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?

Another advantage of council owned and run housing is that the councils own an appreciating asset, tenants have more security and lower rents mean less money lending, ability to save and or spending in the local community and less in work benefits.

Doesn't always work as there are people who buck the system but council housing is a proven way to house people, it worked from the 1950s until the 80s.

I bought a house because I am fortunate enough to live in a cheap area. Not everyone is so fortunate. Minumum wage jobs still exist in expensive parts of the country, and somebody has to do them.

Not everyone is so fortunate. Minumum wage jobs still exist in expensive parts of the country, and somebody has to do them.

Exactly this. This is why we end up with "beds in sheds" in London. HMOs with multiple adults in a room.

Ime though the council don’t manage their stock well. They are incredibly wasteful and bureaucratic and tenants are often left unhappy.

@Alexandra2001 also council housing didn’t really work all that well in terms of actual housing. A lot of housing where I grew up has actually been demolished as people don’t want to live there no matter how desperate

There are no fecking homes, there is a social housing void so what are people meant to buy? The sofa they’re surfing?

Not true. The government give billions of subsidies each year to housing associations and councils to provide or maintain social housing. It is subsidized (not saying whether or not it should be, but it is).

I worked as an external consultant to government on a housing study and report. We found that housing associations spend twice as much building the same house as the private sector due to poor management and lack of efficiency.

So my point being it’s not generally good value to use housing associations to build housing

I don't agree with right to buy at all. If they do, they shouldn't be able to sell it for full market value. Its a slap in the face to those who've brought homes at full price.

If that were true, it would be be because all the great post war council stock is now in private hands. Where I live those are solidly built houses on huge plots. On the rare occasion they come on the market they sell in a matter of days. People are desperate for homes, you won’t find people on who have been on a waiting list for years turning their nose up at what they’re offered.

The government give billions of subsidies each year to housing associations and councils to provide or maintain social housing. It is subsidized (not saying whether or not it should be, but it is)

That isn’t the case.

Housing associations borrow money to pay for new homes and improvements. After the Housing Act 1988, the proportion of the cost of new homes met by capital grant was scaled back by the Government, so borrowing became the primary source of funding for investment. Much of this was simply borrowed from banks and building societies, but after the late-2000s financial crisis these institutions ceased to offer long-term loans, so developing associations are increasingly turning to corporate bonds to raise funds for expansion.[12]

Sure, nothing is perfect and big problems with some of the v large council estates but the UK didn't have the homelessness it has now.

The large estates in nr me got demolished too, more to do with the quality of the build,/reputation of the area, the smaller more localised estates in villages and small towns used to work well, all sold off now and DesRes.

Equally has the move to almost 100% private rental sector working? maybe we need a more mixed rent sector?

This is kind of funny actually. Whenever someone posts benefits bashing thread - there is a brigade saying "if people are entitled to these benefits, they should claim them". So how is this any different? Council tenants are entitled to buy their houses via RTB, the end of story. Yes, it might not be a good thing long-term for the social housing stock, but it might be the only chance for someone to own their home, so obviously they will go for it, and no one should be blaming them.
And all this landlord bashing comes from envy. We all wish we had multiple properties to rent without having to go to work everyday - I definitely do. But I am not a landlord, so I have to make my own way to make money. This is capitalism. If you are not smart or lucky enough to own assets - that is unfortunate, but that is life, and keeping resentment towards someone who is more fortunate is just not productive.

So only those on good wages deserve to own a house? People on minimum wage should just shut up and be grateful for whatever crumbs they get from the rich man's table.

No, we do not all wish we had multiple properties. I do not wish I had multiple properties. Don't speak for other people.

@Waxonwaxoff0 you don't wish you had an extra income that made your live a little easier? Ok, each to their own. But some people do, that's why they buy multiple properties, if they can afford them. They are entitled to it, it's a free market.

@Blossomtoes there are lots of people desperate for housing but either they don’t want to live in those areas or the council are not renting to them. Properties are boarded up and demolished. It’s the same up and down the country (although not in London anymore).

of course lots of ex council housing is popular too. But it will almost always have a discount to private housing. Partly it’s the areas, sometimes it’s other things. But as I said, it’s generally poor value to the taxpayer.

Sadly, you’re wrong again. The ex council properties I described sell at a premium, they’re better built with bigger rooms and huge plots. They go for way more than the new builds that are being thrown up.

There’s no taxpayer involvement, I explained to you that social housing is financed commercially. If there are boarded up social housing properties it’s because the council or housing association that owns them is negligent in its duty to refurbish them and get them occupied. I flatly refuse that people turn down a secure tenancy to a property they can make a real home because they don’t fancy it.

Ex council in our block are generally more sought after than the private nearby. Much lower service charges, much better maintenance. The most expensive are £1million which is on par with other blocks. There are new builds private that are several million but they seem to be struggling to sell (they have a river view and we do not)

Of course I do. But I don't wish to have the extra income through multiple properties. I don't want extra income through exploiting people. The same way I wouldn't want to do a MLM for extra income, because to me it's morally bankrupt.

Spot on.

@Waxonwaxoff0 and that is very noble of you, honestly. But these landlords are not doing anything illegal, they are not "exploiting people", that is overly dramatic of you to word it like that. If we say that people should do what they are entitled to - even if it's morally wrong - then anyone can buy as many properties as they wish to, same as claiming any benefits that are there to be claimed. You can't have it both ways. Again, this is capitalism. Because if you are going to punish landlords - then we need to rework the benefits system too, so those ones who cheat it will not be able to get away with it. You know, those who pretend to live alone but actually have their partners living with them, those who purposely cut their working hours so they don't loose any UC.

No. It's not remotely comparable. Because having to rely on benefits is a punishment in itself. People on benefits are barely getting by. You can hardly say the same about a landlord with 10 properties.

@Waxonwaxoff0 SOME people on benefits barely get by, and SOME successfully cheat the system. Denying it is ridiculous.
Or how about people like Bob Crow, ex TFL boss? He was on 145k a year, but he wouldn't move out of his council flat until the day he died! How is that fair? Or it is ok because he was entitled to it?
Every single person has a unique set of circumstances and the reasons why they are barely getting by, you can't just generalise. Some people are disabled and can't work, some people don't have high aspirations, and some have adopted a lifestyle of being lazy and relying on benefits because it's easier than working full time. People are different! Landlords can be different too.

Fundamentally the benefits system allows for people to only work a little and claim a lot. It doesn’t make sense for people to go and work as they can do 16 hours and get the rest of their benefits.

I mean seriously, why would anyone do 40+ hours a week for the same money as doing 16 when the difference is given to you for free?!

The whole ‘best the landlord’ gets so boring. Self help or no help is the only way forward.

Cut all the benefits down and make it impossible to make it better off on them than actual work. Then we will see all these vacant positions filled instead of people taking and not giving.