Right to buy scheme launched by the government

Prime Minister David Cameron and Housing Minister Grant Shapps have announced that more than two million tenants will be given the opportunity to buy their own homes with dramatically increased discounts of up to £75,000.

The announcement will reverse years of declining discounts for tenants, which made Right to Buy meaningless in many parts of the country. Fewer than 3,700 sales were made last year compared to a peak of 84,000 less than 10 years ago.

Launching the reinvigorated scheme, Prime Minister David Cameron said:

"I want many more people to achieve the dream of home ownership. In the 80s, Right to Buy helped millions of people living in council housing achieve their aspiration of owning their own home.

"It gave something back to families who worked hard, paid their rent and played by the rules. It allowed them to do up their home, change their front door, improve their garden - without getting permission from the council. It gave people a sense of pride and ownership not just in their home, but in their street and neighbourhood, helping to build strong families and stable mixed communities.

"But over time the discounts were cut, they didn't keep pace with rises in property prices, and this vital rung on the property ladder was all but removed. This Government is now putting it back by dramatically increasing the discount rates so that we support the dreams of those council tenants who to want to own the roof over their head."

Discuss.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

najinaji

About time, in my opinion.

Reply 2

Piko_Piko

You've posted this for a joke, right? The government can't be thinking of implementing a policy that'll decimate the social housing stock, again, when there's a huge shortage of social housing?!

Edit: Oh, you weren't joking. This is, without a doubt, a terrible idea. I feel partly responsible for this entire mess by voting for Clegg. (Obviously I couldn't forsee the Con-Dem coalition, but still. Thought I'd uburden my soul)

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 3

SpicyStrawberry

I hope they are going to replace the houses sold as well, there's a massive shortage of homes at the moment.

Reply 4

internetguru

Original post by Piko_Piko

Wouldn't they be selling them to people who are already tenants in social housing, and are unable to afford homes without this? It's not like they are kicking people out and selling them to others so this will have absolutely no affect on the demand for social housing.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 5

Kibalchich

Original post by internetguru

RTB in the 80's was a big cause of the current housing crisis.

Reply 6

internetguru

Original post by Kibalchich

RTB in the 80's was a big cause of the current housing crisis.

So allowing people to buy homes at cheaper prices contributed to less houses existing? This makes no sense.

Reply 7

Kibalchich

Original post by internetguru

So allowing people to buy homes at cheaper prices contributed to less houses existing? This makes no sense.

The right to buy scheme in the 1980s was enacted in such a way that made building new housing stock with the proceeds illegal. This had the effect of reducing the social housing stock. If a house/flat that was once social housing goes to private hands, that is one less house in social housing.

Reply 8

internetguru

Original post by Kibalchich

Well that is the fault of the morons who said it should be illegal not the idea itself.

How would reducing the social housing stock negatively affect the country if it equally reduces the need for social housing. For every house sold that is one more family that no longer requires social housing thus balancing it out.

Reply 9

Kibalchich

Original post by internetguru

Well that is the fault of the morons who said it should be illegal not the idea itself.

We have Thatcher to blame for that.

Original post by internetguru

How would reducing the social housing stock negatively affect the country if it equally reduces the need for social housing. For every house sold that is one more family that no longer requires social housing thus balancing it out.

It doesn't reduce the need for social housing.

Reply 10

internetguru

Original post by Kibalchich

We have Thatcher to blame for that.

It doesn't reduce the need for social housing.

Of course it doesn't reduce the waiting list for social housing nobody is saying that is what it will, it certainly won't make the list longer though.

Reply 11

Kibalchich

Original post by internetguru

Of course it doesn't reduce the waiting list for social housing nobody is saying that is what it will, it certainly won't make the list longer though.

Yes it does. It takes what was formerly social housing out of the social housing stock.

Reply 12

internetguru

Original post by Kibalchich

Yes it does. It takes what was formerly social housing out of the social housing stock.

It also takes out families formerly social housing residents and makes them private residents. This balances itself out how can you not comprehend that?

Reply 13

Kibalchich

Original post by internetguru

It also takes out families formerly social housing residents and makes them private residents. This balances itself out how can you not comprehend that?

You're assuming a static need for social housing.

Reply 14

DynamicSyngery

Original post by Piko_Piko

If you don't sell the houses then you have more houses, but also more demand for houses.

It only helps if your alternative is to kick the current residents out and give the houses to someone else, and this somehow works out ok for the current residents.

Reply 15

marshymarsh

The scheme failed in the 80s as the money generated was invested by local councils in Icelandic banks rather than being re-invested in building more houses, due to government guidance. House aren't limited, you guys do know that they are built? We do not have a limited stock.

House has market value of 150,000
Give tenant opportunity to buy at £75,000 (with a fooking massive mortgage)
With the £75,000 spend it on building a replacement house. This generates jobs and increases the skill set amongst apprentices.
Restrict tenants on buying one social house per 20 years to stop people 'house flipping'.
Market value of houses drop reducing the massive inflation we have seen in recent years.

Once the demand for replacement homes ceases every peasant has a stake in the land.

<3 this proposal

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 16

internetguru

Original post by Kibalchich

You're assuming a static need for social housing.

Assume 100 people exist in social houses then these are sold to them. 10 new people arrive needing social housing.

Under the Right To Buy scheme there would be no social houses as they have been sold.

Under the current system the original 100 people will more than likely still be living in these social houses thus the 10 people will still have no social housing.