Thatchers Right to Buy Policy
Discussion
Was going to extend an existing thread but decided it warranted standing alone.
Thought this was a crap policy for these reasons :
No policy or consideration to replace sold stock.
No long term strategy for housing requirements.
No policies in place for the spending of revenue raised from sell off. (other than Councils told to hold money in separate account.
Long term issues now evident with lack of affordable homes for first time buyers.
Has now exposed the less affluent to private renting which has been exposed as ripping off the Government.
Undersold public assets.
See evidence in previous threads.
Thought this was a crap policy for these reasons :
No policy or consideration to replace sold stock.
No long term strategy for housing requirements.
No policies in place for the spending of revenue raised from sell off. (other than Councils told to hold money in separate account.
Long term issues now evident with lack of affordable homes for first time buyers.
Has now exposed the less affluent to private renting which has been exposed as ripping off the Government.
Undersold public assets.
See evidence in previous threads.
t idea selling off assets at a knock down pricecrankedup said:
Was going to extend an existing thread but decided it warranted standing alone.
Thought this was a crap policy for these reasons :
No policy or consideration to replace sold stock.
No long term strategy for housing requirements.
No policies in place for the spending of revenue raised from sell off. (other than Councils told to hold money in separate account.
Long term issues now evident with lack of affordable homes for first time buyers.
Has now exposed the less affluent to private renting which has been exposed as ripping off the Government.
Undersold public assets.
See evidence in previous threads.
Not one of her greatest moments. It was smokescreen to force councils to obtain funding without putting rates (as they were back then) up. The ramifications of this policy, including capping how much councils could charge for the services they provide, effectively destroyed locval government in this country.Thought this was a crap policy for these reasons :
No policy or consideration to replace sold stock.
No long term strategy for housing requirements.
No policies in place for the spending of revenue raised from sell off. (other than Councils told to hold money in separate account.
Long term issues now evident with lack of affordable homes for first time buyers.
Has now exposed the less affluent to private renting which has been exposed as ripping off the Government.
Undersold public assets.
See evidence in previous threads.
An interesting topic which is worth a thread in itself because it is by no means as clear cut as many might think.
Firstly, the flogging off of council houses is nothing new. The earliest example I have come across was of Cricklade & Wootton Bassett Rural District Council selling a few in Common Hill, Cricklade in 1930.
Many councils were involved in selling off their housing stock by the 1960s, and in many areas it had become a matter of political ideology - generelly, tory controlled councils gave tenants the opportunity to buy whilst labour ones didn't (Not an exclusive rule, by the way). Some also gave tenants the mortgages to buy them so made a further few bob out of the interest.
The Right to Buy simply gave all qualifying tenants the right to buy their houses, not just the ones in those council areas who were already doing it.
Where the policy basically went wrong was that the properties that ended up being sold were the the houses with a bit of pretty garden around them in the better areas. Nobody wanted to buy flats in high rises or houses in dump estates, so the councils were left with all the bottom end of the market (both housing and tenants
)
Firstly, the flogging off of council houses is nothing new. The earliest example I have come across was of Cricklade & Wootton Bassett Rural District Council selling a few in Common Hill, Cricklade in 1930.
Many councils were involved in selling off their housing stock by the 1960s, and in many areas it had become a matter of political ideology - generelly, tory controlled councils gave tenants the opportunity to buy whilst labour ones didn't (Not an exclusive rule, by the way). Some also gave tenants the mortgages to buy them so made a further few bob out of the interest.
The Right to Buy simply gave all qualifying tenants the right to buy their houses, not just the ones in those council areas who were already doing it.
Where the policy basically went wrong was that the properties that ended up being sold were the the houses with a bit of pretty garden around them in the better areas. Nobody wanted to buy flats in high rises or houses in dump estates, so the councils were left with all the bottom end of the market (both housing and tenants
)As it was implemented it was a bad idea. In principal allowing people to buy 'their' council house isn't a bad idea. However the houses should be sold for fair market value (or not much less) and the money would need to be invested in replacing stock.
What Maggie really should have done is taken away the right to remain in 'your' council house indefinitely. Once people get to a position where they would no longer be eligible they should have three choices: move, rent the place at market rate (or a means tested rate) or buy.
The more private builds I see, particularly at the bottom end of the market, the more I think that LAs building houses and selling them off is a good way to go. An ex LA property is usually a very good property, except for the location. Implementing a move/rent/buy policy with the proceeds being reinvested in housing stock would result in more of the lower end of the market being better built by LAs.
What Maggie really should have done is taken away the right to remain in 'your' council house indefinitely. Once people get to a position where they would no longer be eligible they should have three choices: move, rent the place at market rate (or a means tested rate) or buy.
The more private builds I see, particularly at the bottom end of the market, the more I think that LAs building houses and selling them off is a good way to go. An ex LA property is usually a very good property, except for the location. Implementing a move/rent/buy policy with the proceeds being reinvested in housing stock would result in more of the lower end of the market being better built by LAs.
It would have made sense if the councils could build new houses for less than the amount they sold the existing ones for, or if there was a finite or declining pool of potential council tenants in the future. You didn't have to be a genius to see the flaws in the plan, the biggest flaw being the huge increase in housing benefit paid to potential council tenants who have instead rented privately.
Selling off council houses has been, imo, a bigger mistake than Gordon selling our gold. However, I don't think that it is fair to put all the blame on Thatcher(and I am not her biggest fan), if Labour thought the policy wrong they had plenty of time to cancel it.
Selling off council houses has been, imo, a bigger mistake than Gordon selling our gold. However, I don't think that it is fair to put all the blame on Thatcher(and I am not her biggest fan), if Labour thought the policy wrong they had plenty of time to cancel it.
RYH64E said:
It would have made sense if the councils could build new houses for less than the amount they sold the existing ones for, or if there was a finite or declining pool of potential council tenants in the future. You didn't have to be a genius to see the flaws in the plan, the biggest flaw being the huge increase in housing benefit paid to potential council tenants who have instead rented privately.
Selling off council houses has been, imo, a bigger mistake than Gordon selling our gold. However, I don't think that it is fair to put all the blame on Thatcher(and I am not her biggest fan), if Labour thought the policy wrong they had plenty of time to cancel it.
I agree that Labour had plenty of opportunity to withdraw the Policy, but knew it would be a vote loser I expect. What made the Policy even worse was the abuse of the scheme, relatives to the tenant funding the purchase as it was seen as an easy way to earn money. Can't blame individuals for taking the chance set before them but it would have been easy to have set the Policy up to defend against that abuse.Selling off council houses has been, imo, a bigger mistake than Gordon selling our gold. However, I don't think that it is fair to put all the blame on Thatcher(and I am not her biggest fan), if Labour thought the policy wrong they had plenty of time to cancel it.
elwe said:
As it was implemented it was a bad idea. In principal allowing people to buy 'their' council house isn't a bad idea. However the houses should be sold for fair market value (or not much less) and the money would need to be invested in replacing stock.
What Maggie really should have done is taken away the right to remain in 'your' council house indefinitely. Once people get to a position where they would no longer be eligible they should have three choices: move, rent the place at market rate (or a means tested rate) or buy.
The more private builds I see, particularly at the bottom end of the market, the more I think that LAs building houses and selling them off is a good way to go. An ex LA property is usually a very good property, except for the location. Implementing a move/rent/buy policy with the proceeds being reinvested in housing stock would result in more of the lower end of the market being better built by LAs.
If houses were sold at marke value know one would have bought one.What Maggie really should have done is taken away the right to remain in 'your' council house indefinitely. Once people get to a position where they would no longer be eligible they should have three choices: move, rent the place at market rate (or a means tested rate) or buy.
The more private builds I see, particularly at the bottom end of the market, the more I think that LAs building houses and selling them off is a good way to go. An ex LA property is usually a very good property, except for the location. Implementing a move/rent/buy policy with the proceeds being reinvested in housing stock would result in more of the lower end of the market being better built by LAs.
The Coalition are bringing in a policy that will end 'tenancy for life' for new tenants in social housing. They are also changing the rules so that councils and housing associations can set their own rent levels - at up to 80% of market rate (the average currently is about 60%).
There is plenty of social housing in 'nice' areas, but you wouldn't neccesarily know it.
crankedup said:
I agree that Labour had plenty of opportunity to withdraw the Policy, but knew it would be a vote loser I expect.
^^^^This.The vast majority who bought thought it was a great idea and still do. The responsibilites of owning your own home do far more for the community than any degree of labour social meddling ever will.
1A said:
crankedup said:
I agree that Labour had plenty of opportunity to withdraw the Policy, but knew it would be a vote loser I expect.
^^^^This.The vast majority who bought thought it was a great idea and still do. The responsibilites of owning your own home do far more for the community than any degree of labour social meddling ever will.
Utterly pointless, AND a vote loser
Indeed. There really are that many people that still have a 'right to buy' and as the discounts have a fixed ceiling at relatively modest amounts it doesn't make enough difference to those people with the 'right'. E.g average house price in the south west is about £230k - the discount for tenants with a Right to Buy in the south west is capped at £30k. 15 or 20 years ago these discounts were enough to tempt people to buy - but not any longer.
1A said:
crankedup said:
I agree that Labour had plenty of opportunity to withdraw the Policy, but knew it would be a vote loser I expect.
^^^^This.The vast majority who bought thought it was a great idea and still do. The responsibilites of owning your own home do far more for the community than any degree of labour social meddling ever will.
crankedup said:
1A said:
crankedup said:
I agree that Labour had plenty of opportunity to withdraw the Policy, but knew it would be a vote loser I expect.
^^^^This.The vast majority who bought thought it was a great idea and still do. The responsibilites of owning your own home do far more for the community than any degree of labour social meddling ever will.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff