Thatchers Right to Buy Policy
Discussion
Perhaps the government shouldn't builds schools either. Or hospitals, or libraries, or museums or leisure centres, or parks...
How about roads? Maybe the job of government should be to create a stable and lucrative private sector so that people who want a road can earn the money to build a road. Why should the government spend money building and maintaing roads just so that some people - even unemployed people! - can use them? Maybe we should go back to old days of toll roads?
How about roads? Maybe the job of government should be to create a stable and lucrative private sector so that people who want a road can earn the money to build a road. Why should the government spend money building and maintaing roads just so that some people - even unemployed people! - can use them? Maybe we should go back to old days of toll roads?
Local councils aren't very good at property management. In Glasgow there are no LA residential properties. Not one. They were all transferred to Housing Associations, especially GHA which is an HA version of the Council. This is definitely an improvement, and the further transfer of many properties from GHA to local area HAs is an even bigger improvement.
When GCC DID manage these properties they made a colossal loss and mismanaged many into slum standard. In fact it was the first billion pound loss I ever heard of. Given the administrative and maintenance systems they had at their disposal it's amazing how much of a mess they made. So certainly in Glasgow removing property from LA hands into a mixture of HA systems (including GHA) and private ownership has been a success.
Property management (regulated by LAs and UK law) appears to function better the more it is operated by private hands. That's a certain benefit emanating from Right to Buy.
When GCC DID manage these properties they made a colossal loss and mismanaged many into slum standard. In fact it was the first billion pound loss I ever heard of. Given the administrative and maintenance systems they had at their disposal it's amazing how much of a mess they made. So certainly in Glasgow removing property from LA hands into a mixture of HA systems (including GHA) and private ownership has been a success.
Property management (regulated by LAs and UK law) appears to function better the more it is operated by private hands. That's a certain benefit emanating from Right to Buy.
groak said:
Local councils aren't very good at property management. In Glasgow there are no LA residential properties. Not one. They were all transferred to Housing Associations, especially GHA which is an HA version of the Council. This is definitely an improvement, and the further transfer of many properties from GHA to local area HAs is an even bigger improvement.
When GCC DID manage these properties they made a colossal loss and mismanaged many into slum standard. In fact it was the first billion pound loss I ever heard of. Given the administrative and maintenance systems they had at their disposal it's amazing how much of a mess they made. So certainly in Glasgow removing property from LA hands into a mixture of HA systems (including GHA) and private ownership has been a success.
Property management (regulated by LAs and UK law) appears to function better the more it is operated by private hands. That's a certain benefit emanating from Right to Buy.
I'm afraid that the Right to Buy had nothing to do with it.When GCC DID manage these properties they made a colossal loss and mismanaged many into slum standard. In fact it was the first billion pound loss I ever heard of. Given the administrative and maintenance systems they had at their disposal it's amazing how much of a mess they made. So certainly in Glasgow removing property from LA hands into a mixture of HA systems (including GHA) and private ownership has been a success.
Property management (regulated by LAs and UK law) appears to function better the more it is operated by private hands. That's a certain benefit emanating from Right to Buy.
Local councils were first encouraged to transfer their housing stock to housing associations in the late 1980s by the conservative government. The first transfer, in Aylesbury, happened in 1988.
The major difference between local authorities and housing associations is that the latter were able to borrow money from the financial markets to carry out improvements to their stock. Councils were prevented from doing so by the government, and indeed all sorts of obstacles were put in the way of local councils to stop them building new houses or maintaining their old ones.
The council I worked for transferred their stock to a housing association in 1995. In 1991,four years before that transfer, a pair of houses were found to be in immediate danger of falling down. Their tenants were given temporary caravans to live in in their gardens. As it was village with not many council houses anyway (so vacancies were unlikely to occur quickly in other houses), the council had to apply for special permission to rebuild these two houses. They were only granted that permission provided that they built two more houses in the former garden land of the two that were falling down and sold them off, thereby getting the funding to rehouse their own tenants.
It does have to be said that though there was mismanagement going on too within local councils housing detartments and, in many, productivity levels of their in house repairs teams would be laughable if the matter wasn't so serious.
I just don't think local councils are suited to operating most services, and housing is a primary example. What I think they ARE good at is regulatory supervision and enforcement and certain other areas of operation which private sector find difficult to deal with or have conflict of interest scenarios with or run up against legal obstacles which require council authority to quickly surmount.
The point I was making (none too well) was that Right to Buy transferred property into private hands which managed it rather better than the council had done as managers - for whatever reason.
The point I was making (none too well) was that Right to Buy transferred property into private hands which managed it rather better than the council had done as managers - for whatever reason.
I think that whenever the government had to fork out money investing in our infrastructure, utilities, new technology, manufacturing and improving transport the easiest solution was to sell it all off.
The result being that a lot of people got very wealthy with privatisations and some companies were making huge profits when if the government had invested themselves they would have reaped the rewards and we would have a healthier economy.
The Labour government have decimated RM and they wonder why nobody wants to buy it.
The result being that a lot of people got very wealthy with privatisations and some companies were making huge profits when if the government had invested themselves they would have reaped the rewards and we would have a healthier economy.
The Labour government have decimated RM and they wonder why nobody wants to buy it.
It is interesting that every 'right to buy' purchase made in our village (that I have heard of) was funded not by the tenant but either by relatives or invisible 'partners' who all have made a killing now the tenants have moved on/died. Makes a bit of a mockery of the whole thing really, as you would not believe how cheaply the properties were purchased for!!
andrewws said:
It is interesting that every 'right to buy' purchase made in our village (that I have heard of) was funded not by the tenant but either by relatives or invisible 'partners' who all have made a killing now the tenants have moved on/died. Makes a bit of a mockery of the whole thing really, as you would not believe how cheaply the properties were purchased for!!
I know many people who bought their house and now have something to hand on to their kids as they certainly could not have done so at today's insane prices. Bring it back I say... get all these properties out of the taxpayers liability and give the inept morons in office something else to ruin.
thinfourth2 said:
Can you imagine the bile and hatred that would come forth if Winky had did the same.
But Maggie did it so it's a f
king great idea.
I'm sure if Maggie had sold off all our gold at the lowest price you lot would defend her to the end.
She was no saint... there's plenty she did I disagree with (poll tax etc), but she did have the guts to break the unions which were ruining this country. But Maggie did it so it's a f
king great idea.I'm sure if Maggie had sold off all our gold at the lowest price you lot would defend her to the end.
I applaud her for that.
jbi said:
thinfourth2 said:
Can you imagine the bile and hatred that would come forth if Winky had did the same.
But Maggie did it so it's a fking great idea.
I'm sure if Maggie had sold off all our gold at the lowest price you lot would defend her to the end.
She was no saint... there's plenty she did I disagree with (poll tax etc), but she did have the guts to break the unions which were ruining this country. But Maggie did it so it's a f
king great idea.I'm sure if Maggie had sold off all our gold at the lowest price you lot would defend her to the end.
I applaud her for that.
crankedup 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.
On paper it is a great idea. It allows long term tennents a means to buy into the market in a safer and more secure manner and more importantly, if all the 'winners' on an estate slowly leave then the social and economic and asperational prospects of that estate risk collapsing.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.
Where it went wrong:
Sold off too cheaply, should have been a robust market linked formulae all councils worked to.
% of gain to be paid to council upon death or sale, % of losses covered in event of default.
One in, one out. Councils should never have been permitted to reduce the number of homes on their books, if they sold one they had to replace it.
Bi annual rent reviews and means testing, end of home for life. Number in household directly linked to size of property.
Sadly, it was done very badly and simply became a tool to either buy votes or a lazy way to raise funds for pissing away on pointless projects.
All in as it stands it has been a catastrophic disaster for this country.
While agreeing with the (very interesting) commenta about how it panned out, my cynical self asks how much of the ideaology behind what was done was about vote winning. Phers often accuse Lab of buying votes by paying for a life on benefits. Perhaps, perhaps not, but if so, is this not much the same by allowing often traditionally Lab voters to buy into the success others enjoyed?
Sticks. said:
While agreeing with the (very interesting) commenta about how it panned out, my cynical self asks how much of the ideaology behind what was done was about vote winning. Phers often accuse Lab of buying votes by paying for a life on benefits. Perhaps, perhaps not, but if so, is this not much the same by allowing often traditionally Lab voters to buy into the success others enjoyed?
All parties buy votes and this was, as it was implemented, more about securing Tory votors within Labour heartlands than anything else.The worst example was of course Dame Shirley.
thinfourth2 said:
Can you imagine the bile and hatred that would come forth if Winky had did the same.
But Maggie did it so it's a fking great idea.
I'm sure if Maggie had sold off all our gold at the lowest price you lot would defend her to the end.
The majority of posts are saying it was a bad idea But Maggie did it so it's a f
king great idea.I'm sure if Maggie had sold off all our gold at the lowest price you lot would defend her to the end.
Doobs said:
thinfourth2 said:
Can you imagine the bile and hatred that would come forth if Winky had did the same.
But Maggie did it so it's a fking great idea.
I'm sure if Maggie had sold off all our gold at the lowest price you lot would defend her to the end.
The majority of posts are saying it was a bad idea But Maggie did it so it's a f
king great idea.I'm sure if Maggie had sold off all our gold at the lowest price you lot would defend her to the end.
It seems quite extraordinary to me in the current age that working people should rely upon the state to provide their housing.
The other problem, which was behind Thatch's rationale AFAIU, is that council housing greatly restrict social mobility because being non-transferable they trap people in one area. People become totally reliant upon the State and they create a client constituency, much to the delight of the Labour MPs.
The other problem, which was behind Thatch's rationale AFAIU, is that council housing greatly restrict social mobility because being non-transferable they trap people in one area. People become totally reliant upon the State and they create a client constituency, much to the delight of the Labour MPs.
There was one upside to this policy
We lived in an ex-council house and there was one council house left in the square.
The mother bought it, the daughter got pregnant, got her free house, mother sold up and moved in with daughter.
Nice south african couple bought it and we were scum free in the street.
We lived in an ex-council house and there was one council house left in the square.
The mother bought it, the daughter got pregnant, got her free house, mother sold up and moved in with daughter.
Nice south african couple bought it and we were scum free in the street.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff