That fat bastarding **** of a pompous windbag Salmond looks like he's not averse to a huge plate of stovies every day. Lying fat ****.
Totally agree Fingers. Thatcher was a ****. Some things she did were good for the country but this was not one of them.
Over a third of properties bought under the right to buy are now owned by private landlords - that rate is around 40% in inner city areas of London, Glasgow and Edinburgh (apparently, certain areas of London have a 50% rate). Meanwhile, housing benefit costs are soaring - and the majority of this goes straight into private property racketeers pockets. What's more, as time goes on, this transference will not reverse without a MASSIVE crash in house prices so the private landlord ownership of ex-council properties will continue to increase. Basically, right to buy is transferring property from social landlords to private ones over a few decades. Not surprised to see the usual soul-less, free marketeer trumpets declare it a success. Owning a house isn't for everyone - restricting the permanent housing stock to being entirely "self-owned" (by someone else a third of the time) simply pushed people who would've previously belonged to a static community into a merry-go-round of people moving in and out of temporary places they don't give a **** about - happened in the area I grew up in. http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2013/03/right-buy-houses-are-now-just-owned-private-landlords
It achieved, giving a certain generation a wealth that has been unseen in this country. And this shortage in social housing isn't down to 'right to buy', there isn't enough houses in the place.
When I got married she had a wee cooncil flat. Everybody said at the time I should buy it and rent it out. I refused. Done myself out an easy 60k profit.
It awarded a certain generation a wealth because they happened to be sitting council tenants and the properties were sold to them at next to **** all. They made out like bandits to the detriment of all following generations. At the time right to by started there was no shortage of social housing to speak of. Right to buy coupled with the fact that no new social housing was built ****ed that all up. And what if they had re-invested and built new social housing over the last few decades of right to buy. What would have happened to it? Bought by sitting tenants, that's what. Net result the same. Social housing ****ed.
That's not the buyers fault. That's the Government. There is not a lack of housing because of 'Right to buy', there is a lack of housing. I like how some are making out that there was some sort of social housing utopia in the run up to the 80's, but now it's all these ghetto's Right to buy, created wealth and moved countless people out of poverty.
Catastrophizing from Bibbus? I'm shocked and appalled. Here's a zany idea, I know, totally bonkers.... If there isn't enough houses.......... build new ones.......
It manufactured wealth by selling housing way under value. Who paid for that? Nobody. Yet. I didn't claim any kind of utopia. The social housing that hasn't been bought hasn't been bought for a very good reason. It's a ****ehole. That's been a slow but sure result of right to buy. There's a lack of housing because no new stock has been built. Even if it had been built it would have been bought if it was worth buying. Build more? Ok. Bought way under value? Build more? Ok. Bought way under value. Unsustainable. Right to buy was wrong and continues to be wrong. If ye want to buy a hoose go buy one at the price it's worth. Canny afford to? Tough. Why should you be able to buy a property way under value? Who pays for it in the end?
I'm afraid that I don't agree with you, right to buy created wealth, in most cases. If the existing housing stock is a ****hole, then knock it down and rebuild. Regards, Barrie
I,ve done it twice and it was the right thing to do, no question. I also reckon you could see an improvement in areas where folk had bought their council house, they took a bit more pride in the place. The problem is the money wasn't reinvested as others have pointed out but went to central government. Maybe that was Maggie's revenge. I find it strange when they say there aren't enough houses because when you look around there's houses being built on what was previously nice bits of countryside.
This is from an ultra right wing site. http://moneyweek.com/whats-behind-the-spike-61903/ There isn't a shortage of housing. There's a shortage of affordable housing. Building more private housing when the people who are currently trapped privately renting can't get a mortgage won't help. Extra stock would reduce prices long term but it would take ages to even out. ****s with a buy-to-let mortgage won't sell their stock while they can still make money out of it. Interest rates are being kept artificially low to stop people mortgaged to the hilt (like me and anyone who bought a house post sell-off) going bankrupt.
Those are new builds for direct to market. Not council housing. Right to buy causes a shortage in council housing because it's all bought up. Can't build new council housing because that will be bought up. Can't keep building houses to be sold under value. It's unsustainable. Therefore, none gets built. Right to buy should be scrapped. There should be other ways looked at to help people onto the housing ladder if that's what they desire - but selling property to them way under value is not it. What about part ownership like wot some housing associations do? With the option to take full ownership when the tenant is financially viable? I dunno the answer to the housing problem. What I do think is that right to buy is the root cause of it.
There is a shortage of housing. IF the housing market became more saturated with affordable housing then house prices would go down. It's basic economathics. Back to work for me. Hope you guys have a ball.
