Maoist Conservative Party begins the property seizures

Watch
LordMarmalade
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
How on earth can the Tories justify "right-to-buy" for housing association property? Housing association property does not belong to the state, it's not for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to say what these private organisations must do with their property

And even those that are truly council houses (belonging to local authorities), what right do the Conservatives have to steal the right of a local borough to dispose or deal with its property as it chooses, contrary to the wishes of its residents and their democratically-elected council?

This is reheated Thatcherism from a Conservative Party that has run out of ideas. Pathetic manifesto from an ideological bankrupt party. No wonder they haven't won an election outright since 1992
2
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
This represents an enormous transfer of public assets to private individuals. That's the only goal here.

By far the stupidest policy we've seen from a major party this election.
0
reply
domonict
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
many housing associations have borrowed money to build houses, which they rent out.

Along come the Tories and force the sale, at a discount, possibly below the original sum borrowed.
So who pays the loan back and with who's money?

When Thatcher made the councils sell houses, the central government took the lion's share of the cash.
0
reply
LordMarmalade
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
This represents an enormous transfer of public assets to private individuals. That's the only goal here.

By far the stupidest policy we've seen from a major party this election.
I think the point is that they're not public assets, they are not the state's to privatise. The conservatives have absolutely no right, at least according to their own stated principles, to seize this private property.

Housing associations are private organisations. To essentially seize the full ownership of the property by depriving housing associations of their right to choose to use or dispose of this property as they will, the conservatives are engaging in a form of appropriation, and doing so from a private organisation for purely ideological purposes.

It is really the most objectionable policy I've seen in the time I've been active in politics
0
reply
LordMarmalade
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by domonict)
many housing associations have borrowed money to build houses, which they rent out.

Along come the Tories and force the sale, at a discount, possibly below the original sum borrowed.
So who pays the loan back and with who's money?

When Thatcher made the councils sell houses, the central government took the lion's share of the cash.
At least with Thatcher's council house sales (not that I agreed with them) but it was property that belonged to the state in one form or another.

This is property that is effectively being seized by Conservative apparatchiks and subject to forced sale for ideological reasons. I don't think we have seen this kind of seizure of the full use/beneficial ownership of private property since the nationalisations of the 1970s.

Progressives don't want this, and no serious, unhypocritical conservative should defend it either.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by LordMarmalade)
I think the point is that they're not public assets, they are not the state's to privatise. The conservatives have absolutely no right, at least according to their own stated principles, to seize this private property.

Housing associations are private organisations. To essentially seize the full ownership of the property by depriving housing associations of their right to choose to use or dispose of this property as they will, the conservatives are engaging in a form of appropriation, and doing so from a private organisation for purely ideological purposes.

It is really the most objectionable policy I've seen in the time I've been active in politics
Their position is pretty complicated. They are private organisations, but they are sometimes considered public authorities for legal purposes. Either way, they are social enterprises and the government has no place transferring their assets to private individuals.
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
Housing associations are nominally private bodies but are only viable because they receive state subsidies, mostly from local authorities. Cameron does not need to legislate to seize their property, he just needs to legislate to make their local authority subsidies dependent on accepting Right to Buy 2.0. In fact he might not even need legislation to do that. Refusenik associations won't have to accept RtB but they won't be able to continue offering subsidised rents either, which effectively means that the whole association has been taken fully into the private sector by its management.
1
reply
samba
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Observatory)
Housing associations are nominally private bodies but are only viable because they receive state subsidies, mostly from local authorities. Cameron does not need to legislate to seize their property, he just needs to legislate to make their local authority subsidies dependent on accepting Right to Buy 2.0. In fact he might not even need legislation to do that. Refusenik associations won't have to accept RtB but they won't be able to continue offering subsidised rents either, which effectively means that the whole association has been taken fully into the private sector by its management.
Yep, this.

Overall I'm not sure about the long term viability on the proposal, but if they can use it to boost the construction sector properly it should be a good thing. If it's just a rtb with no building efforts, it's just gonna lesson social housing availability in the long term.

Do it properly, make the subsidies good, subsidise the construction end for the HA's to compensate as opposed to cash payments and reduce their greenbelt restrictions, and you could get good value.

Promising policy.
0
reply
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
Right to buy is about giving people something to work for, and to aspire to. There is something very emotive about owning your own home, but we are talking about people who are never realistically going to get a mortgage at current prices. Even with the right to buy it will be an expense most people in housing association homes won't be able to afford, but at least they have a chance they didn't have before. It's hardly regressive to distribute public assets to the sort of private individuals who live in social housing.

As for the ownership point, people above have said it well. You cannot just appropriate private property, but if you make the subsidy housing associations receive contingent upon the right to buy (it's already contingent on plenty of other regulations which don't affect ordinary landlords), they have the choice to either accept it or to not be housing associations any more. They are unlikely to take the latter option for a variety of reasons. You're right that the government can't say what private organisations should do with their property, but neither do they have to subsidise it.
0
reply
LordMarmalade
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by Observatory)
Housing associations are nominally private bodies
Nominally private? No, they are private bodies. Clarity and precision is important when we're talking about the law.

but are only viable because they receive state subsidies.
Nope. Housing associations could be perfectly viable at the rent they offer the houses. If people can't afford the houses, with or without HB, then the housing associations have no motivating factor to undercut themselves given there are non-HB tenants who could cover their operating expenses and other developments that could be done if HB dependent tenants had to move out

Housing associations could just refuse to house people and let the government deal with the problem of housing millions rather than allowing themselves to be forced to sell property at a significant discount (and the conservatives have already admitted this will involve billions in subsidies)

Thank goodness the Conservatives will never have an opportunity to put this into effect. It's poorly thought through and massively hypocritical. And it confirms the conservatives have a tin ear; as Lynton says, you can't fatten the pig on market day. These people are not going to vote conservative
0
reply
LordMarmalade
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Rinsed)
It's hardly regressive to distribute public assets to the sort of private individuals who live in social housing
You are confused. These are not public assets, they belong to private organisations.

but if you make the subsidy housing associations receive contingent upon the right to buy (it's already contingent on plenty of other regulations which don't affect ordinary landlords), they have the choice to either accept it or to not be housing associations any more.
Then it's a good thing the Conservatives are never going to have an opportunity to implement it.

By the way, this policy has just been slated by the CBI
0
reply
LordMarmalade
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by samba)
Do it properly, make the subsidies good, subsidise the construction end for the HA's to compensate as opposed to cash payments and reduce their greenbelt restrictions, and you could get good value.

Promising policy.
It's not a promising policy, it's a stupid policy and that's exactly what the CBI has just said

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...d-big-business

Unfortunately Tory supporters have become so blind that they will support any old dog of a policy no matter how ludicrous. The conservative party has lost its way, it is no longer a credible party of government.

It will really need to do some deep thinking in its time in opposition in the next parliament
0
reply
Moosferatu
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Their position is pretty complicated. They are private organisations, but they are sometimes considered public authorities for legal purposes. Either way, they are social enterprises and the government has no place transferring their assets to private individuals.
Classic neoliberalism - where the only goal is to disempower the people and transfer as much wealth as possible to the policymakers and their mates.

(Original post by Rinsed)
Right to buy is about giving people something to work for, and to aspire to. There is something very emotive about owning your own home, but we are talking about people who are never realistically going to get a mortgage at current prices. Even with the right to buy it will be an expense most people in housing association homes won't be able to afford, but at least they have a chance they didn't have before. It's hardly regressive to distribute public assets to the sort of private individuals who live in social housing.
Hand out other people's assets to a feckless underclass who doesn't have the means to manage it properly and will piss it up the wall. The very thing that makes your average Tories blood boil. The very thing that that ragged commie Blair did with everyone's money, thus (as the tale goes) causing a global financial crisis. Yet here we have Dave and his mates wanting to do just that but with a different window dressing!

Mind bending! Being able to chain more people in debt to devious private landlords who have no incentive to improve their stock can't be anything to do with it surely...
2
reply
LordMarmalade
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Rinsed)
Right to buy is about giving people something to work for, and to aspire to
That's perfectly fine; if they want to aspire to buy a home, then they should do it privately.

Why should they benefit in a way that will prevent future people from benefiting from living in a property at a social rent? And why enforce such a policy on mutual/co-operative type organisations whose operating principles and MO is clear?

It's authoritarian and thuggish. And it's stupid policy, as the CBI has said.
0
reply
samba
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by LordMarmalade)
It's not a promising policy, it's a stupid policy and that's exactly what the CBI has just said

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...d-big-business

Unfortunately Tory supporters have become so blind that they will support any old dog of a policy no matter how ludicrous. The conservative party has lost its way, it is no longer a credible party of government.

It will really need to do some deep thinking in its time in opposition in the next parliament
I'm a tory supporter? Lol.
0
reply
LordMarmalade
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by Moosferatu)
Hand out other people's assets to a feckless underclass who doesn't have the means to manage it properly and will piss it up the wall. The very thing that makes your average Tories blood boil. Yet here we have Dave and his mates wanting to do just that!

Mind bending! Being able to chain more people in debt to devious private landlords who have no incentive to improve their stock can't be anything to do with it surely...
It's a policy that driven purely by hatred of the social housing sector. They know these housing sales will damage it.

There is nothing preventing people having their own home in the housing association sector; people have very generous, very secure tenancies (that are often for life). That is having your own home.

Very shortly after those homes are sold, they will end up in the hands of buy-to-let landlords who will charge above a social rent. And the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab.

The thuggish conservatives are blighting the property rights of these private organisations for a moronic, ideological policy objective that will cost the taxpayer more money over time
0
reply
Moosferatu
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by LordMarmalade)
That's perfectly fine; if they want to aspire to buy a home, then they should do it privately.

Why should they benefit in a way that will prevent future people from benefiting from living in a property at a social rent? And why enforce such a policy on mutual/co-operative type organisations whose operating principles and MO is clear?

It's authoritarian and thuggish. And it's stupid policy, as the CBI has said.
Privatising everything will fix it. Four legs good two legs bad. Baaaa

The One Nation Tories would be turning in their graves.
0
reply
LordMarmalade
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by samba)
I'm a tory supporter? Lol.
:lol: You are not the centre of the universe, that comment was about Tories generally.

I don't really know or care what you are. Tory supporter? I don't know. Credulous? Definitely. But that's really irrelevant to my comment
0
reply
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by Moosferatu)
Hand out other people's assets to a feckless underclass who doesn't have the means to manage it properly and will piss it up the wall. The very thing that makes your average Tories blood boil. The very thing that that ragged commie Blair did with everyone's money, thus (as the tale goes) causing a global financial crisis. Yet here we have Dave and his mates wanting to do just that but with a different window dressing!

Mind bending! Being able to chain more people in debt to devious private landlords who have no incentive to improve their stock can't be anything to do with it surely...
Like it was said earlier, it seems extremely unlikely a conservative government would compulsory purchase housing association property and sell it to the tenants. This would become part of the arrangement by which housing associations get subsidy, which is not really the same thing.

That said, the part in bold is both extremely patronising to the working classes and just flat out wrong. One of the successes of the original right to buy was that once you own your own home you are much more likely to take pride in it. If you want to increase the value by doing improvements—even minor things like giving it a lick of paint or making the front garden presentable—you can in a way people simply do not in rented accommodation, both because they're not allowed to and because what's in it for them?

Other than that I think you're confused. Right to buy is not related to the sub-prime mortgage crisis (that's help to buy), and I have no idea what that last sentence even means. Who would be in debt to landlords? Why don't landlords want to improve their stock? Eh? :confused:
0
reply
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by LordMarmalade)
That's perfectly fine; if they want to aspire to buy a home, then they should do it privately.

Why should they benefit in a way that will prevent future people from benefiting from living in a property at a social rent? And why enforce such a policy on mutual/co-operative type organisations whose operating principles and MO is clear?

It's authoritarian and thuggish. And it's stupid policy, as the CBI has said.
It only hurts anyone in the scenario where these people would have been imminently moving out of social housing, and where stock is not going to be replaced. Actually the likelihood is they'd probably stay put indefinitely out of a lack of any other options. And if you believe the Tory promise that they'll build more to replace the sold stock, that's new homes for people that wouldn't have otherwise become available.

And I don't accept that it's authoritarian. The government doesn't have to subsidise these organisations on any terms.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How would you describe the quality of the digital skills you're taught at school?

Excellent (28)
9.62%
Okay (86)
29.55%
A bit lacking (105)
36.08%
Not good at all (72)
24.74%

Watched Threads

View All