Thatchers Right to Buy Policy

[crankedup]

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.

[crankedup]

JensenA said:

It was over 30 years ago.....

And this is another strong issue, the Policy was so radical that the implications are as strong now as ever they were in the past.

[crankedup]

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.

[crankedup]

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.

Agreed, however the housing stock should have been replaced with the capital raised from sales used for stock replacement. Old stock that has been sold are in much better condition of upkeep then at any time under the L.A generally speaking. Your comments regarding community issues are IMO also spot on. But we are as a Country now short of homes for those who are currently struggling to save a deposit for a first purchase, no L.A. houses available and high rents put paid to saving for lots of people it seems.

[crankedup]

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.

I applaud her for that.

The Unions had far to much power in the 1970's early 80's, unfortunately Thatcher v Scargill (and Red Robbo) were so opposite politically it seems that what could have been better for the Country in the long term was lost and it was simply all out war. We now have the most tightly regulated Trade Union movement in Europe aimed at keeping the workers in check, it cannot and will not work in the longer term unless the larger Corporations start to include more workers into profit sharing as a bonus to the basic wage, like the current issues with bankers. Cue the angry responses!