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?

The American model of leaving insulin dependent diabetics without insulin is not a model any society should aspire to.

Everyone having NHS access is brilliant. If it isn't good enough for you then by all means pay for private, that is your choice.

@Zeus44

I'm privileged too btw. I haven't become privileged by taking from others though

Not that I value your view but what exactly have I taken from others ? Seems a little pointed and detracts from what I’ve said to say this.

No one is entitled to anything, not housing
or food or a job. Sooner that is understood, the better we all will be
Who reanimated the corpse of Jeremy Bentham?

You don't have to pay private. You choose to. So yeah, it's fair.

Thats a position to take but in these sorts of societies, the "have's" live behind gated communities and have 24hr Armed response.

The "have nots" take the view that you are not entitled to life, wealth or family.

So in expensive areas you'd only have lawyers, doctors and no service workers? Oh, wait, you'd have service workers but only those who chose to work 3 jobs (sounds sustainable health-wise). But zero hours and shifts means many can't work 3 jobs so they'd all move. Nurses certainly. So you wouldn't have porters, nurses, bin men, no one to serve you in shops or cafes, no one to wipe your arse when you age, no one to look after people with disabilities. Wait, some of them can't work so they'd starve? Disabled people starving is the plan, right? Then you wouldn't need carers. Brilliant, the system works.

You twonk.

I think that people should have the opportunity to buy the home they have been renting, and hope that buying from a housing association would mean that they would get it for a reasonable amount, but the housing association and government need to make sure that there is always subsidised rental housing available for those who still can’t or choose not to buy. I think that’s where it went wrong in the past, not enough council housing was built to back fill what was bought up.

Not at all. There is no need for profanity, it’s very vulgar of you. Just embarrassing for you to speak like this.

Back to the point in hand, not saying that, all I am saying is there should not be HA properties for all who cannot afford it because there are other options. Not all areas are expensive, take a simple example:

Milton Keynes is in the technology corridor and prices are sky high. £300k for a basic 3 bed in a not so nice estate, £450k for one in a more new build estate.

Travel 25 miles north and you can buy a 3 bed for £220k. There are choices. Help to buy, shared ownership and family springboard mortgages all make that attainable.

More incentives should be given to key workers and I don’t mean NHS but it should be so subsidised that it is unfair for those who don’t receive it.

Who lives behind a gate with armed response? Sounds like you watch way too much television.

@Alexandra2001 personally I would rather we didn't live in that kind of society.

@Zeus44 Plenty of countries with the lack of welfare you propose live like that, well the wealthy do.

You don't have a clue do you? a carer on £10 ph will never be able to buy a 220k house or afford a market rent... so in your ideal world of no rent/food or energy subsidy, where do they live/how do they live? and who will look after the elderly?

“To think that Boris… is a terrible idea”. No, you’re not being unreasonable.

That’s why I didn’t say no subsidy, I said there should be one for the essential workers on these low wages.

Read the post again.

Also not everyone needs a 3 bed, a 2 bed is also great.

@Getoff social housing rents are not ‘subsidised’. They are run as not for profit entities frequently via ALMOS for the council or by HA’s. Private landlords rent for profit. That’s the disparity. They inflate the market rent.

@Zeus44 I think you must have misheard. It was CLAP FOR key workers not CRAP ON key workers.

I don't understand how Boris would be able to extend the scheme to housing associations - those houses and flats aren't his to give away. Unless he's going to nationalise them - and I thought Tories didn't approve of nationalisation?

Ownership is irrelevant. The government just changes the law - job done. Council houses didn’t belong to Thatcher either.

social housing rents are not ‘subsidised’.

If this were true, there would be no waiting lists. Anyone who wanted one and could afford the rent could have one immediately. The fact that there are waiting lists for social housing is proof that people are getting something that's worth more than they pay for it, and by definition the difference is a subsidy provided by the landlord to the tenant.

In private housing there are no waiting lists, because if demand exceeds supply, prices simply rise until enough people are priced out that the two match perfectly.

It's posts like that make me think social housing should be ended in its present form. (I've no objection to not-for-profit landlords who charge market rents though.) If voters don't understand that subsidies exist, they can't question whether government money is being spent in the best way.

I'm a single parent on minimum wage. I would never have been able to get a £220k house! I own and my house cost half of that, it's the maximum the bank would lend me.

Shared ownership isn't particularly affordable either.

If you can’t see that there are waiting lists because there isn’t enough social housing there’s no hope for you. It’s not subsidised - as an examination of any social housing provider’ accounts reveals - it’s simply that there isn’t enough to meet demand.

Where the subsidy comes in is with housing benefit claimants and most of the people subsidised through those are private landlords.

I've no objection to not-for-profit landlords who charge market rents though

They wouldn’t be not for profit if they charged market rents. They charge what it costs, that’s the very nature of not for profit.

So there are ways to buy a house! Glad you’ve commented. Prime example of someone who has done it. Congratulations to you.

Spot on explanation Blossomtoes!

Another advantage with social housing as against private rentals is the security of tenure. No fault evictions only affect private tenants. I can’t imagine how hard it must be settling in to a property, getting DC into school, then within a few years the landlord wants to sell up, move a relative in, live in it themselves. Whilst the local authority may have a statutory duty to rehouse, the reality could be temporary housing/b&b, or somewhere miles away from work, school etc.