came out with "all property is theft"...

I can't really say I'm surprised; IME local government's a natural roost for those who wish to dictate other peoples' 'lives, using other peoples' money to do it

BTW TomPinch do you "Lol" at all aspects of human rights law, or just those bits which protect those you wish to target? As a PP said, it might be wise to be careful what you wish for ...