Options

Selling off council housing 1980 - present. Was it a good idea?

ProgRockerProgRocker Posts: 1,325
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Posting about Margaret Thatcher in a recent thread reminded me:

Was her much lauded 'Right To Buy' scheme (or whatever it was) good for the UK?

Discuss. :)
«13456710

Comments

  • Options
    darkmothdarkmoth Posts: 12,265
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yes. Helped me to own my own home....every single property I have bought (3) has been ex council housing...I would never have been able to afford one that hadn't come from that system.
  • Options
    koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    It was one of the worst ideas ever.

    Pushed up house prices (which was good for the rich) and meant less housing for those in need rather than those in greed.
  • Options
    darkmothdarkmoth Posts: 12,265
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It was one of the worst ideas ever.

    Pushed up house prices (which was good for the rich) and meant less housing for those in need rather than those in greed.

    'in greed'?

    You don't think that people should be allowed to own their own homes and progress?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Selling them off was not a bad idea. Selling them off cut price and then not allowing councils to even spend the small amount that they got from the sale on new housing was a disastrous idea. The result was totally mental house price inflation and the state handing over billions in housing benefits to private landlords.
    Under my New Economic Plan the government would engage in a massive council house building campaign which would be financed in part from the phased reduction in housing benefits paid for private properties.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    darkmoth wrote: »
    'in greed'?

    You don't think that people should be allowed to own their own homes and progress?

    Of course they should be allowed to own them, and if a government built loads of new council houses, more people would be able to afford private ones because there wouldn't be such great demand. There are very, very few people who actually benefit from high house prices.
  • Options
    koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    darkmoth wrote: »
    'in greed'?

    You don't think that people should be allowed to own their own homes and progress?

    Not really and certainly not council homes that were built so that everyone could have a home.

    By buying a council home on the cheap you have helped raise rents and house prices.

    That has helped no one other than yourself.
  • Options
    darkmothdarkmoth Posts: 12,265
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Not really and certainly not council homes that were built so that everyone could have a home.

    By buying a council home on the cheap you have helped raise rents and house prices.

    That has helped no one other than yourself.

    But social housing should never be for 'life'...ideally it's there as a stop gap until you improve yourself.

    Everyone wants to improve themselves surely? You work...you earn...you have a home...you don't depend on the state for longer than absolutely necessary :)
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    darkmoth wrote: »
    But social housing should never be for 'life'...ideally it's there as a stop gap until you improve yourself.

    Everyone wants to improve themselves surely? You work...you earn...you have a home...you don't depend on the state for longer than absolutely necessary :)

    It shouldn't be social housing but council housing. That's what we used to have when I was a lad. It kept house prices down, and everyone was happy, even the middle-class house buyers.
    It's not so important to argue over what "should" happen, but what the result is in the real world.
    The end of council housing meant massive inflation, followed by massive collapse, followed by inflation etc. It's not good.
  • Options
    himerushimerus Posts: 3,040
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    darkmoth wrote: »
    'in greed'?

    You don't think that people should be allowed to own their own homes and progress?

    Not at cut prices, no. Most people have to pay the market rate.
  • Options
    culturemancultureman Posts: 11,701
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It was an electoral bribe Thatcher successfully employed, using other people's money.

    The nation's housing stock being sold well below market price, in order to create the short term illusion of a property owning democracy.
  • Options
    grumpyscotgrumpyscot Posts: 11,354
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Selling off council houses was the start of Britain selling off its assets. It started with housing, and ended up selling things like the Harrier jet - a truly magnificent British achievement - to the yanks, and some of our banks to Australians and Occidentals, companies mostly to the americans, and virtually all our manufacturing industry.

    And it wasn't all Magge's fault - Labour-run unions were largely to blame, as was the labour party later on under Tony B and Gordon Brown for bankrupting the UK.
  • Options
    koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    darkmoth wrote: »
    But social housing should never be for 'life'...ideally it's there as a stop gap until you improve yourself.

    Everyone wants to improve themselves surely? You work...you earn...you have a home...you don't depend on the state for longer than absolutely necessary :)

    Of course social housing should be for life, that is the whole point of it.

    How is buying a house improving ones self?

    I want a home to live in, not to make money from.

    I don't see it as depending on the state any more than people who work to buy a house have to rely on their job.
  • Options
    koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    cultureman wrote: »
    It was an electoral bribe Thatcher successfully employed, using other people's money.

    The nation's housing stock being sold well below market price, in order to create the short term illusion of a property owning democracy.

    That is the truth. We are paying for it now.
  • Options
    darkmothdarkmoth Posts: 12,265
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    flobadob wrote: »
    It shouldn't be social housing but council housing. That's what we used to have when I was a lad. It kept house prices down, and everyone was happy, even the middle-class house buyers.
    It's not so important to argue over what "should" happen, but what the result is in the real world.
    The end of council housing meant massive inflation, followed by massive collapse, followed by inflation etc. It's not good.

    I'm not old enough to know about some of those things :p

    Yes they should have built more with the proceeds...but I think that it was right that people had the chance to own their homes.
  • Options
    koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    grumpyscot wrote: »
    Selling off council houses was the start of Britain selling off its assets. It started with housing, and ended up selling things like the Harrier jet - a truly magnificent British achievement - to the yanks, and some of our banks to Australians and Occidentals, companies mostly to the americans, and virtually all our manufacturing industry.

    And it wasn't all Magge's fault - Labour-run unions were largely to blame, as was the labour party later on under Tony B and Gordon Brown for bankrupting the UK.
    Having foreign companies owning our utilities and other companies was another mistake.
    There's no way a foreign owned company would put the welfare of this country ahead of its own profits.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'd really like to get away from this idea of "social" housing. Council houses weren't built for the very poorest, for the unemployed, for single parents etc. - they were built for the average person. And that's what I would like to see again - council homes for normal people.
  • Options
    darkmothdarkmoth Posts: 12,265
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    That is the truth. We are paying for it now.

    But you're not paying for anything...you're getting the state to support your life..

    I have respect for people who work hard to pay back into society...and if that means they have the opportunity to not depend on the state for housing...good.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    darkmoth wrote: »
    I'm not old enough to know about some of those things :p

    Yes they should have built more with the proceeds...but I think that it was right that people had the chance to own their homes.

    Absolutely. No problem with that at all, as long as for every house that was sold off, another one was built.
  • Options
    PretinamaPretinama Posts: 6,069
    Forum Member
    Yes. It really worked for me.
  • Options
    koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    darkmoth wrote: »
    I'm not old enough to know about some of those things :p

    Yes they should have built more with the proceeds...but I think that it was right that people had the chance to own their homes.

    You do have the right to own your own home, but you shouldn't have the right to own council homes.

    If you want your own home, buy a privately built home for the extortionate cost it would have cost.
  • Options
    koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    darkmoth wrote: »
    But you're not paying for anything...you're getting the state to support your life..

    I have respect for people who work hard to pay back into society...and if that means they have the opportunity to not depend on the state for housing...good.

    It's a home. What is there to pay for?

    People are working hard just to pay for a home they could have had cheaply anyway.

    You can't take the money or home with you when you die. It is a roof over my head and protection from the elements.
  • Options
    Raring_to_goRaring_to_go Posts: 20,565
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I have no hesitation in saying in my opinion The Right to Buy was one of Margaret Thatcher's best policies.

    The tragedy was that we were lumbered with a Labour government that didn’t have a clue about how to keep up the good work.
  • Options
    DeniseDenise Posts: 12,961
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't think it was wrong to allow people to buy the houses but they should have been sold closer to market value and the money used to build replacements.
  • Options
    darkmothdarkmoth Posts: 12,265
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's a home. What is there to pay for?

    People are working hard just to pay for a home they could have had cheaply anyway.

    You can't take the money or home with you when you die. It is a roof over my head and protection from the elements.

    Very short sighted and short term view that...owning a home brings security for more than yourself...your family

    You're view is tainted by the fact that you've had everything handed on a plate to you..you've never had to put effort in
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 115
    Forum Member
    RE the opening post:
    Difficult question really. I live in an ex-council house and without tennents having the right to buy, I would probably not have found a house within my price range.

    The downside of course is that there are fewer properties available for 'social housing' as they call it. What a silly name that is!

    Anyway, there's my answer - I don't really have one! :)
Sign In or Register to comment.