another reason to not vote snp

[1two]

snp have suggested they will scrap the right to buy rule for council tennants.
Probably the only good thing brought in by thatcher.
Thoughts?

[marinello59]

snp have suggested they will scrap the right to buy rule for council tennants.
Probably the only good thing brought in by thatcher.
Thoughts?

It should have been scrapped years ago.

[1two]

It should have been scrapped years ago.

And make it impossible to council tennants who would be otherwise unable to buy property?

Why?

[Twa Cairpets]

snp have suggested they will scrap the right to buy rule for council tennants.
Probably the only good thing brought in by thatcher.
Thoughts?

Simplistically, removal of council housing into the private sector reduces the stock of housing available to those individuals/families who, for whatever reason, cannot get into the world of mortgages.

As these individuals/families still exist, all that happens is that private landlords take up the slack. Whether or not this is a good thing is a moot point, but I think there is some merit, especially in a recession, to have a good stock of social housing guaranteed as being available through removing the right to buy.

[tony higgins]

Could we not just put the poor in camps maybe with a Sky dish between say three or four families.

On a serious note, night night for the SNP with this one from those paying rent.

The whole 5 of us.

[steakbake]

And make it impossible to council tennants who would be otherwise unable to buy property?

Why?

We have a need for social housing but if the stock keeps getting bought up then we'll end up with nothing or councils will be forced to buy land and build.

Secondly, it perpetuates the ridiculous myth which really flourished under Thatcher, that home ownership is the be all and end all. There is nowhere else in Europe where people are as mortgaged up to the hilt as people in the UK, because we have an obsession with owning our own houses. I would gladly see the back of the "property ladder". It's the most ridiculous and high risk gamble ever conceived of.

We are lucky just now because the interest rates are so low but if they go up even marginally, it would be people who are on the lower end of the "property ladder" who would probably end up not being able to afford their repayments.

[1two]

Simplistically, removal of council housing into the private sector reduces the stock of housing available to those individuals/families who, for whatever reason, cannot get into the world of mortgages.




So we should remove the (probably) only opportunity that council tennants have to get themselves into the mortgage world?

[Jack]

Just to add to that before anyone asks.

It was just a bit too much to expect councils to rebuild where they had sold.

Council houses were sold to their tenants at well discounted prices, even after just a relatively short tenure, meaning councils simply didn’t then have the money to replace the houses lost from their books.

And quite often it wasn’t granny that was buying the property, it was the kids who, as soon as granny popped her clogs, sold the house at a huge profit.

[GlesgaeHibby]

snp have suggested they will scrap the right to buy rule for council tennants.
Probably the only good thing brought in by thatcher.
Thoughts?

About time this was done. There is a chronic shortage of council housing available, we don't want to be selling council housing when we do not have enough council houses.

Thatcher brought this policy in as a short term fix to clear local authority debt.

[marinello59]

Just to add to that before anyone asks.

It was just a bit too much to expect councils to rebuild where they had sold.

Council houses were sold to their tenants at well discounted prices, even after just a relatively short tenure, meaning councils simply didn’t then have the money to replace the houses lost from their books.

And quite often it wasn’t granny that was buying the property, it was the kids who, as soon as granny popped her clogs, sold the house at a huge profit.

I might be wrong but I don't think Councils were permitted to use money raised from Council house sales for rebuilding.

[Woody1985]

Just to add to that before anyone asks.

It was just a bit too much to expect councils to rebuild where they had sold.

Council houses were sold to their tenants at well discounted prices, even after just a relatively short tenure, meaning councils simply didn’t then have the money to replace the houses lost from their books.

And quite often it wasn’t granny that was buying the property, it was the kids who, as soon as granny popped her clogs, sold the house at a huge profit.

I'm curious about this point you make. I looked into trying to buy my grans as she is eligable for a 60% discount as she's been a tenant for over 35 years.

She would be the owner and I would be the guarantor. How would that work with inheritance tax etc if she were to pass away within 7 years of the final payment of the mortgage?

BTW, she wouldn't let me cos she's scared she could end up out on here ear!

[GlesgaeHibby]

I might be wrong but I don't think Councils were permitted to use money raised from Council house sales for rebuilding.

:agree: Most local authorities were required to use this money to clear their debts.

[GlesgaeHibby]

We have a need for social housing but if the stock keeps getting bought up then we'll end up with nothing or councils will be forced to buy land and build.

Secondly, it perpetuates the ridiculous myth which really flourished under Thatcher, that home ownership is the be all and end all. There is nowhere else in Europe where people are as mortgaged up to the hilt as people in the UK, because we have an obsession with owning our own houses. I would gladly see the back of the "property ladder". It's the most ridiculous and high risk gamble ever conceived of.

We are lucky just now because the interest rates are so low but if they go up even marginally, it would be people who are on the lower end of the "property ladder" who would probably end up not being able to afford their repayments.

:agree: Germany is a perfect example of this. Most people in Germany rent their homes.

[Twa Cairpets]

So we should remove the (probably) only opportunity that council tennants have to get themselves into the mortgage world?

Why would that necessarily be the case, unless the housing is massively discounted?

[LiverpoolHibs]

On the contrary, that's really rather a good reason to vote for them.

[New Corrie]

A lot of areas which were beginning to look a bit run down, are now tidy, and a lot less crime ridden because the occupants now take a bit of pride in the place. If you give people a vested interest and the chance to generate some equity then they are naturally going to look after things. I thought it was a great idea, and I would imagine that those who participated would pretty much agree. I suppose the fact that it was Thatcher's baby will have most Scots condemning it out of hand.

[Peevemor]

When looking at other countries, you can't take the buying /renting thing in isolation, there are many other factors which come into play.

In France, while many people rent their home there isn't more social housing than in the UK, so many are paying private rents which are generally in line with what a mortgage repayment would be. However, knowing that their pension is going to be half decent when they retire (pensions are a lot better in France than in the UK) , people are more comfortable to do this. People on state pensions in the UK would struggle to pay private rents.

The mechanism for getting a loan and for buying a specific house is also different here (and better IMHO - eg. "offers over" doesn't exist), but that's a different issue.

[Twa Cairpets]

A lot of areas which were beginning to look a bit run down, are now tidy, and a lot less crime ridden because the occupants now take a bit of pride in the place. If you give people a vested interest and the chance to generate some equity then they are naturally going to look after things. I thought it was a great idea, and I would imagine that those who participated would pretty much agree. I suppose the fact that it was Thatcher's baby will have most Scots condemning it out of hand.

Anything to back this up? Any before or after survey? I'm not saying its right or wrong, but as you to state it as fact and as a key part of your argument it would be interesting to see where your info comes from.

[Jack]

I'm curious about this point you make. I looked into trying to buy my grans as she is eligable for a 60% discount as she's been a tenant for over 35 years.

She would be the owner and I would be the guarantor. How would that work with inheritance tax etc if she were to pass away within 7 years of the final payment of the mortgage?

BTW, she wouldn't let me cos she's scared she could end up out on here ear!

A reasonable question but not one that I can answer.


Anything to back this up? Any before or after survey? I'm not saying its right or wrong, but as you to state it as fact and as a key part of your argument it would be interesting to see where your info comes from.

I cant back it up but when I walk round what used to be council estates/areas that are now more privately owned there is a marked positive difference.

[Woody1985]

A reasonable question but not one that I can answer.


I cant back it up but when I walk round what used to be council estates/areas that are now more privately owned there is a marked positive difference.

So how can you make the assumption that they're all sold on for a huge profit as soon as the council tennant is out the way? I suppose depending on the value and the inheritance limit (not sure what that is but IIRC about 400k) I suspect that most people living in council accomodation don't have that much money / equity in the house.

Whilst I don't doubt that people see it as a purely money motivated exercise I was looking to keep the house. A 4 bedroom house I'd get for around 70 grand but as I say, she won't let me. :boo hoo:

I'd also need to understand the implications of the mortgage if and when something happens.

For info, I live with my gran and have done since I was wee so am not looking at the money side alone...

[New Corrie]

Anything to back this up? Any before or after survey? I'm not saying its right or wrong, but as you to state it as fact and as a key part of your argument it would be interesting to see where your info comes from.

Just my own experiences. You don't always need surveys and feasability studies to come up wth the "bleeding obvious". It's one of the reasons this country is bankrupt...always sanctioning surveys, enquiries etc. Chucking copious amounts of money at a think tank to come up with....Building a Motorway between Edinburgh and Berwick would make journey times quicker.

I didn't state it as a fact, just an opinion based on my experiences, and that of many friends aswell of course. But, as I said it was a Thatcher policy so it goes without saying, that it must of been wrong.

[Twa Cairpets]

Just my own experiences. You don't always need surveys and feasability studies to come up wth the "bleeding obvious". It's one of the reasons this country is bankrupt...always sanctioning surveys, enquiries etc. Chucking copious amounts of money at a think tank to come up with....Building a Motorway between Edinburgh and Berwick would make journey times quicker.

I didn't state it as a fact, just an opinion based on my experiences, and that of many friends aswell of course. But, as I said it was a Thatcher policy so it goes without saying, that it must of been wrong.

That's an angrier reaction than I was expecting. You could have stopped after the first four words, and avoided the quasi-political rant, but then your general political stance has a lot to be blusteringly defensive about so I suppose it is your default style. As I said, I've no idea if what you anecdotaly claim is true or not, but even you must accept that there could be other factors at play in the general standard of an area. Local employment opportunities/changes? Age profile of tenants? Governement funded regeneration? Development of brown-field sites? But no, it apparently is all down to right-to-buy. When you see these alleged improvements, I think its a form of pareidolia - seeing what you presuppose to be the case because it fits within your framework.

As an aside, and maybe a bit off topic, relevant surveys, studies, etc comes under the general heading of research and helps form policy and decide where best to spend the budget of local and national government. I think I prefer that to your approach (and I'm sure Mrs T would agree).

As a further aside, could i direct you toward the book Freakonomics. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0141019018/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263473458&sr=8-1) it may just help to illustrate to you that what what on first glance is "bleeding obvious", often isnt when you apply more than knee jerk thought.

[Killiehibbie]

So how can you make the assumption that they're all sold on for a huge profit as soon as the council tennant is out the way? I suppose depending on the value and the inheritance limit (not sure what that is but IIRC about 400k) I suspect that most people living in council accomodation don't have that much money / equity in the house.

Whilst I don't doubt that people see it as a purely money motivated exercise I was looking to keep the house. A 4 bedroom house I'd get for around 70 grand but as I say, she won't let me. :boo hoo:

I'd also need to understand the implications of the mortgage if and when something happens.

For info, I live with my gran and have done since I was wee so am not looking at the money side alone...

My memory is not as good as it used to be but i'm sure you would get a mortgage in your name buying your Grans house with her discount. No inheritance tax to pay as mortgage and house are yours. I know a couple of guys who did similar things years ago. Get a legal document drawn up, lifetime free rent or something to put her mind at ease about you kicking her out.

[IndieHibby]

A lot of areas which were beginning to look a bit run down, are now tidy, and a lot less crime ridden because the occupants now take a bit of pride in the place. If you give people a vested interest and the chance to generate some equity then they are naturally going to look after things. I thought it was a great idea, and I would imagine that those who participated would pretty much agree. I suppose the fact that it was Thatcher's baby will have most Scots condemning it out of hand.

I'll second that whole comment :agree:

I'm not sure who said it, but it went something like this:

"Lease a man a garden and it will turn to desert. Sell him a rock and he'll turn it into a garden"

Or something like that :wink:

[ArabHibee]

My memory is not as good as it used to be but i'm sure you would get a mortgage in your name buying your Grans house with her discount. No inheritance tax to pay as mortgage and house are yours. I know a couple of guys who did similar things years ago. Get a legal document drawn up, lifetime free rent or something to put her mind at ease about you kicking her out.

:agree: Pretty sure this is what one of my friend's did when she and her brother bought their parents council house for them.

[Jack]

So how can you make the assumption that they're all sold on for a huge profit as soon as the council tennant is out the way? I suppose depending on the value and the inheritance limit (not sure what that is but IIRC about 400k) I suspect that most people living in council accomodation don't have that much money / equity in the house.


That bit is simple enough. :greengrin

The house (value £100k) is bought at a 60% discount (£40k) then sold, say 10 years later, at around double the original value, £200k. Tidy £160K profit. :thumbsup:

There are all the tax complications if folk die earlier than they should and other ‘technicalities’ but at the end of the day, taxes paid or otherwise, any profit is money for nothing with a 60% ‘to play around with’ cushion or bonus!

I have no doubt your intentions are honourable, as most peoples are. If/when you persuade granny :rolleyes:, and probably the rest of the family, your next stop should be to an Independent Financial Adviser who should be able to explain the best way to go about your purchase. BTW families can be funny i.e. they are due nothing from granny’s council house but as soon as one person from the family is set to make something from it all hell breaks loose as they now see a share of something, even after they’ve contributed SFA :grr:.

[I’m not sure about Mortgage Advisers, they’ve never struck me as anything other than someone who could browse the internet, MortgageAdvisers.net :confused:, find a deal then charge hundreds plus for it, something you could quite easily have done yourself.]

[RyeSloan]

Considering the appalling record of pretty much all councils in maintaining their housing stock I'm surprised that it is considered a good idea to give them more to look after.

Lack of maintenance and poor rent collection levels are only two reasons that Councils should not automatically be considered the default option for providing 'social housing'

In fact considering their is very little local councils seem to be able to manage directly effectively I would suggest that the whole system of providing a housing saftey net should be reviewed and councils kept well away except from maybe a monitoring and enforcement role.

[Woody1985]

That bit is simple enough. :greengrin

The house (value £100k) is bought at a 60% discount (£40k) then sold, say 10 years later, at around double the original value, £200k. Tidy £160K profit. :thumbsup:

There are all the tax complications if folk die earlier than they should and other ‘technicalities’ but at the end of the day, taxes paid or otherwise, any profit is money for nothing with a 60% ‘to play around with’ cushion or bonus!

I have no doubt your intentions are honourable, as most peoples are. If/when you persuade granny :rolleyes:, and probably the rest of the family, your next stop should be to an Independent Financial Adviser who should be able to explain the best way to go about your purchase. BTW families can be funny i.e. they are due nothing from granny’s council house but as soon as one person from the family is set to make something from it all hell breaks loose as they now see a share of something, even after they’ve contributed SFA :grr:.

[I’m not sure about Mortgage Advisers, they’ve never struck me as anything other than someone who could browse the internet, MortgageAdvisers.net :confused:, find a deal then charge hundreds plus for it, something you could quite easily have done yourself.]

Yes, but you said they sell as soon as she pops her clogs! Not ten years later. :greengrin

Certainly if I go down that route I would be looking to have something written into her will. Although, whether I can sort my existing financial situation and get some money saved towards a deposit in a timescale where she still has the house (if you know what I mean!), and the current system is still in place is the biggest obstacle.

Certainly being able to do this could set me up on a great financial footing for the rest of my life so I wouldn't say that there's no motivation towards that but I just like my house considering I've stayed there for 20 year!

I've worked in banking (savings & mortgages, not retail) for the last 7 years so have a good idea of what IFAs and advisors are all about and I'd certainly be doing most of the ground work myself. Also, IFAs sometimes tend to go with who pays them most commission but some aspects of business that relied heavily on them in the past are now trying to get customers direct by making processes simpler e.g. on-line apps etc.

When I looked into it previously there were only a few mortgage providers that offered RTB so that could be the main stumbling block. Also, some of them charged extortionate rates 8%+, which would still work out cheaper that taking the full mortgage at the full amount.

[Hainan Hibs]

I think it's a good reason to vote SNP.

[Speedy]

Yes, but you said they sell as soon as she pops her clogs! Not ten years later. :greengrin

Certainly if I go down that route I would be looking to have something written into her will. Although, whether I can sort my existing financial situation and get some money saved towards a deposit in a timescale where she still has the house (if you know what I mean!), and the current system is still in place is the biggest obstacle.

Certainly being able to do this could set me up on a great financial footing for the rest of my life so I wouldn't say that there's no motivation towards that but I just like my house considering I've stayed there for 20 year!

I've worked in banking (savings & mortgages, not retail) for the last 7 years so have a good idea of what IFAs and advisors are all about and I'd certainly be doing most of the ground work myself. Also, IFAs sometimes tend to go with who pays them most commission but some aspects of business that relied heavily on them in the past are now trying to get customers direct by making processes simpler e.g. on-line apps etc.

When I looked into it previously there were only a few mortgage providers that offered RTB so that could be the main stumbling block. Also, some of them charged extortionate rates 8%+, which would still work out cheaper that taking the full mortgage at the full amount.

I think he is assuming(as an example) that she would 'pop her clogs' after ten years.

[ancient hibee]

Nobody has mentioned that if a tenant continues to live in a council house (as a tenant instead of buying)it does absolutely nothing to change the make up of council housing-no more will be available.The big mistake was not to allow councils to reinvest sale proceeds in new housing but of course the idea was to turn tenants into owners and then Tory voters.

[Speedy]

Nobody has mentioned that if a tenant continues to live in a council house (as a tenant instead of buying)it does absolutely nothing to change the make up of council housing-no more will be available.The big mistake was not to allow councils to reinvest sale proceeds in new housing but of course the idea was to turn tenants into owners and then Tory voters.

But it will be available when that tenant leaves(either dies, or moves into a private property).

[ancient hibee]

But it will be available when that tenant leaves(either dies, or moves into a private property).
Which could be in 30 years time.In any event a surviving spouse or children living there can retain the tenancy.

[ArabHibee]

Which could be in 30 years time.In any event a surviving spouse or children living there can retain the tenancy.

I agree with the surviving spouse but I'm sure children living with elderly parents would be a small percentage.

[Speedy]

Which could be in 30 years time.In any event a surviving spouse or children living there can retain the tenancy.

Possibly but possibly not. However, if the property is sold then it definitely can't be used for someone else.

[hibsdaft]

Thatcher's motivation was to undermine council housing, not simply give people the right to buy their own home.

Because her motivation was ideological she simply sold the houses off - at a ridiculous discount for the state to carry.

We are now left with chronic housing waiting lists.

What should have happened is that all revenues recouped from council house sales be reinvested in new council housing. Then we would not be where we are now - with a totally depleted council housing stock, much of which is the dregs nobody wanted to buy.

Instead Thatcher used council house sale revenues to subsidise tax cuts for the rich.

[ginger_rice]

One side to this argument that no-one has yet come up with is that, all the council housing in the "nice" areas has been bought up and what's left tends to be in the less affluent areas.

To me stopping the right to buy is a vote winner, I only have to look at my own kids aged 21 and 23, and wonder just where they will be able to afford to live if there is no social housing available. Private rents in the Stirling area are prohibitive, and i would imagine that in Edinburgh even worse.

When I was divorced (13 years ago) I tried to get on the council housing list to be told that i'd be better to come back in the 21st century, even if I wanted to get a house in Raploch (nothing against Raploch as my family come from there), my son his partner and their 3 year old daughter have been on the council housing list for 3 years....and it's for reasons like that we need to stop the sale of council housing stock.

IMHO another thing which has lead to this is the fact that the private house builders are hell bent on making every new development "executive and luxury" 5 bedroom detached for £440k and so on, even their so called affordable homes are well out of the reach of most first time buyers.

[.Sean.]

:top marks Spot on.

Myself and a few of my mates are at the stage where leaving home seems the way forward.

Private rent is the only option. Can't afford a mortgage and i'd be waiting for a council house in excess of 5, maybe even ten years.

[Dashing Bob S]

The sale of council housing was great for tenants who lived in low density, high amenity dwellings, which went like hotcakes. It wasn't so good for big council schemes as it coincided with mass unemployment and the importation of drugs, and you had the process of ghettoizsation which changed those areas forever. Also, tenants who couldn't get mortgages had the chance to transfer to higher amenity areas, this was obviously removed when the stock vanished in such areas.

Now though, it's possible to build a private sector ghetto. They have the new Wester Hailes at Edinburgh's Waterfront, cheaply built constructions around no amenities, which they couldn't sell to yuppies and have now rented through the Housing associations to so-called problem tenants who have been evicted from the schemes.

Home ownership was seen as way to make people more compliant, but it's also economically inefficient as people have to move for work in our globalised economy. It was basically Thatcher's 'crumbs of the rich man's table' policy to try and get an aspirational section of the working class onside. It didn't really work. People bought their houses if it was good deal, but still basically hated her.

[Betty Boop]

The sale of council housing was great for tenants who lived in low density, high amenity dwellings, which went like hotcakes. It wasn't so good for big council schemes as it coincided with mass unemployment and the importation of drugs, and you had the process of ghettoizsation which changed those areas forever. Also, tenants who couldn't get mortgages had the chance to transfer to higher amenity areas, this was obviously removed when the stock vanished in such areas.

Now though, it's possible to build a private sector ghetto. They have the new Wester Hailes at Edinburgh's Waterfront, cheaply built constructions around no amenities, which they couldn't sell to yuppies and have now rented through the Housing associations to so-called problem tenants who have been evicted from the schemes.

Home ownership was seen as way to make people more compliant, but it's also economically inefficient as people have to move for work in our globalised economy. It was basically Thatcher's 'crumbs of the rich man's table' policy to try and get an aspirational section of the working class onside. It didn't really work. People bought their houses if it was good deal, but still basically hated her.

The Port of Leith Housing Association has acquired the block built at Newhaven, next to Asda.

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

This rule should be scrapped and I back the SNP on this.

They have secured my vote.

[Hibby D]

Thatcher's motivation was to undermine council housing, not simply give people the right to buy their own home.

Because her motivation was ideological she simply sold the houses off - at a ridiculous discount for the state to carry.

We are now left with chronic housing waiting lists.

What should have happened is that all revenues recouped from council house sales be reinvested in new council housing. Then we would not be where we are now - with a totally depleted council housing stock, much of which is the dregs nobody wanted to buy.

Instead Thatcher used council house sale revenues to subsidise tax cuts for the rich.

:agree:

The introduction of the Right to Buy was a vote winner for the tories and resulted in the residualisation of council housing stock. Where it was once a tenure to aspire to, it soon became the only option for the unemployed and low income families.

The Bill proposes to end the Right to Buy for new council tenants and for tenants moving into New Build council/RSL stock. Existing tenants remaining in their homes or transferring to old stock will not lose their RTB (although they would lose any preserved rights they had and move onto the Modernised Right to Buy). Nothing is ever quite as cut and dried as the opposition parties would have you believe, because that simply doesn't suit their agendas.

I work in social housing (can you tell?? :greengrin) and we have a turnover of around 400 houses per year - we have 6000 people on our waiting list.

It's a vote winning change to legislation for me :agree:

[ancient hibee]

:agree:

The introduction of the Right to Buy was a vote winner for the tories and resulted in the residualisation of council housing stock. Where it was once a tenure to aspire to, it soon became the only option for the unemployed and low income families.

The Bill proposes to end the Right to Buy for new council tenants and for tenants moving into New Build council/RSL stock. Existing tenants remaining in their homes or transferring to old stock will not lose their RTB (although they would lose any preserved rights they had and move onto the Modernised Right to Buy). Nothing is ever quite as cut and dried as the opposition parties would have you believe, because that simply doesn't suit their agendas.

I work in social housing (can you tell?? :greengrin) and we have a turnover of around 400 houses per year - we have 6000 people on our waiting list.

It's a vote winning change to legislation for me :agree:
But if a new tenant takes up a tenancy without a right to buy that,in its self,does not do anything to increase social housing availability.The only thing that does that is to build more.

[Woody1985]

:agree:

The introduction of the Right to Buy was a vote winner for the tories and resulted in the residualisation of council housing stock. Where it was once a tenure to aspire to, it soon became the only option for the unemployed and low income families.

The Bill proposes to end the Right to Buy for new council tenants and for tenants moving into New Build council/RSL stock. Existing tenants remaining in their homes or transferring to old stock will not lose their RTB (although they would lose any preserved rights they had and move onto the Modernised Right to Buy). Nothing is ever quite as cut and dried as the opposition parties would have you believe, because that simply doesn't suit their agendas.

I work in social housing (can you tell?? :greengrin) and we have a turnover of around 400 houses per year - we have 6000 people on our waiting list.

It's a vote winning change to legislation for me :agree:

Surely then the bill is merely an amendment?

My understanding is that new tennants after a specific date (only a few years back) were limited to a small discount and required residency for a longer period than was originally available.

I've got the links for the RTB info, I'll go and look them out.

Edit; As a side point, don't answer if it would be unfair to you in your position, can you clarify on what is the best way to obtain a council house?

My current understanding is that it goes by priorities, which are occasionally faked in my experience, such as disability, mental illness, single women with kids, drug abusers (the contentious one)? and then based on a point scoring system that depends on how long you have been on the list and the frequency of which you apply. Is that accurate?

[Woody1985]

Further to the above, here is the Scottish Exec link.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2002/08/15280/10372

Anyone prior to 2002 with their existing agreement still qualifies for the full discount. Any of those after then are restricted to a maximum of £15,000 or the percentage, whichever is lower (IIRC, not reading it all again just now).

I think it would be fair to say the impact of this legislation would appear to be minimal.

Edit, Based on this information, is this still a vote winner/loser?!

[The Green Goblin]

Just my own experiences. You don't always need surveys and feasability studies to come up wth the "bleeding obvious". It's one of the reasons this country is bankrupt...always sanctioning surveys, enquiries etc. Chucking copious amounts of money at a think tank to come up with....Building a Motorway between Edinburgh and Berwick would make journey times quicker....


....spending billions on fighting two wars overseas for the last 6 years? Giving billions to incompetent and reckless banks without conditions or oversight?

Plenty of other reasons.

GG

[LiverpoolHibs]

....spending billions on fighting two wars overseas for the last 6 years? Giving billions to incompetent and reckless banks without conditions or oversight?

Plenty of other reasons.

GG

And, of course, not forgetting that Britain is not bankrupt in any way, shape or form. Not that that's going to halt the Tory (or Labour) 'slash and burn'.

[Hibby D]

But if a new tenant takes up a tenancy without a right to buy that,in its self,does not do anything to increase social housing availability.The only thing that does that is to build more.

Removing the RTB for all new tenants and all new build properties works towards maintaining current stock levels. IIRC the government predicts the changes will result in approx 18000 homes remaining in the public sector; homes that would otherwise have been lost to the private sector in the coming years.

There are many new build programmes underway at this time and many more planned over the coming years. There are also initiatives that place a requirement on private sector developers to allocate a %age of their new builds to "low cost affordable housing" which in some circumstances could result in up to 25% of properties in private developments being pupose built for low cost home ownership, market rents, or for rent in the public sector.



Surely then the bill is merely an amendment?

My understanding is that new tennants after a specific date (only a few years back) were limited to a small discount and required residency for a longer period than was originally available.

I've got the links for the RTB info, I'll go and look them out.

Edit; As a side point, don't answer if it would be unfair to you in your position, can you clarify on what is the best way to obtain a council house?

My current understanding is that it goes by priorities, which are occasionally faked in my experience, such as disability, mental illness, single women with kids, drug abusers (the contentious one)? and then based on a point scoring system that depends on how long you have been on the list and the frequency of which you apply. Is that accurate?

You're referring to the Modernised Right to Buy (which I referred to in my post above) and yes it introduced major changes in legislation for new tenants and those existing tenants who had a material change in their tenancy (e.g. transferring or exchanging to another property) culminating in the removal of the massive discounts on the market rate of a property at point of sale.

How to get a coucil house? Now there is is the million dollar question!! You're right in a way. Most social housing providers allocate to those applicants most in need but it also depends on individual alloction policies too - as long as those policies work within legislation there can be differences in the way social housing providers define priority.

So who is most in need? Mostly those who are legally defined as unintentionally homeless and those whose current accomodation is no longer suitable for their needs. As levels of stock decreased (a combination of the RTB and a cessation in new build) housing providers were forced to look at how to make best use of their remaining stock and the only way to do that was to put in place policies to determine priority and to review and amend those policies regularly.

Our own policy is not perfect and yes there may be the odd "faker" who slips through the net but in my experience we are just about getting it as right as possible in the current climate.

The changes to legislation on the Right to Buy, coupled with new build programmes, will go some way to maintaining, if not increasing (and I believe it will increase), public sector stock and reducing waiting lists.

Right I'm away to Dundee :greengrin


ps One other aspect of the new legislation is that it will give Local Authorities the power to suspend the RTB in areas of most demand. Double bonus :devil:

[New Corrie]

....spending billions on fighting two wars overseas for the last 6 years? Giving billions to incompetent and reckless banks without conditions or oversight?

Plenty of other reasons.

GG


That's why I said "one of the reasons", I agree with your examples, I would have left the banks to fend for themselves and I certainly don't agree with the war. Add in half a Billion on trams, half a Billion on the Inter Toto parliament and you could have bought a fair few houses with all that!

[Twa Cairpets]

That's why I said "one of the reasons", I agree with your examples, I would have left the banks to fend for themselves and I certainly don't agree with the war. Add in half a Billion on trams, half a Billion on the Inter Toto parliament and you could have bought a fair few houses with all that!

And that - I hope - is why you will never, ever have any say in running anything more complicated than a raffle.

[Woody1985]

Removing the RTB for all new tenants and all new build properties works towards maintaining current stock levels. IIRC the government predicts the changes will result in approx 18000 homes remaining in the public sector; homes that would otherwise have been lost to the private sector in the coming years.

There are many new build programmes underway at this time and many more planned over the coming years. There are also initiatives that place a requirement on private sector developers to allocate a %age of their new builds to "low cost affordable housing" which in some circumstances could result in up to 25% of properties in private developments being pupose built for low cost home ownership, market rents, or for rent in the public sector.




You're referring to the Modernised Right to Buy (which I referred to in my post above) and yes it introduced major changes in legislation for new tenants and those existing tenants who had a material change in their tenancy (e.g. transferring or exchanging to another property) culminating in the removal of the massive discounts on the market rate of a property at point of sale.

How to get a coucil house? Now there is is the million dollar question!! You're right in a way. Most social housing providers allocate to those applicants most in need but it also depends on individual alloction policies too - as long as those policies work within legislation there can be differences in the way social housing providers define priority.

So who is most in need? Mostly those who are legally defined as unintentionally homeless and those whose current accomodation is no longer suitable for their needs. As levels of stock decreased (a combination of the RTB and a cessation in new build) housing providers were forced to look at how to make best use of their remaining stock and the only way to do that was to put in place policies to determine priority and to review and amend those policies regularly.

Our own policy is not perfect and yes there may be the odd "faker" who slips through the net but in my experience we are just about getting it as right as possible in the current climate.

The changes to legislation on the Right to Buy, coupled with new build programmes, will go some way to maintaining, if not increasing (and I believe it will increase), public sector stock and reducing waiting lists.

Right I'm away to Dundee :greengrin

ps One other aspect of the new legislation is that it will give Local Authorities the power to suspend the RTB in areas of most demand. Double bonus :devil:

When I refer to faker I was more thinking of the point that you outlined in relation to those who have no where to live rather than the other assumed priorities.

I know a few people that have been at home and wanted to get somewhere with a partner. The only option they are left with is to declare themselves homeless, and I think, but could be wrong, that a signed letter from the parent saying they no longer want them living there. They then get put into a B&B for X days/weeks and end up with their own place.

Although what is interesting is that they seem to be able to get a place within a week or two generally but that is only personal experience and know of 3 or 4 whom have done that.

Hope you have a great day in Dundee. :greengrin

[New Corrie]

And that - I hope - is why you will never, ever have any say in running anything more complicated than a raffle.


Running a raffle may well be my level. Just because some aren't able to produce the long winded boring "pseuds corner" posts that appear on here from the same trio of intellectual snobs sneering at us mere humbles, doesn't mean that we're automatically wrong. There are quite a lot of people, who may even meet your intellectual yardstick who happen to share my views on the banks. Maybe they should stick to raffles aswell.

[Twa Cairpets]

Running a raffle may well be my level. Just because some aren't able to produce the long winded boring "pseuds corner" posts that appear on here from the same trio of intellectual snobs sneering at us mere humbles, doesn't mean that we're automatically wrong. There are quite a lot of people, who may even meet your intellectual yardstick who happen to share my views on the banks. Maybe they should stick to raffles aswell.

Fantastic. Inverse snobbery as well as being wrong. You're almost a caricature of yourself.

"Long winded boring posts" may be interpreted as needing more than one paragraph to explain a point or respond to someone elses. if you don't like them, or don't have the attention span to read them, then dont read them.

[Dashing Bob S]

I think the SNP's move is purely gesture politics, to show the Scottish voters that they haven't mindlessly swallowed every single Thatcherite tenet that the Labour Party has over the years.

As an issue, it's stone dead. Almost every buyable council house has long been sold. Central governments are never going to give council's the money to build more. Councils themselves don't want to manage housing direct, they'd rather operate strategically and farm it out to Housing associations and let them deal with the hassle.

So it makes political sense for the SNP, by distancing themselves from both the Tories and New Labour (neither of whom anybody had much time for, for obvious reasons since about 1945) but has no practical application.

[ginger_rice]

Central governments are never going to give council's the money to build more.

Stirling council already has been given money to fund the building of council houses in areas of great shortage.

Councils themselves don't want to manage housing direct, they'd rather operate strategically and farm it out to Housing associations and let them deal with the hassle.

True, however many of the housing associations do a pretty damn good job...although I am aware of the problems with some of them in the weeg



IMHO the real crux of the matter is that we haven't got the mix right, lack affordable social housing, lack of affordable first time buyer housing, lack of affordable "ordinary" family housing, and far too much emphasis on "executive" and "luxury" housing.

Another thing which sticks in my craw is that in the UK, people buy a house as an investment, not first and foremost a home, I often wonder if the profits of a house sale should be taxed..............:tin hat::duck:

[Dashing Bob S]

IMHO the real crux of the matter is that we haven't got the mix right, lack affordable social housing, lack of affordable first time buyer housing, lack of affordable "ordinary" family housing, and far too much emphasis on "executive" and "luxury" housing.

Another thing which sticks in my craw is that in the UK, people buy a house as an investment, not first and foremost a home, I often wonder if the profits of a house sale should be taxed..............:tin hat::duck:

Didn't know about the Stirling case, but I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying. House buying and selling has now primarily become about economic gain and advancement, rather than meeting basic needs for families. I understand people's temptation to make money in this way, but I've absolutely no sympathy for those who get their fingers burned through taking out big/second mortgages on properties and then end up in a mess.

[Woody1985]

For all of those that think that this proposal as a vote winner or loser does your opinion still stand given that the amendment will have very little impact over and above the amendment in 2002 which restricts the discount to 15,000?

[NAE NOOKIE]

The right to buy was always going to result in the situation we have now.

I live in Galashiels, which is probably as good an example as you will get of a mid sized Scottish town.

When I first moved here 30 years ago all of the larger areas of the town were council housing including where I live now.

With the exeption of a few houses and some small parts of the larger estate in the town the tenents were very good at looking after what they had.

A few years after right to buy was introduced it became impossible for a family to get a decent sized house with a garden because nearly every house in those areas was private. Your only chance of even getting a two bedroom flat was to accept a place in, what by then, had become the ' bad' areas of the town.

That is to say the areas which had been bad before right to buy and which were still council or housing association owned because no one had wanted to buy there anyway.

After the 2nd world war the government had the enlightened vision that ordinary people would be able to live in decent housing with a garden. A great idea.

Two things blew that out of the water. The 60s and Thatcher.

On that note, there was a real paradox in Thatchers thinking in so much as she was proud to say that " no one should expect to have a job for life" as if that was some sort of good thing. Though in her mind a large floating labour market was good for private enterprise.

And yet she wanted as many people as possible to commit to a mortgage, the very situation where a long lasting secure job is a huge benefit.

I'm with the SNP on this one.

[ballengeich]

IMHO the real crux of the matter is that we haven't got the mix right, lack affordable social housing, lack of affordable first time buyer housing, lack of affordable "ordinary" family housing, and far too much emphasis on "executive" and "luxury" housing.

Another thing which sticks in my craw is that in the UK, people buy a house as an investment, not first and foremost a home, I often wonder if the profits of a house sale should be taxed..............:tin hat::duck:

I agree with the motivation behind your first paragraph, but I wonder what we mean by the word "affordable". Builders do not construct houses unless someone can afford them, so you seem to suggest that they should build houses which sell at cheaper prices. How should this be done except by constructing smaller houses and inferior standards? I'm not knocking your analysis, but looking for suggestions.

The sale of council houses was a paradox in Conservative ideas. It introduced a substantial redistribution of wealth, and distorted the housing market by public subsidy. Neither of these fitted with the other aspects of their ideology at the time. The result was that the UK reached a level of home ownership that was second in Europe, exceeded only by Bulgaria. There is also a belief by some economists that the UK level of home ownership has diverted investment which would have gone to industry under another regime.

I agree that a house should be a home before an investment, but profits from a second home are already subject to tax. Flipping of homes by MPs has been used to avoid this, but that's another subject.

[ginger_rice]

I agree with the motivation behind your first paragraph, but I wonder what we mean by the word "affordable". Builders do not construct houses unless someone can afford them, so you seem to suggest that they should build houses which sell at cheaper prices. How should this be done except by constructing smaller houses and inferior standards? I'm not knocking your analysis, but looking for suggestions.

The sale of council houses was a paradox in Conservative ideas. It introduced a substantial redistribution of wealth, and distorted the housing market by public subsidy. .

.

To the developers affordable appears to me to mean a 2 bedroom flat for £175k!! And they will build the token amount of these on their development site because the planning regulations require that all housing developments over a certain size must have a percentage of "affordable" homes. They then fill the rest of the development with 5 bed detached executive homes at £440k a pop with a postage sized garden and tiny rooms.

I'd like to see a return to sites filled with 2 and 3 bedroom semi detached, terraced houses and flats. These homes need not be substandard or shoddy, they could just be simple with less emphasis on the "extras" Of course there's not the same profit margin to be had.

With regard to the Tories encouraging every man and his dog to be mortgaged up to the hilt, the cynic in me thinks that was a ploy to ensure that the working class could no longer afford to be militant.

[Leicester Fan]

Your only chance of even getting a two bedroom flat was to accept a place in, what by then, had become the ' bad' areas of the town.


Or buy your own,

[NAE NOOKIE]

Or buy your own,

Nothing wrong with that. Unless of course you aint in a position to buy your own. A situation which is to the fore more than ever given the current financial situation.

Thatchers vision effectively placed poor people in ghettos.