The Right to Buy was only set up to destroy the social housing stock and persuade those that benefited from it to vote for the Conservatives. It was nothing more than a bribe. It really needs to be stopped or the system needs to be adapted so that for every property sold, on this scheme, the local authority/housing association must first replace it with a minimum of one other property, to stop the stock from being depleted. Initial “cash” discounts range from £16000-£38000 depending on location and you only need to have been a local authority/housing association tenant for 3 years (they don’t have to be consecutive) to qualify and after 5 years the discount will increase by 1% per year of tenancy. Info from www.gov.uk. Maybe, in the spirit of fairness and to help people who can’t get a local authority/housing association tenancy, the rule should be extended to private landlords. That would put the cat amongst the pigeons and potentially open up the market to a glut of houses being sold at reduced prices, If not to the tenants, simply because the landlords won’t want to be forced into selling their properties at a discount set by the government.
Good service and good value are a key part of competition It varies across different markets but if demand reduces then supply has to adjust to thrive It’s not all about price If I’m living in a **** hole and supply means I can move somewhere better then I do If there’s more demand than supply, then Im stuck, basically It also demands regulation
So you’re in favour of the government confiscating private property essentially Don’t you realise that communism never works? We have decades of data plus hundreds of millions of deaths globally to prove how bad this idea is
Just had an e mail from my brother in NZ. Apparently the school meals service there has been contracted out to Compass. Isn’t that the not very good company that hasn’t provided good school meals in the UK? Going for the cheapest option?
What a weird conflation of ideas. Nationalisation of the housing stock, whether a good idea or a bad idea, is in no way similar to Stalin executing millions of people. You could argue people in the soviet union had a better change of getting a decent home!
I disagree over your view of the "right to buy" issue, I was born in a Council house in 1947, along with my sister, we opted to buy the house in order to give our parents somewhere secure to live in, which they did until they both died in their nineties, we continued to live there and after my sister died. I continue to do so. There is nothing better than living in the house that you were born in, and the "right to buy" it, was ideal for us. However I do agree that the local authorities should have built housing to replace the ones that they sell and should still be doing so. There also is an issue where there are several owned homes that have been empty for years, there should be a way to reclaim them if they aren't being used? Another bonus was that with so many people buying their own homes in the area and caring for them, the area ceased to be a run down Council estate and I still don't vote Tory, the bribery didn't work.
Selling them without replacing them was wanton vandalism of the social contract. My parents’ generation had easy access to an affordable family home to rent. My son’s generation will be living with their parents until they are 35.
Can't disagree with that, this was in the Thatcher era, for me it's the only thing that I ever benefitted from in that period! I am not sure that living with their parents is a bad thing, at least they stand a better chance of staying on the level. The daftest phrase in use these days is "affordable housing", affordable to who? Why are so many housing projects failing before completion? Prefabs were the solution after World War 2, why can't they come up with a modern equivalent?
We need to stick up a few soviet style concrete blocks. Spacious. Solid. Affordable. Actual nationalised building project - no need to confiscate homes. Make it a criminal offence to do shoddy work. We live in an age where the dodgy business has all the cards and the populace has nothing.
I don't have anything against the tenants who bought their own council house, if they could afford to why not? They were/are a bargain. But, with respect Osprey and I put no blame on you, they shouldn't have been allowed to. That wasn't what they were built for and is partly why we have so many people who can't find a place to live. I don't think they were sold as a bribe although Thatcher probably thought there was some political benefit, I think it was mainly financial. Council houses with a subsidised rent and a duty to maintain them were probably costing local authorities money that Thatcher resented. Afterall council estate residents were the great unwashed, and didn't vote Conservative. Better to sell them off and bring in some money. The added bonus is that the new owners now had the responsibility of a mortgage, which encourages people to work and reduce strikes. As to the lack of "affordable housing" or 1st time buyers houses is about land prices. The builders say that the smaller, cheaper houses aren't profitable enough due to what they paid for the land. Whether that is true or not and it's not just about maximising profits remains to be seen. Developers* buy up land and sit on it (not literally) until building land prices increase, sell it on making greater profits but also pushing up house prices and reducing any desire to build more affordable (cheaper ) housing. *I'm not exactly sure of the mechanics of this practice but it does happen. The idea of Prefabs is actually a good one but they still have to be sited somewhere, so unless they are HUF House prefabs, it's unlikely any builder would be interested if they couldn't make the most from their acquisition. All the above is from what I think I know about housing issues. I'm quite interested to hear from others who have better knowledge or think I'm just wrong.
Sounds like a pretty accurate summary from what I understand of the situation. The entire problem really has come about because we came off a hard money standard. People are then forced to use property as an investment to protect their wealth, because their fiat currency is losing value so quickly. Now we have huge wealth inequality and disparity as the rich get richer and buy even more properties. The market IS broken. But I don’t believe nationalising or socialist policies are the answer, personally. In fact; I think they’re only going to make things exponentially worse. I see why people like the idea as a quick fix. But the correct answer isn't central control and a larger state. It’s actually the opposite in my opinion. It’s fix the money, reduce the size of the state, lower taxes and allow businesses and entrepreneurs to thrive and grow.
It’s not a weird conflation of ideas. That’s exactly what communists do. It starts with confiscating wealth and abolishing private property. They believe that prices can be centrally controlled instead of being discovered by markets. It’s a warped and broken ideology and it’s where the UK is heading imo
Have you ever made a post without Daily Mail style tabloidese? Warped! Broken! Insane! Madness! Suicidal!
In fairness to Os, I thought the one above that one was a very good, sensibly written post. The one in reply to you rather spoiled the illusion. Though have seen considerably worse.
It was. I think he is toning it down a bit. But if he just dropped the headline words I think we would all respond better to his ideas. He acts like we are all aliens and doesn’t even realise that most of us are pro-borders and against trans women in women’s sport.
Did everyone know that Iran has gradually come to control Iraq since Saddam was deposed? I always thought the reasons for the war were bogus but at least we had given the country independence. Apparently we achieved nothing and killed millions doing it.
A few on here have mentioned it (maybe even you?). Once upon a time in Iraq on iPlayer. An excellent take.
