To think that Boris bringing back the 'Right to buy' scheme from the 80s is a terrible idea

[somewhereoverthechipshop]

Just this really. I think it's a slap in the face for all those private renters who cannot afford to buy a home, and just a horrible idea.
Boris Johnson mulls a new Right to Buy scheme as housebuilding hits the curb (cityam.com)

Not sure if link above works, but you can google it.
Evidently he is 'mulling over' the idea of bringing back Margaret Thatcher's scheme from the late 80s that decimated this country's council housing stock.
Just wondered what other people thought about it?

What on earth for ????

I thought people still had the right to buy /acquire?

Council tenants still have the right to buy after a certain period don't they?

This is for housing association renters.

I'm pretty sure that the scheme created a shortage of council houses that 40 years later has still not "caught up". I can't see how it would help?

The scheme has never gone away ….

As a single parent and private renter with a 'very good' credit rating, never defaulting on rent or bills, I am appalled though unsurprised that yet again I have been indirectly discriminated against.

There's a shortage of council housing as it is, this will not help.

Maybe should be looking at putting a cap in the amount of properties one person can own....buy to let has a lot to answer for. On a programme i was watching one guy had 100+ properties.....that's madness.

Can't imagine HA wanting to sell off stock ? Why would they?

YANBU.

HA houses and council houses are supposed to be for those who have no hope of buying. If they all get sold off on the cheap the poorest will have to fork out for extortionate private rental costs!

I agree with capping how many properties you can own

and the taxes to increase

It is a terrible idea. There will be less housing available that is affordable for people. The council house sell meant most of the decent properties vanished forever in the rental zone.
In some parts of the country there is almost no rental properties but there is still the need for them.
Low paid workers. Even average paid workers need a place to live that they can afford.
This sell off yet again suits the rich.

They'll be forced too, with the tax payer subsidising the cost of the property.

This idea was looked at in 2015 and rejected as unworkable and unfair, so no surprise BJ is looking at it.

Is this really his answer to millions of families who cannot afford to heat themselves and face rising food costs too?

Far better to bring in a cap on how much rent a LL can charge and a cap on how many properties someone can own. No one should be allowed to own more than 2 properties. I don't want to hear any "poor landlord" sob stories either, if you own a house that you rent out you are in a position that's WORLDS away from most people, you are not someone to be sympathised with.

He must be desperate for votes!

The right to buy scheme never ended for council properties. I have a council flat and could buy it if I wanted to (and would if it wasn't leasehold.)

I assume this is an extension of the scheme to Housing Association properties, which has been discussed for some time?

A far better plan would be to implement strict rent controls and heavy taxation on BTL portfolios. Which is never ever going to happen, alas.

How about introducing a right to buy your privately rented property from your landlord subject to certain conditions- length of lease / occupancy not being one of them?

There should be a hefty tax on all properties owned that are not primary residences including rented out, second and holiday rentals.

Maybe a scheme where private renters could have the right to buy their property after a period of time - with restrictions on reasons they could be served notice and how much rents could be raised by to stop those being a tool that prevent it.

I think it would depend on how it was structured and also what other policies went along with it.

Theoretically I think that, just as there is something to be said for taking low income rental housing out of the hands of developers, there may be something to be said for taking the creation of housing to be purchased by lower income people out of the hands of developers.

Either way though it depends on there being enough housing.

Ah, cross post

When people say there should be a “hefty” tax on income from 2nd homes etc what exactly do you mean ? More than that already applied which equates to the same taxation as any other income ?

or what ? 50% ?

then private landlords will sell in their droves, reducing the pot of private rentals, thus increasing demand pushing up tents even further

be careful what you wish for

*rents

We still have a right to buy policy currently in practice- my friend has it for her council house if she chose to do it?

HA houses and council houses are supposed to be for those who have no hope of buying. If they all get sold off on the cheap the poorest will have to fork out for extortionate private rental costs!

This comment illustrates why social housing should not exist, at least in its present form. People think the reason for it is to provide cheaper housing. The only purpose should be to provide good corporate landlords, and security of tenure that is better than the private sector is offering. Everyone should pay the market cost for housing. Those who can't afford housing can be assisted by housing benefit, regardless of what kind of landlord they have.

The way housing should work is that corporate landlords, whether local authorities, housing assoications or private companies, should offer their housing stock to the highest-bidder. There would be no waiting lists and the only filtering criteria would be whether the person was trusted to pay the rent. For the non-profit landlords, any excess revenues would be reinvested in building or acquiring more properties.

Housing benefit is a targeted benefit that helps those in need. Providing social housing, with below-market rents is a hugely wasteful way of subsidising people, because the subsidy doesn't change when their circumstances do.