Right to buy to be extended

pollypenny

CLAPTON wrote: »

of course a society needs a range of skills and so that will happen

what is your point?

You seemed to want poor people to live miles away from the more opulent. :cool:

CLAPTON

pollypenny wrote: »

You seemed to want poor people to live miles away from the more opulent. :cool:

I don't understand what that has to do with my post or your comment

In order to function, all societies need a range of worker and families.

The high-powered CEO needs his bins emptied, his sewerage pipes maintained, his water purified. Shops need staff.

A community of only the wealthy cannot survive.

Graham_Devon

Sapphire wrote: »

Not sure whether you saw the programme on TV last night, about the conversion of many houses in various parts of London by digging out massive basements to house three large storeys under them. The results are spectacularly ugly (as they are following the internal gutting of historic properties in general), and the disruption to long-standing residents has to be seen to be believed. I have lived in places such as South Kensington and Holland Park in the past and loved them – but would not be seen dead in them now given how they are being destroyed. I'm just appalled by how foreigners, celebrities and the nouveau riche in general, who care nothing about our history, have been allowed to cause the destruction of this ancient city – both in terms of this sort of thing and in the building of vile-looking skyscrapers that belong in the 1960s. It's something that this country will come to bitterly regret once all the noise has died down – and a legacy that Boris Johnson will be vilified for.

No, didn't see that.

The programme I watched didn't really show the basements themselves, or the properties. Was more about non-doms and what they bring to the country, how they employ people etc.

Clearly they are employing people and money was changing hands in this country, as the basements proved. But they were also making money in this country by directly targetting the less well off and creating multiple, tiny homes within one home and renting them out at pretty high rents. THAT part invariably cost us, the taxpayer, as people still required support to pay the rents on these places.

Just struck me as wrong. Maybe "victorian" as another poster suggested.

fordcapri2000

As someone who has paid off mortgages for 22 years of his life I feel incensed that someone will get property at a 70% discount, this is anything but free market or conservatism. The one saving grace I had was I purchased property when you got a lot of bricks and mortar for your pennies.

It must be sickening to be paying a huge great mortgage in 2015 for space a mouse would complain about at hugely inflated prices.
We should start demanding we get our 70% refunded, present mortgage holders at the very least.

I have a feeling this will backfire on the Tories, it is one bribe too many.

chucknorris

fordcapri2000 wrote: »

As someone who has paid off mortgages for 22 years of his life I feel incensed that someone will get property at a 70% discount, this is anything but free market or conservatism. The one saving grace I had was I purchased property when you got a lot of bricks and mortar for your pennies.

It must be sickening to be paying a huge great mortgage in 2015 for space a mouse would complain about at hugely inflated prices.
We should start demanding we get our 70% refunded, present mortgage holders at the very least.

I have a feeling this will backfire on the Tories, it is one bribe too many.

Unusually I agree with you, but for different reasons, not because I think that it is unfair to potential and recent private buyers (which it might well be). But I believe that social housing needs to be increased, not diminished by being sold off. It should be kept for the purpose that it was originally devised for, which was to provide affordable housing for those that can't otherwise afford it, rather than provide a windfall for someone who will/may eventually sell it on, when it could then end up being rented out at full market rent.

Graham_Devon

We have some polling data back now.

Based on a poll of 1,698 adults:

34% think it's a good idea. 39% think it's a bad idea. 27% are unsure.

Tory voters
Good idea: 43%
Bad idea: 31%

Labour voters
Good idea: 28%
Bad idea: 48%

Lib Dem voters
Good idea: 20%
Bad idea: 51%

Meanwhile, the CBI has come out and publically "lambasted" the proposal.

Even the telegraph - backing the tories for the Election has come out and wrote an article stating "Extending right to buy is economially illiterate and morally wrong"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11535234/Extending-the-right-to-buy-is-economically-illiterate-and-morally-wrong.html

CLAPTON

chucknorris wrote: »

Unusually I agree with you, but for different reasons, not because I think that it is unfair to potential and recent private buyers (which it might well be). But I believe that social housing needs to be increased, not diminished by being sold off. It should be kept for the purpose that it was originally devised for, which was to provide affordable housing for those that can't otherwise afford it, rather than provide a windfall for someone who will/may eventually sell it on, when it could then end up being rented out at full market rent.

Clearly 'social' housing isn't going to the people that your think it is intended for, as clearly they wouldn't be able to buy.

Social housing has never gone to the poor but to the lucky or those that lie most effectively or know the right people.

'free' things are always misappropriated in one way or another.

purch

CLAPTON wrote: »

Social housing has never gone to the poor but to the lucky or those that lie most effectively or know the right people.

You have posted some stupidly incorrect rubbish over the years, but that must rank up there with the dumbest and most incorrect.

You really have no idea do you.

chucknorris

purch wrote: »

You have posted some stupidly incorrect rubbish over the years, but that must rank up there with the dumbest and most incorrect.

You really have no idea do you.

Thanks, you saved me the bother, whilst I agree that some people benefit from social housing when they shouldn't (e.g. Bob Crowe on a salary of £96k). I think that the majority of people in social housing will probably deserve it, no system is 100% perfect of course, although there is probably a lot of room for improvement of course.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

Social housing has never gone to the poor but to the lucky or those that lie most effectively or know the right people.

Seems to me you are living on a completely different planet with not a clue what you are typing.