The Absurdity of Right to Buy

Bootski

The_White_Horse wrote: »

shirley porter was the daughter of the founder of tesco (possibly greanddaughter - can't remember).

the problem is, there should be no social housing in kebnsington and chelsea. why should people who could never afford to live in these areas have homes where decent hard working people can't live.

all London and surrounding areas social housing should be sold off, and redeveloped with private housing. the govt can then create sprawling estates somewhere up north in the middle of nowhere to house people.

Thanks for the info - I did wonder what her connection was! Do you know if she ever did pay off those fines for selling council housing for votes in Westminster? ( I believe it amounted to £13million odd??)

Anyhow re Council Housing and your other thread. I'm selling an ex LA house that my Mum left me. She bought it at a good discount, single Mum, worked for the council all her life, hated it but slogged along. Her legacy gives me a great opportunity to move on and improve my life. So I'm in the position of understanding your arguement but point was that all the money raised from selling council houses was supposed to go towards building new social housing, that never happened. We're really seeing the consecuences of that now with the shortage of social and affordable homes.

We'll always need both and lack of either is a major contribution to the prices of houses now.

As for your other thread, where would you house all those already in social housing or those that will need it in the future? Only alternative is rent them to the private sector and as landlords know the state will pick up the bill, surely?

BitterAndTwisted

Bootski wrote: »

but point was that all the money raised from selling council houses was supposed to go towards building new social housing, that never happened. We're really seeing the consecuences of that now with the shortage of social and affordable homes.

Actually, the Tories enacted legislation to prevent Local Authorities from doing exactly that, which has been a major factor in the shortage of LA housing for rent. The Labour government have done nothing to repeal this either.

Bootski

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Actually, the Tories enacted legislation to prevent Local Authorities from doing exactly that, which has been a major factor in the shortage of LA housing for rent. The Labour government have done nothing to repeal this either.

So where did all that money go then??:eek: ie, why would the Tories enact legislation to prevent where the money was supposed to go? What was their ulterior motive??

Hmm (mp's (TORY) expenses, perhaps!) - go figure :rolleyes:

moggylover

Bootski wrote: »

So where did all that money go then??:eek: ie, why would the Tories enact legislation to prevent where the money was supposed to go? What was their ulterior motive??

Hmm (mp's (TORY) expenses, perhaps!) - go figure :rolleyes:

I'm sure that they would tell you it was "re-allocated" to other places, but my own suspicion would be that it was wasted on tax cuts or some such at the time with scant regard for the long term outcome of that. It was certainly money that had to be handed over to Central Government and not kept by the Local Authorities and I seem to remember a lot of argument in the press at the time from those Authorities that wanted to spend some of the windfall on improving the standards of what housing stock they had left.

We never seem to be able to get basic household common sense type economics through to the Tories: but then we won't as they have never had to "make ends meet" in the long term in their own lives:rolleyes:

Yes, we sometimes have to make cuts in what we spend: but if you ignore the underpinnings and substance of your home (equate to Country) to have a holiday (i.e. tax breaks) then eventually the cost will come home to rest:rolleyes:

Bootski

moggylover wrote: »

I'm sure that they would tell you it was "re-allocated" to other places, but my own suspicion would be that it was wasted on tax cuts or some such at the time with scant regard for the long term outcome of that. It was certainly money that had to be handed over to Central Government and not kept by the Local Authorities and I seem to remember a lot of argument in the press at the time from those Authorities that wanted to spend some of the windfall on improving the standards of what housing stock they had left.

Yes, seems an age ago now, the 80's. But do know, as you say, those funds were reluctantly given back to Central Gov.

We never seem to be able to get basic household common sense type economics through to the Tories: but then we won't as they have never had to "make ends meet" in the long term in their own lives:rolleyes:

No, and nothing's changed there has it what with recent debates about Cameron, Boris, et al and Eton and do they touch base with the "real people":o In that respect politics has stagnate, and when Blair came to power and promised things would only get better - well look at him now with his history and the wealth he's amounted - just another Tory Toff really!

Yes, we sometimes have to make cuts in what we spend: but if you ignore the underpinnings and substance of your home (equate to Country) to have a holiday (i.e. tax breaks) then eventually the cost will come home to rest:rolleyes:

But it's the job of politicians, with all their quangos and adivsors to have the foresight that will benefit everyone. Has'nt worked though, now that we're more in debt than ever before.:mad:

drc

Bootski wrote: »

Thanks for the info - I did wonder what her connection was! Do you know if she ever did pay off those fines for selling council housing for votes in Westminster? ( I believe it amounted to £13million odd??)

According to Wikipedia she paid up in 2004.

moggylover

drc wrote: »

According to Wikipedia she paid up in 2004.

Bet she didn't hand over all the interest she had made on it though;)

purch

.....a surcharge of £27m levied on her in 1996. This was later raised to £42 million with interest and costs. She eventually settled in 2004, paying a full payment of £12.3 million.

I guess the answer to my original question is no.

She owed Westminster £ 42m, and paid them £ 12.3m

£29,700,000,000 would build a lot of housing, even in Westminster :eek:

Bootski

purch wrote: »

.....a surcharge of £27m levied on her in 1996. This was later raised to £42 million with interest and costs. She eventually settled in 2004, paying a full payment of £12.3 million.

I guess the answer to my original question is no.

She owed Westminster £ 42m, and paid them £ 12.3m

£29,700,000,000 would build a lot of housing, even in Westminster :eek:

Thanks for clearing that up Purch!

What a bloody disgrace.:mad: She'd be near dead by now but hooked it all off on offshore accounts. Don't tell me she had kids please who would enjoy a penny of that £29,700,000,000 - I mean it - don't tell me, I don't want to know:cool:

Mr_Mumble

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Because the council loses the stock of houses and then has to pay market rents to private landlords.

The council is a huge part of the market, at ~20%, whether it owns the housing or rents them is irrelevant, it has huge pricing power that, in many cases, they don't wish to use. The council gains capital when it sells housing stock and loses it if there was a decision to build housing, councils should not be in the business of gambling money on residential property.

The ideological bias shown by blaming "right to buy" a policy of thirty years ago that now provides flexible housing for the vast majority instead is mindboggling. Why not mention far more pertinent factors such as highly indebted housing companies clinging onto scarce land banks and intentionally not building houses thanks to supply restricting planning regulations? Or, allowing 460m in Europe the right to settle in Britain which has massively hiked up demand? What about the huge tax incentives to buy residential property over any other form of investment thanks to Gordon Brown increased taxation of pensions while making sure MPs could fiddle mortgage expenses to build up property portfolios?