"Like running a bath with no plug" is a great metaphor for the futility of right to buy as housing policy. If you track the sales of these properties, a majority eventually end up in the hands of private landlords, turning what was at one point a state asset that could be used to house people in need (and let's not forget that in decades past, you didn't have to be that needy to qualify for a council home, there used to be millions of middle class working families living in them), to a drain on public finances with housing benefit going into the pockets of private individuals.
This is why most councils and many housing associations are mainly investing in shared ownership schemes, if they're building housing at scale at all. Building for rent (which is what is needed to help the least financially secure households, and also more generally to encourage mobility of labour and get the economy moving) is a financial disaster because they know in the long run, they'll be forced to sell at a cut down price.
The whole idea behind right to buy was that if people owned the properties they lived in they would have more respect for the neighbourhood. As we now know this policy was and is fucking stupid when you don't have a replace part of the policy. The problem we have now is most MP's rent out second homes and most rich people own multiple homes so any chance of building loads of properties that people can afford is but a pipe dream because it will reduce property prices crashing part of the economy. We need to just say fuck that and do it. I grew up in deck access and high rise property so lets do that again.
The purpose of the policy was to turn Labour voting council house tenants into Tory voting homeowners. It was a cynical vote-grab that has set the UK house market on fire.
I genuinely don't understand where this kind of nonsense comes from.
The UK has been set on fire, pissed on to put out the flames then stomped on for nearly 15 years and as much as I don't like or trust Starmer, you fucking weirdos keep implying that Labour will do something or other to damage the country? Like what? Mismanage the economy? Destroy all public services?
Yeah and I'm 55 and have lived through Labour governments.
It was a time of growth, high employment, investment in infrastructure, record investment and efficiency in the NHS, higher life expectancy and genuine hope.
So, again, what the fuck are you talking about?
And they sold half our gold reserves for a knock down price, robbed the pension funds of working class people, and left a note in the Treasury saying there is no money left
You mean even more tits up than it already is right? Because there isn't an "again" in this, we're right into it, I moved out back home because of it, I came to the UK in 2014 to try and make a living of music and things were okay until 2022 when the cost of living crisis came in, if Labour manages to fuck it up even more they're up for a Guiness World Record
Yes, but with a difference. The Labour policy allowed Councils to reinvest the sale proceeds in new build council houses. The Tories for many years legislated to prevent this (although this has now changed).
Yes, but with a difference. The Labour policy allowed Councils to reinvest the sale proceeds in new build council houses. The Tories for many years legislated to prevent this (although this has now changed).
Labour’s original plan, back in the 1950s, did not offer a discount. How desperate are you Tories to try and blame problems of your own creation in 2024 on policy from 70+ years ago.
Yeah! Bloody Corbyn … wait… Blair? No? Thatcher was in power in 1987.
Thatcher?
Sod it, let’s just blame Corbyn.
‘The Labour Party was vehemently opposed to the Act but by the general election of 1987 had dropped its opposition to the Right to Buy. The Act allowed tenants who had lived in their homes for at least three years to buy at 33% discount of the market price and 44% for a flat.’
Yeah! Bloody Corbyn … wait… Blair? No? Thatcher was in power in 1987.
Thatcher?
Sod it, let’s just blame Corbyn. Bloody Labour Party messing things up for the last 14 years and forever before that.
‘The Labour Party was vehemently opposed to the Act but by the general election of 1987 had dropped its opposition to the Right to Buy. The Act allowed tenants who had lived in their homes for at least three years to buy at 33% discount of the market price and 44% for a flat.’
Edit: For anyone who thinks I’m serious… Let’s NOT blame Labour.
Yeah! Bloody Corbyn … wait… Blair? No? Thatcher was in power in 1987.
Thatcher - surely not a Conservative?
Sod it, let’s just blame Corbyn. Bloody Labour Party messing things up for the last 14 years and forever before that.
‘The Labour Party was vehemently opposed to the Act but by the general election of 1987 had dropped its opposition to the Right to Buy. The Act allowed tenants who had lived in their homes for at least three years to buy at 33% discount of the market price and 44% for a flat.’
Edit: For anyone who thinks I’m serious… Let’s NOT blame Labour.
Yeah! Bloody Corbyn … wait… Blair? No? Thatcher was in power in 1987.
Thatcher - surely not a Conservative?
Sod it, let’s just blame Corbyn. Bloody Labour Party messing things up for the last 14 years and forever before that.
It wasn’t Labour’s ‘idea’.
‘The Labour Party was vehemently opposed to the Act but by the general election of 1987 had dropped its opposition to the Right to Buy. The Act allowed tenants who had lived in their homes for at least three years to buy at 33% discount of the market price and 44% for a flat.’
Edit: For anyone who thinks I’m serious… Let’s NOT blame Labour.
The Labour Party initially proposed the idea of the right of tenants to own the house they live in, in their manifesto for the 1959 general election, which they lost.
Another problem is that the council houses built after the war were huge and bomb-proof. Anything replacing them from the 80s onwards are shoddy pokey little things.
I think it was more that, the whole idea behind right to buy was that if people owned the properties they lived in, they would become tories. They may have given different reasons publicly of course.
Yes, but with a difference. The Labour policy allowed Councils to reinvest the sale proceeds in new build council houses. The Tories for many years legislated to prevent this (although this has now changed).
Let me explain how housing economics work. You buy house and lets use £100k as an example. That means you get a 100k mortgage and the house is worth 100k. Great. Now lets say someone builds 1000 houses near your house. Capitalism is based on supply and demand. That 100k house is now worth 80k and you are in negative equity but lets say you don't have a mortgage. You just lost 20k from your house. If you own multiple homes that multiple 20k's and that adds up. Here's the fun part as those houses start to fall in value landlords decide it's not worth it anymore so they start to sell. Now it's worth 60k because supply is through the roof. That is the reason they will never embark on a home building exercise. Would you vote to lose 40k on all your properties? They won't even vote right on tenants rights because it will cost them money. The numbers used here are just examples but I hope you get an idea now of how corrupt our MP's are when it comes to housing. Selling their second homes would be a good start to them not being as corrupt and not just voting for things that benefit them.
Then it be very very easy to implement into the contract / restriction on title that the council has first refusal. I sold my mum home ex council back to the council at market rate. Very easy and simple and a family had moved in within a month. Also home
Right to buy gives people an opportunity to not get retirement and have rent to still pay and is a good investment in the long run. It also allows generational opportunity to get on the housing ladder. Imagine those poorer working class youngsters who have no chance of ever getting a council house while a whole generation was able to and benefit too.
The futility of any of these arguments is simple, building enough homes!! Councils and Central have never built enough in about 40 years probably longer. If people can’t sell their home it will always be occupied by the same people and the housing crisis would still be the same. Those on the waiting lists that likely numbers millions have only one option, the private sector anyway. As far as private landlords are concerned they’re now shrinking in total number.
The state under successive Tory and Labour governments have done nothing to ensure supply of new housing increases inline with demand and right to buy doesn’t negatively impact building houses that’s central and local government planning.
Also building houses doesn’t seem to ever catch up with a never ending year on year increase in demand for them. Having the right to buy a house shouldn’t stop better state policy towards providing them.
If the argument against the selling of council houses depletes revenue unsure why I’ve never seen that !
Logic would be sell then reinvest of course the council don’t get full market value but if you didn’t sell any you still need to build the same amount of houses just not with the revenue from a house sale. But of course right to buy probably should have a time frame before you get that right - giving them many years of good rental income.
The problem with this is that people sold the house that was supposed to be for social housing, thus depleting the offer on this type of housing.
Like a big f\*\*ing thank you to the council for free housing and free money. Social housing should never have the right to buy but the duty to pass it down to whomever is in need.
Many council houses just end up in private hands on the rent market. Even new social house builds are going down that path.
No, it's wrong.
To take your first point, R2B is precisely the thing that locks many younger people off the housing ladder because without the option of council housing, much depleted, they are forced to spend inordinate amounts of their income on the private rented sector. It didn't allow generational opportunity, the vast majority of properties ended up in the hands of BtL landlords. Meaning a direct wealth transfer from young to old for living in the same property their parents/grandparents got to live in cheap.
The rest continues to be wrong from there, including the bizarre idea that planning is a meaningful barrier to developers in this country.
No, they're quite correct.
They're describing how the system used to / should work. That the system has been corrupted / abused doesn't change that.
You're talking about how it is now. You're not responding to their comment, you're just talking past them.
No. The common understanding of "generational wealth" is capital that continues to endure from one generation to its successors. R2B is the opposite. It moved wealth from future generations to the one that cashed in. It would be difficult to be more wrong in a description.
You're completley backwards here.
If you buy a house, pay off the mortgage, and then leave that to your grandchildren either they've got a house, or a significant lump of cash.
*That* is generational wealth. You now have grandchildren who don't need to save for a downpayment, or possibly even pay at mortgage at all.
Oh FFS.
If you buy a house, die, your kids (multiple) flog it to a buy-to let landlord and then their kids end up in the private rented sector paying three or four times what you did as a share of income for an equivalent property THEY ARE THE ONES THAT PAID FOR THE INCREASE IN THE CAPITAL ASSET.
>Right to buy gives people an opportunity to not get retirement and have rent to still pay and is a good investment in the long run.
A good investment for the council tenants who basically got given a free house. A really bad investment for the council who lost hundreds of thousands of pounds AND spent years subsidizing the tenants.
> It also allows generational opportunity to get on the housing ladder. Imagine those poorer working class youngsters who have no chance of ever getting a council house while a whole generation was able to and benefit too.
The reason people cannot get council houses today is because of right to buy. If they hadn't sold off all the houses at a loss, they'd have a surplus of funds to house people.
>The futility of any of these arguments is simple, building enough homes!! Councils and Central have never built enough in about 40 years probably longer. If people can’t sell their home it will always be occupied by the same people and the housing crisis would still be the same. Those on the waiting lists that likely numbers millions have only one option, the private sector anyway. As far as private landlords are concerned they’re now shrinking in total number.
The reason they stopped building homes 40 years ago is because Thatcher introduced right to buy.
If a council house is worth £200k and is sold to the tenant for £140k, how do you expect the council to buy another £200k house with that £140k?
>The state under successive Tory and Labour governments have done nothing to ensure supply of new housing increases inline with demand and right to buy doesn’t negatively impact building houses that’s central and local government planning.
Why would they introduce new housing supply when right to buy means they'll be forced to sell it to tenants at a massive discount?
Right to buy makes building a new council house a massive waste of money
>Also building houses doesn’t seem to ever catch up with a never ending year on year increase in demand for them. Having the right to buy a house shouldn’t stop better state policy towards providing them.
It literally means that you cannot build houses without accounting for a £100k loss per house.
>If the argument against the selling of council houses depletes revenue unsure why I’ve never seen that !
It literally costs the local government 100k per house + lost rental revenue.
>Logic would be sell then reinvest of course the council don’t get full market value but if you didn’t sell any you still need to build the same amount of houses just not with the revenue from a house sale. But of course right to buy probably should have a time frame before you get that right - giving them many years of good rental income.
Council housing is rented out so cheaply that the revenue from it won't cover the £100k discount you'll give to the tenant
> The reason people cannot get council houses today is because of right to buy.
This is disingenuous.
The fault is not with Right to But, it's with the fact that housing stock hasn't been replenished to meet increased demand (and it's been sold to private landlords).
> If a council house is worth £200k and is sold to the tenant for £140k, how do you expect the council to buy another £200k house with that £140k?
Easy fix, sell it for £200,000 instead?
Also, you seem to misunderstand how council housing / estates work. Generally the construction would be done by the council. They're not just buying homes at market value and renting them at below market rate. That's unsustainable by any standard.
> Why would they introduce new housing supply when right to buy means they'll be forced to sell it to tenants at a massive discount?
To ensure people have housing?
> It literally means that you cannot build houses without accounting for a £100k loss per house.
There are alterantives, such as not selling at a loss.
Also, plenty of things the government does are at a loss, that doesn't make them bad things.
>This is disingenuous.
>The fault is not with Right to But, it's with the fact that housing stock hasn't been replenished to meet increased demand (and it's been sold to private landlords).
The stock cannot be replenished because you have given the council tenants the ability to purchase it at a lower price than it costs to replace it.
>Easy fix, sell it for £200,000 instead?
You cannot. Right to buy means they have to sell it at a 35 to 70% discount.
>Also, you seem to misunderstand how council housing / estates work. Generally the construction would be done by the council. They're not just buying homes at market value and renting them at below market rate. That's unsustainable by any standard.
They're building homes at the market rate. If it was cheaper to build a home than to buy a home, ftb would be snapping up the land to build homes.
>To ensure people have housing?
They have housing. They're literally in the taxpayer subsidised house.
>There are alterantives, such as not selling at a loss.
>Also, plenty of things the government does are at a loss, that doesn't make them bad things.
YOU CANNOT NOT SELL AT A LOSS UNDER RIGHT TO BUY. RIGHT TO BUY AS A CONCEPT MEANS THAT YOU ARE SELLING THE COUNCIL HOUSE TO A TENANT AT BELOW MARKET RATES.
EVERY SINGLE RIGHT TO BUY SALE IS A NET LOSS TO THE COUNCIL.
> The stock cannot be replenished because you have given the council tenants the ability to purchase it at a lower price than it costs to replace it.
This is a lie.
* 1) Purchasing stock, even at below market rate, does not inhibit replenishment of stock.
* 2) The cost to replace is lower than the market rate.
> You cannot. Right to buy means they have to sell it at a 35 to 70% discount.
Another lie.
This could very easily be changed.
> They're building homes at the market rate.
Market rate of construction cost, or sale value? Because those are not the same thing.
Regardless, my point stands. Councils could still build more housing.
> They have housing. They're literally in the taxpayer subsidised house.
Not everyone is.
> YOU CANNOT NOT SELL AT A LOSS UNDER RIGHT TO BUY.
YES YOU CAN. Right to Buy is not some law of physics. It's a law of government. It can be changed.
> RIGHT TO BUY AS A CONCEPT MEANS THAT YOU ARE SELLING THE COUNCIL HOUSE TO A TENANT AT BELOW MARKET RATES.
YOU ARE WRONG.
Right to Buy as a concept simply means allowing someone who currently pays rent to the council, to purchase that home from the council.
That's it. That's the concept. Anything else is just policy.
> EVERY SINGLE RIGHT TO BUY SALE IS A NET LOSS TO THE COUNCIL.
THIS CAN BE CHANGED
You've said that things could be changed, but these are the absolute prime concepts of Right to Buy. Selling at a loss with the money being sent to central government *is* Right to Buy.
Saying those things can be changed is saying that Right to Buy should be scrapped.
> these are the absolute prime concepts of Right to Buy
They are not.
The concept of Right to Buy is simply: people living in government subsidised housing, having the right / ability to purchase that housing.
That's it. Anything else is policy, and policy can be amended.
> Saying those things can be changed is saying that Right to Buy should be scrapped.
This is false. You have a fundemental misunderstanding of the situation.
The concept of right to buy is to provide council tenants who are living in subsidized housing the right to purchase their council property at a discount.
The problem that Burnham and every major economist has with the policy is the discount.
>Purchasing stock, even at below market rate, does not inhibit replenishment of stock.
The sale of stock at below market rates means that there's no money to replace it.
>The cost to replace is lower than the market rate.
By a few thousand, not by the discounted amount.
If it was 100k cheaper to build rather than buy, everyone would simply build houses.
>Another lie.
>This could very easily be changed.
It's not a lie. That's literally what the policy is.
>Market rate of construction cost, or sale value? Because those are not the same thing.
It's not 40k to 100k cheaper to build a house in Manchester than it is to buy one.
>Regardless, my point stands. Councils could still build more housing.
With what money?
> The concept of right to buy is to provide council tenants who are living in subsidized housing the right to purchase their council property
This is correct.
> at a discount
This is not.
That's been part of the policy, but it's not part of the concept. Right to Buy can work perfectly well without selling at a discount. Additionally, discount =/= below market rate.
> The problem that Burnham and every major economist has with the policy is the discount.
Then remove the discount, and build more housing.
> The sale of stock at below market rates means that there's no money to replace it.
This is a complete failure to understand how government works. This is not a private business.
> It's not a lie. That's literally what the policy is.
It is a lie. You're stating that Right to Buy cannot be seperated from the "35 to 70% discount".
It very much can be.
> With what money?
The central government should be giving them more money.
The ability to buy your council home existed prior to the introduction of "right to buy". Everyone in the UK apart from you seems to understand that the right to buy as a concept refers to the discount, not at market price.
>Additionally, discount =/= below market rate.
Actually by definition, it's below the market value of home.
>>You can get a discount on the market value of your home when you buy it if you qualify for Right to Buy.
https://www.gov.uk/right-to-buy-buying-your-council-home/discounts
>This is a complete failure to understand how government works. This is not a private business.
It's how our government works. The budget of our local government is limited.
>The central government should be giving them more money.
Neither political party in the UK would do this.
> Everyone in the UK apart from you seems to understand that the right to buy as a concept refers to the discount, not at market price.
It isn't part of the concept. It's part of the policy. The policy can be changed whilst keeping the concept.
I don't know how to explain this any simpler for you.
> Actually by definition, it's below the market value of home.
Actually, it isn't. A discount could mean sold at cost without profit.
> It's how our government works. The budget of our local government is limited.
*Which can be changed*
> Neither political party in the UK would do this.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
You're 100% correct.
I can't understand this attitude that crops up around R2B that everyone should rent for life, instead of being able to own their own home.
Presumably these people are all landlords?
Not everyone wants to buy a house. And I'd rather my money went to the council to be reinvested into the community than a private landlords back account.
Eliminating right to buy, or any other non "build more housing" policies are inconsequential in the grand scheme of the housing crisis.
Somebody lives in the house, it doesn't really matter who owns the house because still only one household can live there. The only reason that it's become a "drain on public finances with housing benefit going into the pockets of private individuals" is because councils have repeatedly blocked perfectly sound planning applications in the name of NIMBYism.
The only housing policy that will work is to build more, and once again - it doesn't matter who does the building or owning. Increase supply, prices reduce (or stop rising so fast), everybody's happ(y/ier).
Thing is with private landlordism and buying for portfolio - build one house, they'll buy them up. Build 100 houses, they'll buy them up. You can't keep prices high if you're not in control of the stock.
Building more homes doesn't help if you don't control who can buy those homes.
It's the same as ticket scalping.
Agreed - the only way forward is to put a legal limit on the number of properties one can own.
One per adult would be my suggestion.
There is no ethical way you can buy up a home someone else could own and then rent it to them for profit. No ethical way.
No, because then you essentially elimate capitalism and keep slummers in the slums whilst all the elite rich keep their already accumulated wealth. It kneecaps everybody except those already established.
You tax the rich appropriately. You tax them on their assets, and you increase tax / fees for each additional property asset they come to purchase, tapering up so that it becomes detrimental to own - and establishing a tax reduction system for all and any fees for each individual property, evaluated annually, for every property that provides rent at tiered X% below market value (because for the ultra wealthy, they'll take financial loss short-term for huge gains long-term - might as well have the population benefit by suppressing market rent). You also close up all the loopholes that enable smoking who the true owner is through various SPV's etc. - that won't ever be a perfect system so then you establish a no-requirement manual investigation to anybody at any time to investigate true assets for appropriate tax - and you fine them heavily for intent to conceal. You use that entire pot of money for additional property creation.
That's a baseline.
Right sentiment stupid idea. Last time we solved the housing crisis we drove private investment out though tax, regulation and shame. In doing that we oversaw the greatest increase in living standards, growth, and social mobility in the last 70 years.
Absolutely tax the rich, also limit their ability to own residential property, the state buyd it back as we did previously, renovated the slums, as we did previously, and rents them back out for social rents, with the income used for infrastructure and new social rebut, you increase loving standards and use public money to reduce inequality. This delivered better properties at an average rent of 7% of the average salary in 1981 when council housing made up more than 3/4 of all rental stock.
What is the plan for people who don't want to own right now, students etc? Purpose built student accom? Genuine question, I don't want to/can't buy right now but I also don't want a shared kitchen haha
Pension companies have entire blocks for rent. It’s professionally done and they are accountable unlike private landlords.
Manchester Life properties for example is owned by the Greater Manchester Pension Fund.
One of the Deansgate Square towers is owned by I think L&G.
The difference is you can call them out if they mistreat people, but if you’re dealing with some nefarious person from London who nobody knows you’re less likely to get progress (and face no fault evictions etc)
it's a bit like that but it still feels incredibly dodgy to me. pensions companies and sovereign wealth funds own a lot of state infrastructure but they don't exactly do a good job. they just want money coming in from the investment. I still don't think their priorities are entirely there.
The problem you have As seen on the continent, Is when private companies start to control a market they take advantage of it. And you may think they’re controllable, but look at water in this country.
Meant to be regulated and gone to shit.
Those needs should, and have in the past, been fulfilled by state/council housing except for maybe student accommodation. It's probably okay for student housing to be fulfilled by a combination of uni accom, private accom, and council accom.
Just tax land ownership with an exemption or lower rate for your primary residence.
You don't need to control who buys houses, just fix the incentives and disincentives.
That's not really a big problem though as if you build hundreds of thousands of new homes all bought by private, landlords there will be a surplus of rental homes and rents will come down (or not increase...) this means either it better for renters, or yields go down and houses all for less as the landlords have let returns.
There are many factors in the cost of housing in the UK and small things that could change, but 80% of the problem is "not enough houses built"
Whether they are council or privately built, sold or rented, luxury flats, studios or family homes, all house building increases the amount of places to live and will help.
There's a surplus of over 200,000 homes already that are just being sat on (https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/how-many-empty-homes-are-there-in-the-uk/#:~:text=The%20most%20recent%20government%20statistics,before%20the%20pandemic%20in%202019) - yes, new homes will help but there needs to be regulation on who can buy them. Because even if rents did come down due to landlord oversupply, that still leaves fewer homes for people to buy for themselves. Or, if rents drop below mortgage value due to demand, landlords sell up and then the deciding factor is mortgage rates and not rental rates.
I'm not going to disagree that more homes are needed. But that's what they need to be, homes, not investment portfolio.
Well it's not a surplus of 200,000 houses being sat on. 260,000 empty homes for a population of 70 million when we've got a shortage of like 5 million homes is nothing. And many of them aren't in places people want to live. And also having empty houses is fine and good, running at 100% capacity is bad.
Build houses that can only ever be sold to first time buyers, if you sell then the next buyer also has to be a first time buyer. This is probably the easiest and very simplest ways to stop the insane price creep and exorbitant rent prices.
The simplest thing would be to abolish buy to let mortgages. The year BTL mortgages became legal (1996) was the year housing prices began to skyrocket and it never stopped... well apart from a few years because of the 2008 financial crisis.
[https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/uk-house-prices.png](https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/uk-house-prices.png)
Landlords just began hoovering up properties at this point.
Its surprising to me that banks will lend on BTL, but not on just some investment into a global index fund. That's insane. The average BTL investment is waaaay riskier than an index fund. Never really understood that.
I completely agree we need new council homes, can we please not make them look like brutalist prisons though? I’m a big believer that the environment we live in shapes us in subtle ways, and I can’t help but feel that having a load of generally underprivileged kids growing up in those horrible post-war prison blocks had a psychological effect that often gets overlooked.
I’m not, by the way, suggesting that it’s more of an issue than chronic lack of funding in social issues, or the lack of opportunities presented to those from difficult circumstances. But I do think it has an effect.
I agree. Why do they have to be the same bland red brick terrace blocks. What is the point of making everything look the same across the entire country. Having a style is one thing…
Manchester has a lot of geographic diversity; rivers, wetlands, fields, moors and heathland. Neighbourhoods could be unique to each ‘biome’.
Or give people the means to build their own homes. There are so many architects and local construction firms that would benefit. Not for council homes but a housing market for people by people. Natural city growth, vernacular architecture, cheaper homes. There is limited space but houses always need refurbishing.
I also think how a place looks contributes massively to its culture. People who grew up around nature appear to be more fulfilled. They are letting the same faceless, unaccountable corporations shape the way we live.
Red brick terraces are the vernacular around here... They're cheap to build, they're solid, they're warm. We live in one, over 100 years old - lovely house, feels very Northern too.
Brutalism is beautiful. There is tremendous beauty in its utilitarian function. Far, far better than any bollocks that's been built within the past 30 years.
The philosophy behind brutalism was nice, a blank canvas to be painted on and embleshed by the community who lives there. Sad reality is those communities are often too poor to actually realistically do anything like this so they just become the poster child for oppressive architecture.
> The philosophy behind brutalism was nice, a blank canvas to be painted on and embleshed by the community who lives there.
Have you just made that up? I've never seen brutalism proposed, used, or theorised to be about that.
The UK have been building pigeon huts to live in for centuries now. We’re behind western Europe, New Zealand, Australia and most of America when it comes to living accommodation.
This is exactly what the country needs.
Housing is by far the biggest issue in the UK atm, and this plan is what anyone with a brain has been crying out for for years. End right to buy, end the fog of individualism that Thatcher created and build lots of high quality council houses. Like governments of old, when they actually cared about their citizens.
I'll still hold my breath for the time being but I'm very interested in seeing the actual details.
I also have to say, much as there is that I don’t like about Starmer, his housing policy is very good. Obviously whether he delivers on it is a different question, but unlike other policy areas where he’s been deliberately vague, he actually does have a solid foundation with regards to housing - particular overhauling the unbelievably outdated planning process that grants far too much power to local NIMBY’s in blocking much-needed developments.
It’s probably the one major reason I’m backing Labour aside from them not being the Tories. Housing is the biggest economic issue and it is gradually becoming a significant social issue too - if it isn’t already. The tories aren’t going to solve this problem because they’re too in bed with the rural anti-housing groups, the Greens aren’t going to solve it because they’re not interested in building anything at all, the Lib Dem’s aren’t going to solve it because they rely on local-issues campaigns to win seats and that usually manifests itself as backing the latest petition to block new developments.
The fact that Labour, despite their overly-cautious campaign strategy, have adopted the necessary but incredibly electorally risky proposal to develop on the green belt (brilliantly spun as the ‘grey belt’) suggests that they might actually be taking this issue seriously. Honestly even if they’re shit at everything else, if they can solve the housing crisis they instantly become the most effective government of my lifetime.
'Just make sure they're not built near me. Don't want the poors living next door driving down the value of my house.' - every NIMBY who used right to buy
I think we also need to stop listing apartments for sale to investors only. I would love to buy a flat but every one I see is either cash only or investors only and I don’t fancy paying 1200 a month just on rent
I can't blame councils for not building homes. Why would you go to the expense of building something when you're going to be forced to sell it at a loss 3 years later?
Fuck buy to let. You want to buy a house? Buy a private one! The tax payer doesn't owe you a discount subsidy so you can buy something well below market value
At least 1000 new council houses per borough? So that means that some well-to-do areas will be getting a lot more council housing and the associated problems. Interesting. A lot of people support it in principle but I wonder the reaction when the plans come through for their doorstep.
I mean yes, integrating council housing within the well to do areas is literally excellent policy, as otherwise you'll be building ghettos.
There's already council housing within ancoats, yet ancoats is a really desirable place to live.
The more you build, the more people can qualify. Right now council homes have massive waiting lists, and as such are only a practical option for the truly desperate. But they used to be for people from all walks of life.
Where did I say that?
That did spark a train of thought though. Building more homes for social rent might increase the population, in a roundabout way. People struggling with the cost of living generally put off settling down and starting families, although the evidence is mixed around whether it puts people off from having kids entirely in the long run, or just causes them to delay such plans. But if we lowered housing costs then that would probably lead to couples becoming parents younger and having larger families.
If you have to wait a decade or more, in any practical sense, you don't actually qualify though. Because the stock of council housing is so low, the only people who can realistically ever end up in a council home are people whose need for secure housing is extremely dire.
Doesn't that create a first move disadvantage? I.e. any borough that builds a ton of council houses right now will be getting only the most desperate. If you wait until everyone else has done it, you'll get more of a socioeconomic mix. Strong incentive to delay
No. In most local authorities you have to either live in the area, or have a local connection (usually a family member or work) to qualify for the housing register. The govt's also planning to make that mandatory for all local authorities. That means you won't see the displacement you're talking about, because people aren't able to up sticks somewhere they don't already live, just to get on the register.
Also, almost every LA has high levels of desperate people on their housing register, that doesn't vary much by area (although London is generally worse). Some areas like Sheffield still have an open register, but very few, and they legally have to prioritise people in need anyway.
People who qualify. That’s how social housing works. It does not work on the basis of your personal prejudices. Happy to educate you which let’s face it is a whole new experience for you. 😉
Ok, so if London's council houses are any indication they'll tax the English to house 10000 people who just got off the boat this year. Cool. Based even.
You're a fucking moron. The government is [literally giving you](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-reforms-to-social-housing-allocations/consultation-on-reforms-to-social-housing-allocations#uk-connection-test) all the red meat your prejudice demands, and you don't even know it.
> People who work or people on benefits?
You're showing your ignorance assuming that these are mutually exclusive. 38% of people on Universal Credit are in work. (Which often means that UC is acting as a public subsidy to employers who don't pay enough to live on).
Obviously building 10,000 new homes is a great thing. But I feel like the infrastructure of Manchester is already pretty stretched. I used to live out towards Worsley and trying to get anywhere around rush hour (am or pm), or on a weekend was just a no-go. I recently moved out of Manchester because it already felt overcrowded.
There needs to be some fundamental changes in government before things will change. The government has been far too happy to fob off the regular joe in favour of making their friends rich.
That goes for all politicians.
only the roads are clogged, everything else has tonnes of room to grow. we should limit the number of cars and create alternative modes of transportation
Ok, fair enough, houses for the needy, etc, but how about houses for those that work and still can’t afford them? Why aren’t they ever mentioned? Because, you know, I’m getting a bit tired of paying both rent *and* taxes. But because I work, I’m not needy enough.
Burnham is a bullsh\*t artist. The 50,000 affordable homes target was recently dropped from the Greater Manchester spatial plan, and now Burnham is pledging to build 10,000?? These 10,000 homes will be delivered by the developers through section 106 commitments in any case! Burnham is promising to "deliver" something that will be done by someone else. Manchester only has itself to blame for electing a scouser...
He can't really instigate the building of council homes himself but he has a lot of sway to get the ball rolling. The main bottleneck for councils is funding from the government which the last 8 years of Tory austerity and the cap on council tax rises hasn't helped with. Can't exactly build anything if you barely have money to collect the bins, let alone purchase land and pay contractors.
Don't act like he hasn't done alot for Manchester i mean all you gotta do is look at the skyline he's created so many new jobs Yeah houses price have gone up hasn't the rest of the country
Hear me out. Maybe its a crazy idea but council houses should only be sold back to the council (to go back to social housing) or to first home buyers and not to private landlords with a portfolio.
What do you mean? Why people buy the house they have the Right to Buy due to The Housing Act 1980?
Or why was Right to Buy allowed to exist?
It was a major success back in the 80s and made many many people happy. It was a major shift of state property to the people. Everyone thought it was good.
40 years later, maybe not that much.
I mean your idea is bonkers as why sell them then buy back at a loss.
All it has done is make people happy by making them richer and in the process taken 2 million homes away from councils.
You have to sell them because its their right to buy. That is not my idea, that was Thatcher's.
Also you are ignoring my main point, which was to sell to first home buyers.
Having the ability to sell to the council doesn't mean the council will want it back.
I believe we are living in two different worlds.
It wasn’t thatchers idea. It was labours, in their 1959 manifesto.
It should be abolished. Asap.
The state should not sell much needed assets, especially ones that are essential for day to day life and those who need it most, to people or business to profit from.
We’re furious at how water has been treated. But can’t connect the dots that RTB has handed wealth to those who haven’t worked for it. And left a legacy of suffering to those who need housing most.
The right of council's to sell housing was implemented by you're in the early 1900s the Labour government of 1945 restricted it but that restriction was overturned in 1952 by the conservative government. Labor proposed the right to buy in 1959 as one prong to answer of increased rent and reduced housing quality delivered by the previous Tory governments who had overseen a collapse in council house building. Tory policy had been to give public money to incentivise private enterprise to build rental housing had failed, it had resulted in higher rents and low quality slums. Labour's 1959 plan was to repeal the rent act to lower rents, build rent controlled council housing, and buy the privately ran slums to improve them and then rent out. Right to buy in 1959 was meant as a protection against the return of Tory policy promoting rogue landlords, and importantly there was no mention of a discount. The Thatcher introduced right to buy was an entirely different prospect. She sold it at a discount and pocketed the cash without replacing stock, and so has every government since as they've all been tory. Also she provided a room of other utilities which pressured worker finances further and continue to do so today.
To say simply "it was Labours idea" is a little misleading.
Someone deleted their comment about where you could possibly build any new homes in Stockport, so I'll reply to you instead as concerns around the green belt are tangentially related. Personally I think they should target underutilized brownfield sites for "infill" development. e.g. a lot of the area around Stockport station is things like low density light industrial buildings, and surface car parks. Could change it to be a modern mixed-use town centre. Better to build there than on the outskirts of town where it will be harder to provide amenities like transport, education, healthcare, easy access to healthy groceries etc.
To make the most of these locations, I also think the approach should be to build up. Not necessarily high rises (although that would make sense in at least some high opportunity locations) but certainly mid / low rise flats. These are cheaper to build than big towers (construction methods / materials aren't necessarily that much different than building a house) and still provide improved density over something like terraced houses. So I think 3-7 storey blocks should be the bulk of what's built.
There are loads of derelict buildings and industrial rubble sites around. I notice they've finally demolished Charlton House near the cricket ground, probably to build flats.
Most of the greenbelt is just industrialised farmland, there's more biodiversity in the city centre than there is on a farm... We can afford to take off the green noose.
I've seen both grass AND daffodils in Sackville Gardens! That's twice the number of species than in a typical crop field! Everything other than the target crop is weeded out.
It goes like this - when the Tories plan to build on Greenbelt it's bad and Labour councils block the plans. When Labour plan to build on Greenbelt it's good.
A big issue that I have about this is who is going to be building them?
The policy up until now seems to be for councils to give away millions of pounds worth of land to private investors in exchange for 10 out of 100 new built homes on the land being affordable housing.
I fear it's going to be more of the same.
Yea he pledged to end rough sleeping nearly a decade ago. That worked out well didn't it?
It's one thing to pledge something, but it takes actual work to make it happen in reality.
"Like running a bath with no plug" is a great metaphor for the futility of right to buy as housing policy. If you track the sales of these properties, a majority eventually end up in the hands of private landlords, turning what was at one point a state asset that could be used to house people in need (and let's not forget that in decades past, you didn't have to be that needy to qualify for a council home, there used to be millions of middle class working families living in them), to a drain on public finances with housing benefit going into the pockets of private individuals. This is why most councils and many housing associations are mainly investing in shared ownership schemes, if they're building housing at scale at all. Building for rent (which is what is needed to help the least financially secure households, and also more generally to encourage mobility of labour and get the economy moving) is a financial disaster because they know in the long run, they'll be forced to sell at a cut down price.
The whole idea behind right to buy was that if people owned the properties they lived in they would have more respect for the neighbourhood. As we now know this policy was and is fucking stupid when you don't have a replace part of the policy. The problem we have now is most MP's rent out second homes and most rich people own multiple homes so any chance of building loads of properties that people can afford is but a pipe dream because it will reduce property prices crashing part of the economy. We need to just say fuck that and do it. I grew up in deck access and high rise property so lets do that again.
The purpose of the policy was to turn Labour voting council house tenants into Tory voting homeowners. It was a cynical vote-grab that has set the UK house market on fire.
Working class for life. I'll never vote Tory.
Give it a couple of years, when these jokers take charge and it all goes Tits up again
It’s already gone tits up. The last 14 years have ruined this country.
It's been tits up for a decade and a half.
I genuinely don't understand where this kind of nonsense comes from. The UK has been set on fire, pissed on to put out the flames then stomped on for nearly 15 years and as much as I don't like or trust Starmer, you fucking weirdos keep implying that Labour will do something or other to damage the country? Like what? Mismanage the economy? Destroy all public services?
I'm 69 and have lived through Labour governments, you will see
Yeah and I'm 55 and have lived through Labour governments. It was a time of growth, high employment, investment in infrastructure, record investment and efficiency in the NHS, higher life expectancy and genuine hope. So, again, what the fuck are you talking about?
I bet ya.. without doubt.. That guy comments on the MEN online comments sections.
And they sold half our gold reserves for a knock down price, robbed the pension funds of working class people, and left a note in the Treasury saying there is no money left
Now do the Tories.
Name does not check
Because it's all going so well currently? Name one good thing the Tories have done since they got in power over a decade ago. I'll wait
Annoy you
You mean even more tits up than it already is right? Because there isn't an "again" in this, we're right into it, I moved out back home because of it, I came to the UK in 2014 to try and make a living of music and things were okay until 2022 when the cost of living crisis came in, if Labour manages to fuck it up even more they're up for a Guiness World Record
Maybe. Certainly the discounts were significant but it was originally a Labour policy.
Yes, but with a difference. The Labour policy allowed Councils to reinvest the sale proceeds in new build council houses. The Tories for many years legislated to prevent this (although this has now changed).
Yeah, it was to further create a divide, people with less investment in society have less reason to vote.
And I could never work out where all the money went when many properties were bought at the beginning. Anyone else know?
Labour came up with the idea.
Yes, but with a difference. The Labour policy allowed Councils to reinvest the sale proceeds in new build council houses. The Tories for many years legislated to prevent this (although this has now changed).
It won’t work. The discount is too great to make it feasible to build anything with the proceeds.
Labour’s original plan, back in the 1950s, did not offer a discount. How desperate are you Tories to try and blame problems of your own creation in 2024 on policy from 70+ years ago.
Source?
Common knowledge. Google it you can find it.
Yeah! Bloody Corbyn … wait… Blair? No? Thatcher was in power in 1987. Thatcher? Sod it, let’s just blame Corbyn. ‘The Labour Party was vehemently opposed to the Act but by the general election of 1987 had dropped its opposition to the Right to Buy. The Act allowed tenants who had lived in their homes for at least three years to buy at 33% discount of the market price and 44% for a flat.’
Yeah! Bloody Corbyn … wait… Blair? No? Thatcher was in power in 1987. Thatcher? Sod it, let’s just blame Corbyn. Bloody Labour Party messing things up for the last 14 years and forever before that. ‘The Labour Party was vehemently opposed to the Act but by the general election of 1987 had dropped its opposition to the Right to Buy. The Act allowed tenants who had lived in their homes for at least three years to buy at 33% discount of the market price and 44% for a flat.’ Edit: For anyone who thinks I’m serious… Let’s NOT blame Labour.
Yeah! Bloody Corbyn … wait… Blair? No? Thatcher was in power in 1987. Thatcher - surely not a Conservative? Sod it, let’s just blame Corbyn. Bloody Labour Party messing things up for the last 14 years and forever before that. ‘The Labour Party was vehemently opposed to the Act but by the general election of 1987 had dropped its opposition to the Right to Buy. The Act allowed tenants who had lived in their homes for at least three years to buy at 33% discount of the market price and 44% for a flat.’ Edit: For anyone who thinks I’m serious… Let’s NOT blame Labour.
Yeah! Bloody Corbyn … wait… Blair? No? Thatcher was in power in 1987. Thatcher - surely not a Conservative? Sod it, let’s just blame Corbyn. Bloody Labour Party messing things up for the last 14 years and forever before that. It wasn’t Labour’s ‘idea’. ‘The Labour Party was vehemently opposed to the Act but by the general election of 1987 had dropped its opposition to the Right to Buy. The Act allowed tenants who had lived in their homes for at least three years to buy at 33% discount of the market price and 44% for a flat.’ Edit: For anyone who thinks I’m serious… Let’s NOT blame Labour.
The Labour Party initially proposed the idea of the right of tenants to own the house they live in, in their manifesto for the 1959 general election, which they lost.
and the Tories agreed evidently.
Another problem is that the council houses built after the war were huge and bomb-proof. Anything replacing them from the 80s onwards are shoddy pokey little things.
I think it was more that, the whole idea behind right to buy was that if people owned the properties they lived in, they would become tories. They may have given different reasons publicly of course.
I never thought of it that way. Can't see many mancs switching to Tory though.
At the time Right to Buy came in the Tories had 23 councillors and an MP in Manchester, and had in fact run the city eight years prior.
Manchester had a Tory council? Really? When was that?
1967-1971
Interesting - I always thought it was Labour.
A brief flash of blue between generations of red
Sounds almost erotic
Well that backfired 🤣
It was originally a Labour idea.
Yes, but with a difference. The Labour policy allowed Councils to reinvest the sale proceeds in new build council houses. The Tories for many years legislated to prevent this (although this has now changed).
There are what, 600 and odd MPs? Do you think if they all sold their second homes it would solve the housing crisis?
Let me explain how housing economics work. You buy house and lets use £100k as an example. That means you get a 100k mortgage and the house is worth 100k. Great. Now lets say someone builds 1000 houses near your house. Capitalism is based on supply and demand. That 100k house is now worth 80k and you are in negative equity but lets say you don't have a mortgage. You just lost 20k from your house. If you own multiple homes that multiple 20k's and that adds up. Here's the fun part as those houses start to fall in value landlords decide it's not worth it anymore so they start to sell. Now it's worth 60k because supply is through the roof. That is the reason they will never embark on a home building exercise. Would you vote to lose 40k on all your properties? They won't even vote right on tenants rights because it will cost them money. The numbers used here are just examples but I hope you get an idea now of how corrupt our MP's are when it comes to housing. Selling their second homes would be a good start to them not being as corrupt and not just voting for things that benefit them.
Thatchers legacy, she knew!
Then it be very very easy to implement into the contract / restriction on title that the council has first refusal. I sold my mum home ex council back to the council at market rate. Very easy and simple and a family had moved in within a month. Also home Right to buy gives people an opportunity to not get retirement and have rent to still pay and is a good investment in the long run. It also allows generational opportunity to get on the housing ladder. Imagine those poorer working class youngsters who have no chance of ever getting a council house while a whole generation was able to and benefit too. The futility of any of these arguments is simple, building enough homes!! Councils and Central have never built enough in about 40 years probably longer. If people can’t sell their home it will always be occupied by the same people and the housing crisis would still be the same. Those on the waiting lists that likely numbers millions have only one option, the private sector anyway. As far as private landlords are concerned they’re now shrinking in total number. The state under successive Tory and Labour governments have done nothing to ensure supply of new housing increases inline with demand and right to buy doesn’t negatively impact building houses that’s central and local government planning. Also building houses doesn’t seem to ever catch up with a never ending year on year increase in demand for them. Having the right to buy a house shouldn’t stop better state policy towards providing them. If the argument against the selling of council houses depletes revenue unsure why I’ve never seen that ! Logic would be sell then reinvest of course the council don’t get full market value but if you didn’t sell any you still need to build the same amount of houses just not with the revenue from a house sale. But of course right to buy probably should have a time frame before you get that right - giving them many years of good rental income.
The problem with this is that people sold the house that was supposed to be for social housing, thus depleting the offer on this type of housing. Like a big f\*\*ing thank you to the council for free housing and free money. Social housing should never have the right to buy but the duty to pass it down to whomever is in need. Many council houses just end up in private hands on the rent market. Even new social house builds are going down that path.
Almost everything you've said is wrong.
But it isn’t. You just don’t agree with it.
No, it's wrong. To take your first point, R2B is precisely the thing that locks many younger people off the housing ladder because without the option of council housing, much depleted, they are forced to spend inordinate amounts of their income on the private rented sector. It didn't allow generational opportunity, the vast majority of properties ended up in the hands of BtL landlords. Meaning a direct wealth transfer from young to old for living in the same property their parents/grandparents got to live in cheap. The rest continues to be wrong from there, including the bizarre idea that planning is a meaningful barrier to developers in this country.
No, they're quite correct. They're describing how the system used to / should work. That the system has been corrupted / abused doesn't change that. You're talking about how it is now. You're not responding to their comment, you're just talking past them.
No. The common understanding of "generational wealth" is capital that continues to endure from one generation to its successors. R2B is the opposite. It moved wealth from future generations to the one that cashed in. It would be difficult to be more wrong in a description.
You're completley backwards here. If you buy a house, pay off the mortgage, and then leave that to your grandchildren either they've got a house, or a significant lump of cash. *That* is generational wealth. You now have grandchildren who don't need to save for a downpayment, or possibly even pay at mortgage at all.
Oh FFS. If you buy a house, die, your kids (multiple) flog it to a buy-to let landlord and then their kids end up in the private rented sector paying three or four times what you did as a share of income for an equivalent property THEY ARE THE ONES THAT PAID FOR THE INCREASE IN THE CAPITAL ASSET.
So the issue there is you doing a shit job raising your children isn't it. Financial illiteracy is not an argument.
>Right to buy gives people an opportunity to not get retirement and have rent to still pay and is a good investment in the long run. A good investment for the council tenants who basically got given a free house. A really bad investment for the council who lost hundreds of thousands of pounds AND spent years subsidizing the tenants. > It also allows generational opportunity to get on the housing ladder. Imagine those poorer working class youngsters who have no chance of ever getting a council house while a whole generation was able to and benefit too. The reason people cannot get council houses today is because of right to buy. If they hadn't sold off all the houses at a loss, they'd have a surplus of funds to house people. >The futility of any of these arguments is simple, building enough homes!! Councils and Central have never built enough in about 40 years probably longer. If people can’t sell their home it will always be occupied by the same people and the housing crisis would still be the same. Those on the waiting lists that likely numbers millions have only one option, the private sector anyway. As far as private landlords are concerned they’re now shrinking in total number. The reason they stopped building homes 40 years ago is because Thatcher introduced right to buy. If a council house is worth £200k and is sold to the tenant for £140k, how do you expect the council to buy another £200k house with that £140k? >The state under successive Tory and Labour governments have done nothing to ensure supply of new housing increases inline with demand and right to buy doesn’t negatively impact building houses that’s central and local government planning. Why would they introduce new housing supply when right to buy means they'll be forced to sell it to tenants at a massive discount? Right to buy makes building a new council house a massive waste of money >Also building houses doesn’t seem to ever catch up with a never ending year on year increase in demand for them. Having the right to buy a house shouldn’t stop better state policy towards providing them. It literally means that you cannot build houses without accounting for a £100k loss per house. >If the argument against the selling of council houses depletes revenue unsure why I’ve never seen that ! It literally costs the local government 100k per house + lost rental revenue. >Logic would be sell then reinvest of course the council don’t get full market value but if you didn’t sell any you still need to build the same amount of houses just not with the revenue from a house sale. But of course right to buy probably should have a time frame before you get that right - giving them many years of good rental income. Council housing is rented out so cheaply that the revenue from it won't cover the £100k discount you'll give to the tenant
> The reason people cannot get council houses today is because of right to buy. This is disingenuous. The fault is not with Right to But, it's with the fact that housing stock hasn't been replenished to meet increased demand (and it's been sold to private landlords). > If a council house is worth £200k and is sold to the tenant for £140k, how do you expect the council to buy another £200k house with that £140k? Easy fix, sell it for £200,000 instead? Also, you seem to misunderstand how council housing / estates work. Generally the construction would be done by the council. They're not just buying homes at market value and renting them at below market rate. That's unsustainable by any standard. > Why would they introduce new housing supply when right to buy means they'll be forced to sell it to tenants at a massive discount? To ensure people have housing? > It literally means that you cannot build houses without accounting for a £100k loss per house. There are alterantives, such as not selling at a loss. Also, plenty of things the government does are at a loss, that doesn't make them bad things.
>This is disingenuous. >The fault is not with Right to But, it's with the fact that housing stock hasn't been replenished to meet increased demand (and it's been sold to private landlords). The stock cannot be replenished because you have given the council tenants the ability to purchase it at a lower price than it costs to replace it. >Easy fix, sell it for £200,000 instead? You cannot. Right to buy means they have to sell it at a 35 to 70% discount. >Also, you seem to misunderstand how council housing / estates work. Generally the construction would be done by the council. They're not just buying homes at market value and renting them at below market rate. That's unsustainable by any standard. They're building homes at the market rate. If it was cheaper to build a home than to buy a home, ftb would be snapping up the land to build homes. >To ensure people have housing? They have housing. They're literally in the taxpayer subsidised house. >There are alterantives, such as not selling at a loss. >Also, plenty of things the government does are at a loss, that doesn't make them bad things. YOU CANNOT NOT SELL AT A LOSS UNDER RIGHT TO BUY. RIGHT TO BUY AS A CONCEPT MEANS THAT YOU ARE SELLING THE COUNCIL HOUSE TO A TENANT AT BELOW MARKET RATES. EVERY SINGLE RIGHT TO BUY SALE IS A NET LOSS TO THE COUNCIL.
> The stock cannot be replenished because you have given the council tenants the ability to purchase it at a lower price than it costs to replace it. This is a lie. * 1) Purchasing stock, even at below market rate, does not inhibit replenishment of stock. * 2) The cost to replace is lower than the market rate. > You cannot. Right to buy means they have to sell it at a 35 to 70% discount. Another lie. This could very easily be changed. > They're building homes at the market rate. Market rate of construction cost, or sale value? Because those are not the same thing. Regardless, my point stands. Councils could still build more housing. > They have housing. They're literally in the taxpayer subsidised house. Not everyone is. > YOU CANNOT NOT SELL AT A LOSS UNDER RIGHT TO BUY. YES YOU CAN. Right to Buy is not some law of physics. It's a law of government. It can be changed. > RIGHT TO BUY AS A CONCEPT MEANS THAT YOU ARE SELLING THE COUNCIL HOUSE TO A TENANT AT BELOW MARKET RATES. YOU ARE WRONG. Right to Buy as a concept simply means allowing someone who currently pays rent to the council, to purchase that home from the council. That's it. That's the concept. Anything else is just policy. > EVERY SINGLE RIGHT TO BUY SALE IS A NET LOSS TO THE COUNCIL. THIS CAN BE CHANGED
You've said that things could be changed, but these are the absolute prime concepts of Right to Buy. Selling at a loss with the money being sent to central government *is* Right to Buy. Saying those things can be changed is saying that Right to Buy should be scrapped.
> these are the absolute prime concepts of Right to Buy They are not. The concept of Right to Buy is simply: people living in government subsidised housing, having the right / ability to purchase that housing. That's it. Anything else is policy, and policy can be amended. > Saying those things can be changed is saying that Right to Buy should be scrapped. This is false. You have a fundemental misunderstanding of the situation.
The concept of right to buy is to provide council tenants who are living in subsidized housing the right to purchase their council property at a discount. The problem that Burnham and every major economist has with the policy is the discount. >Purchasing stock, even at below market rate, does not inhibit replenishment of stock. The sale of stock at below market rates means that there's no money to replace it. >The cost to replace is lower than the market rate. By a few thousand, not by the discounted amount. If it was 100k cheaper to build rather than buy, everyone would simply build houses. >Another lie. >This could very easily be changed. It's not a lie. That's literally what the policy is. >Market rate of construction cost, or sale value? Because those are not the same thing. It's not 40k to 100k cheaper to build a house in Manchester than it is to buy one. >Regardless, my point stands. Councils could still build more housing. With what money?
> The concept of right to buy is to provide council tenants who are living in subsidized housing the right to purchase their council property This is correct. > at a discount This is not. That's been part of the policy, but it's not part of the concept. Right to Buy can work perfectly well without selling at a discount. Additionally, discount =/= below market rate. > The problem that Burnham and every major economist has with the policy is the discount. Then remove the discount, and build more housing. > The sale of stock at below market rates means that there's no money to replace it. This is a complete failure to understand how government works. This is not a private business. > It's not a lie. That's literally what the policy is. It is a lie. You're stating that Right to Buy cannot be seperated from the "35 to 70% discount". It very much can be. > With what money? The central government should be giving them more money.
The ability to buy your council home existed prior to the introduction of "right to buy". Everyone in the UK apart from you seems to understand that the right to buy as a concept refers to the discount, not at market price. >Additionally, discount =/= below market rate. Actually by definition, it's below the market value of home. >>You can get a discount on the market value of your home when you buy it if you qualify for Right to Buy. https://www.gov.uk/right-to-buy-buying-your-council-home/discounts >This is a complete failure to understand how government works. This is not a private business. It's how our government works. The budget of our local government is limited. >The central government should be giving them more money. Neither political party in the UK would do this.
> Everyone in the UK apart from you seems to understand that the right to buy as a concept refers to the discount, not at market price. It isn't part of the concept. It's part of the policy. The policy can be changed whilst keeping the concept. I don't know how to explain this any simpler for you. > Actually by definition, it's below the market value of home. Actually, it isn't. A discount could mean sold at cost without profit. > It's how our government works. The budget of our local government is limited. *Which can be changed* > Neither political party in the UK would do this. Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
You're 100% correct. I can't understand this attitude that crops up around R2B that everyone should rent for life, instead of being able to own their own home. Presumably these people are all landlords?
Not everyone wants to buy a house. And I'd rather my money went to the council to be reinvested into the community than a private landlords back account.
> Not everyone wants to buy a house. And in 99% of cases that's because they're financially illiterate.
Eliminating right to buy, or any other non "build more housing" policies are inconsequential in the grand scheme of the housing crisis. Somebody lives in the house, it doesn't really matter who owns the house because still only one household can live there. The only reason that it's become a "drain on public finances with housing benefit going into the pockets of private individuals" is because councils have repeatedly blocked perfectly sound planning applications in the name of NIMBYism. The only housing policy that will work is to build more, and once again - it doesn't matter who does the building or owning. Increase supply, prices reduce (or stop rising so fast), everybody's happ(y/ier).
The economics have to make sense for councils to be able to build though. Their budgets are stretched enough as it is.
Thing is with private landlordism and buying for portfolio - build one house, they'll buy them up. Build 100 houses, they'll buy them up. You can't keep prices high if you're not in control of the stock. Building more homes doesn't help if you don't control who can buy those homes. It's the same as ticket scalping.
Agreed - the only way forward is to put a legal limit on the number of properties one can own. One per adult would be my suggestion. There is no ethical way you can buy up a home someone else could own and then rent it to them for profit. No ethical way.
No, because then you essentially elimate capitalism and keep slummers in the slums whilst all the elite rich keep their already accumulated wealth. It kneecaps everybody except those already established. You tax the rich appropriately. You tax them on their assets, and you increase tax / fees for each additional property asset they come to purchase, tapering up so that it becomes detrimental to own - and establishing a tax reduction system for all and any fees for each individual property, evaluated annually, for every property that provides rent at tiered X% below market value (because for the ultra wealthy, they'll take financial loss short-term for huge gains long-term - might as well have the population benefit by suppressing market rent). You also close up all the loopholes that enable smoking who the true owner is through various SPV's etc. - that won't ever be a perfect system so then you establish a no-requirement manual investigation to anybody at any time to investigate true assets for appropriate tax - and you fine them heavily for intent to conceal. You use that entire pot of money for additional property creation. That's a baseline.
I like it
Right sentiment stupid idea. Last time we solved the housing crisis we drove private investment out though tax, regulation and shame. In doing that we oversaw the greatest increase in living standards, growth, and social mobility in the last 70 years. Absolutely tax the rich, also limit their ability to own residential property, the state buyd it back as we did previously, renovated the slums, as we did previously, and rents them back out for social rents, with the income used for infrastructure and new social rebut, you increase loving standards and use public money to reduce inequality. This delivered better properties at an average rent of 7% of the average salary in 1981 when council housing made up more than 3/4 of all rental stock.
What is the plan for people who don't want to own right now, students etc? Purpose built student accom? Genuine question, I don't want to/can't buy right now but I also don't want a shared kitchen haha
Pension companies have entire blocks for rent. It’s professionally done and they are accountable unlike private landlords. Manchester Life properties for example is owned by the Greater Manchester Pension Fund. One of the Deansgate Square towers is owned by I think L&G. The difference is you can call them out if they mistreat people, but if you’re dealing with some nefarious person from London who nobody knows you’re less likely to get progress (and face no fault evictions etc)
it's a bit like that but it still feels incredibly dodgy to me. pensions companies and sovereign wealth funds own a lot of state infrastructure but they don't exactly do a good job. they just want money coming in from the investment. I still don't think their priorities are entirely there.
The problem you have As seen on the continent, Is when private companies start to control a market they take advantage of it. And you may think they’re controllable, but look at water in this country. Meant to be regulated and gone to shit.
Thatcher was very misguided I think
What have Labour ever done to reverse any of it?
Zilch.
Since thatcher we've only ever had Thatcherite governments, even the Labour ones.
Those needs should, and have in the past, been fulfilled by state/council housing except for maybe student accommodation. It's probably okay for student housing to be fulfilled by a combination of uni accom, private accom, and council accom.
No need to put a legal limit, just tax the everloving shit out of any second home. And I mean **any** .
Whilst I love the sentiment, I’m very glad you’re not in charge of housing policy.
Just tax land ownership with an exemption or lower rate for your primary residence. You don't need to control who buys houses, just fix the incentives and disincentives.
Nobody should be allowed to own more than one residential property.
That's not really a big problem though as if you build hundreds of thousands of new homes all bought by private, landlords there will be a surplus of rental homes and rents will come down (or not increase...) this means either it better for renters, or yields go down and houses all for less as the landlords have let returns. There are many factors in the cost of housing in the UK and small things that could change, but 80% of the problem is "not enough houses built" Whether they are council or privately built, sold or rented, luxury flats, studios or family homes, all house building increases the amount of places to live and will help.
There's a surplus of over 200,000 homes already that are just being sat on (https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/how-many-empty-homes-are-there-in-the-uk/#:~:text=The%20most%20recent%20government%20statistics,before%20the%20pandemic%20in%202019) - yes, new homes will help but there needs to be regulation on who can buy them. Because even if rents did come down due to landlord oversupply, that still leaves fewer homes for people to buy for themselves. Or, if rents drop below mortgage value due to demand, landlords sell up and then the deciding factor is mortgage rates and not rental rates. I'm not going to disagree that more homes are needed. But that's what they need to be, homes, not investment portfolio.
Well it's not a surplus of 200,000 houses being sat on. 260,000 empty homes for a population of 70 million when we've got a shortage of like 5 million homes is nothing. And many of them aren't in places people want to live. And also having empty houses is fine and good, running at 100% capacity is bad.
Build houses that can only ever be sold to first time buyers, if you sell then the next buyer also has to be a first time buyer. This is probably the easiest and very simplest ways to stop the insane price creep and exorbitant rent prices.
The simplest thing would be to abolish buy to let mortgages. The year BTL mortgages became legal (1996) was the year housing prices began to skyrocket and it never stopped... well apart from a few years because of the 2008 financial crisis. [https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/uk-house-prices.png](https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/uk-house-prices.png) Landlords just began hoovering up properties at this point.
Cue all the landlord apologists piling in with hypothetical edge cases.
Its surprising to me that banks will lend on BTL, but not on just some investment into a global index fund. That's insane. The average BTL investment is waaaay riskier than an index fund. Never really understood that.
Unless you set a price cap, what would make it affordable?
I completely agree we need new council homes, can we please not make them look like brutalist prisons though? I’m a big believer that the environment we live in shapes us in subtle ways, and I can’t help but feel that having a load of generally underprivileged kids growing up in those horrible post-war prison blocks had a psychological effect that often gets overlooked. I’m not, by the way, suggesting that it’s more of an issue than chronic lack of funding in social issues, or the lack of opportunities presented to those from difficult circumstances. But I do think it has an effect.
I agree. Why do they have to be the same bland red brick terrace blocks. What is the point of making everything look the same across the entire country. Having a style is one thing… Manchester has a lot of geographic diversity; rivers, wetlands, fields, moors and heathland. Neighbourhoods could be unique to each ‘biome’. Or give people the means to build their own homes. There are so many architects and local construction firms that would benefit. Not for council homes but a housing market for people by people. Natural city growth, vernacular architecture, cheaper homes. There is limited space but houses always need refurbishing. I also think how a place looks contributes massively to its culture. People who grew up around nature appear to be more fulfilled. They are letting the same faceless, unaccountable corporations shape the way we live.
Red brick terraces are the vernacular around here... They're cheap to build, they're solid, they're warm. We live in one, over 100 years old - lovely house, feels very Northern too.
Brutalism is beautiful. There is tremendous beauty in its utilitarian function. Far, far better than any bollocks that's been built within the past 30 years.
The philosophy behind brutalism was nice, a blank canvas to be painted on and embleshed by the community who lives there. Sad reality is those communities are often too poor to actually realistically do anything like this so they just become the poster child for oppressive architecture.
> The philosophy behind brutalism was nice, a blank canvas to be painted on and embleshed by the community who lives there. Have you just made that up? I've never seen brutalism proposed, used, or theorised to be about that.
Why would I make that up? Watched some architecture documentaries a few weeks ago, DamiLee on YouTube also has some good videos on the subject.
I dunno thats what I asked. Have an interest in brutalism and have never heard of this.
I tried looking for the exact thing I watched but it was so long ago I can't remember which.
That is not the philosophy behind Brutalism
The UK have been building pigeon huts to live in for centuries now. We’re behind western Europe, New Zealand, Australia and most of America when it comes to living accommodation.
One thing building houses, another thing creating the services for those people to live, GPs, Schools, Dentists etc. whose building those?
It's mostly not about the buildings, it's about the staff to work in them.
Yeah sorry that was my point too
Those services still need to exist. Its not simcity people don't just appear.
This is exactly what the country needs. Housing is by far the biggest issue in the UK atm, and this plan is what anyone with a brain has been crying out for for years. End right to buy, end the fog of individualism that Thatcher created and build lots of high quality council houses. Like governments of old, when they actually cared about their citizens. I'll still hold my breath for the time being but I'm very interested in seeing the actual details.
I also have to say, much as there is that I don’t like about Starmer, his housing policy is very good. Obviously whether he delivers on it is a different question, but unlike other policy areas where he’s been deliberately vague, he actually does have a solid foundation with regards to housing - particular overhauling the unbelievably outdated planning process that grants far too much power to local NIMBY’s in blocking much-needed developments. It’s probably the one major reason I’m backing Labour aside from them not being the Tories. Housing is the biggest economic issue and it is gradually becoming a significant social issue too - if it isn’t already. The tories aren’t going to solve this problem because they’re too in bed with the rural anti-housing groups, the Greens aren’t going to solve it because they’re not interested in building anything at all, the Lib Dem’s aren’t going to solve it because they rely on local-issues campaigns to win seats and that usually manifests itself as backing the latest petition to block new developments. The fact that Labour, despite their overly-cautious campaign strategy, have adopted the necessary but incredibly electorally risky proposal to develop on the green belt (brilliantly spun as the ‘grey belt’) suggests that they might actually be taking this issue seriously. Honestly even if they’re shit at everything else, if they can solve the housing crisis they instantly become the most effective government of my lifetime.
'Just make sure they're not built near me. Don't want the poors living next door driving down the value of my house.' - every NIMBY who used right to buy
He’s right isn’t he. Abolish right to buy, build more social housing. That’s basically the whole solution right there.
I think we also need to stop listing apartments for sale to investors only. I would love to buy a flat but every one I see is either cash only or investors only and I don’t fancy paying 1200 a month just on rent
Right idea, but I’ll wait and see the full plan before lauding Andy here. There are some major hurdles to what he’s suggesting that go way beyond RTB.
I can't blame councils for not building homes. Why would you go to the expense of building something when you're going to be forced to sell it at a loss 3 years later? Fuck buy to let. You want to buy a house? Buy a private one! The tax payer doesn't owe you a discount subsidy so you can buy something well below market value
At least 1000 new council houses per borough? So that means that some well-to-do areas will be getting a lot more council housing and the associated problems. Interesting. A lot of people support it in principle but I wonder the reaction when the plans come through for their doorstep.
I mean yes, integrating council housing within the well to do areas is literally excellent policy, as otherwise you'll be building ghettos. There's already council housing within ancoats, yet ancoats is a really desirable place to live.
All likely to be green-belt land, not brown-field too, a-la Godley Green et al.
I wonder how this will go down with the new-Labour types running the party now ?
10000 council houses for who?
Tenants. Do you really not know how the rental market works?
People who work or people on benefits? Single mothers who've never worked? Asylum seekers? Come on, who are these houses for?
The more you build, the more people can qualify. Right now council homes have massive waiting lists, and as such are only a practical option for the truly desperate. But they used to be for people from all walks of life.
You think building houses increases the population? That’s an interesting if somewhat batshit insane view of reality 🤣
Where did I say that? That did spark a train of thought though. Building more homes for social rent might increase the population, in a roundabout way. People struggling with the cost of living generally put off settling down and starting families, although the evidence is mixed around whether it puts people off from having kids entirely in the long run, or just causes them to delay such plans. But if we lowered housing costs then that would probably lead to couples becoming parents younger and having larger families.
No? The comment is clearly about more housing being built leading to the requirement to qualify going up, therefore allowing more people to qualify.
People qualify on the proscribed basis regardless of inventory level. That is why you have waiting lists!
If you have to wait a decade or more, in any practical sense, you don't actually qualify though. Because the stock of council housing is so low, the only people who can realistically ever end up in a council home are people whose need for secure housing is extremely dire.
If you have to wait for an operation on the NHS for a decade or more in any practical sense you don’t have the illness is a strange take on things 🤣
Doesn't that create a first move disadvantage? I.e. any borough that builds a ton of council houses right now will be getting only the most desperate. If you wait until everyone else has done it, you'll get more of a socioeconomic mix. Strong incentive to delay
No. In most local authorities you have to either live in the area, or have a local connection (usually a family member or work) to qualify for the housing register. The govt's also planning to make that mandatory for all local authorities. That means you won't see the displacement you're talking about, because people aren't able to up sticks somewhere they don't already live, just to get on the register. Also, almost every LA has high levels of desperate people on their housing register, that doesn't vary much by area (although London is generally worse). Some areas like Sheffield still have an open register, but very few, and they legally have to prioritise people in need anyway.
Cool story. Go ahead and name the “boroughs” in Manchester 🤣
I don't understand your comment? What's funny about that?
Add it to the long list of things you don’t understand. 🤷♂️
Ok, weirdo
To the people currently on the council housing waiting list!
People who qualify. That’s how social housing works. It does not work on the basis of your personal prejudices. Happy to educate you which let’s face it is a whole new experience for you. 😉
Ok, so if London's council houses are any indication they'll tax the English to house 10000 people who just got off the boat this year. Cool. Based even.
Did you fall and bang your head? It could explain your confusion and incoherent ramblings. 🤣
How's that subscription to EDL working out for you?
No?
You're a fucking moron. The government is [literally giving you](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-reforms-to-social-housing-allocations/consultation-on-reforms-to-social-housing-allocations#uk-connection-test) all the red meat your prejudice demands, and you don't even know it.
where’d you read that? gammons on facebook?
> People who work or people on benefits? You're showing your ignorance assuming that these are mutually exclusive. 38% of people on Universal Credit are in work. (Which often means that UC is acting as a public subsidy to employers who don't pay enough to live on).
Great idea. Go Andy!
[удалено]
Maybe not, but it's 10,000 more than we had before? Surely any attempt to reduce the housing crisis is good news?
Obviously building 10,000 new homes is a great thing. But I feel like the infrastructure of Manchester is already pretty stretched. I used to live out towards Worsley and trying to get anywhere around rush hour (am or pm), or on a weekend was just a no-go. I recently moved out of Manchester because it already felt overcrowded.
There needs to be some fundamental changes in government before things will change. The government has been far too happy to fob off the regular joe in favour of making their friends rich. That goes for all politicians.
only the roads are clogged, everything else has tonnes of room to grow. we should limit the number of cars and create alternative modes of transportation
There needs to be a unused vacancy tax atleast. Homes shouldnt be a speculative business asset.
Housing, as with all other essential infrastructure, shouldn't be run for profit
Ok, fair enough, houses for the needy, etc, but how about houses for those that work and still can’t afford them? Why aren’t they ever mentioned? Because, you know, I’m getting a bit tired of paying both rent *and* taxes. But because I work, I’m not needy enough.
Don't care whether or not houses are sold, as long as enough are being built in places they're needed to stop silly rents
Burnham is a bullsh\*t artist. The 50,000 affordable homes target was recently dropped from the Greater Manchester spatial plan, and now Burnham is pledging to build 10,000?? These 10,000 homes will be delivered by the developers through section 106 commitments in any case! Burnham is promising to "deliver" something that will be done by someone else. Manchester only has itself to blame for electing a scouser...
The tenants exercise their right to buy then make a quick sale to a landlord making money for more booze and drugs. The cycle repeats. 😂
How many has he built in his last 8 years?
He can't really instigate the building of council homes himself but he has a lot of sway to get the ball rolling. The main bottleneck for councils is funding from the government which the last 8 years of Tory austerity and the cap on council tax rises hasn't helped with. Can't exactly build anything if you barely have money to collect the bins, let alone purchase land and pay contractors.
A few thousand?
Not many but loads of high rise apartment blocks have appeared.
Are they council houses?
Don't act like he hasn't done alot for Manchester i mean all you gotta do is look at the skyline he's created so many new jobs Yeah houses price have gone up hasn't the rest of the country
Those were built by Renaker, a private company.
That's not what I asked.
No one is believing the lies anymore, say one thing to get into power and do the opposite also 10,000 houses won't do a thing - try 1,000,000 houses
Hear me out. Maybe its a crazy idea but council houses should only be sold back to the council (to go back to social housing) or to first home buyers and not to private landlords with a portfolio.
Why sell them in the first place?
What do you mean? Why people buy the house they have the Right to Buy due to The Housing Act 1980? Or why was Right to Buy allowed to exist? It was a major success back in the 80s and made many many people happy. It was a major shift of state property to the people. Everyone thought it was good. 40 years later, maybe not that much.
I mean your idea is bonkers as why sell them then buy back at a loss. All it has done is make people happy by making them richer and in the process taken 2 million homes away from councils.
You have to sell them because its their right to buy. That is not my idea, that was Thatcher's. Also you are ignoring my main point, which was to sell to first home buyers. Having the ability to sell to the council doesn't mean the council will want it back. I believe we are living in two different worlds.
It wasn’t thatchers idea. It was labours, in their 1959 manifesto. It should be abolished. Asap. The state should not sell much needed assets, especially ones that are essential for day to day life and those who need it most, to people or business to profit from. We’re furious at how water has been treated. But can’t connect the dots that RTB has handed wealth to those who haven’t worked for it. And left a legacy of suffering to those who need housing most.
The right of council's to sell housing was implemented by you're in the early 1900s the Labour government of 1945 restricted it but that restriction was overturned in 1952 by the conservative government. Labor proposed the right to buy in 1959 as one prong to answer of increased rent and reduced housing quality delivered by the previous Tory governments who had overseen a collapse in council house building. Tory policy had been to give public money to incentivise private enterprise to build rental housing had failed, it had resulted in higher rents and low quality slums. Labour's 1959 plan was to repeal the rent act to lower rents, build rent controlled council housing, and buy the privately ran slums to improve them and then rent out. Right to buy in 1959 was meant as a protection against the return of Tory policy promoting rogue landlords, and importantly there was no mention of a discount. The Thatcher introduced right to buy was an entirely different prospect. She sold it at a discount and pocketed the cash without replacing stock, and so has every government since as they've all been tory. Also she provided a room of other utilities which pressured worker finances further and continue to do so today. To say simply "it was Labours idea" is a little misleading.
How much Greenbelt will this cost?
Someone deleted their comment about where you could possibly build any new homes in Stockport, so I'll reply to you instead as concerns around the green belt are tangentially related. Personally I think they should target underutilized brownfield sites for "infill" development. e.g. a lot of the area around Stockport station is things like low density light industrial buildings, and surface car parks. Could change it to be a modern mixed-use town centre. Better to build there than on the outskirts of town where it will be harder to provide amenities like transport, education, healthcare, easy access to healthy groceries etc. To make the most of these locations, I also think the approach should be to build up. Not necessarily high rises (although that would make sense in at least some high opportunity locations) but certainly mid / low rise flats. These are cheaper to build than big towers (construction methods / materials aren't necessarily that much different than building a house) and still provide improved density over something like terraced houses. So I think 3-7 storey blocks should be the bulk of what's built.
There are loads of derelict buildings and industrial rubble sites around. I notice they've finally demolished Charlton House near the cricket ground, probably to build flats.
Most of the greenbelt is just industrialised farmland, there's more biodiversity in the city centre than there is on a farm... We can afford to take off the green noose.
Bold statement. We have about 10m2 of total green space in the centre 😂
I've seen both grass AND daffodils in Sackville Gardens! That's twice the number of species than in a typical crop field! Everything other than the target crop is weeded out.
It goes like this - when the Tories plan to build on Greenbelt it's bad and Labour councils block the plans. When Labour plan to build on Greenbelt it's good.
And labour councils still block the plans... And nothing gets built anywhere near anybody...
A big issue that I have about this is who is going to be building them? The policy up until now seems to be for councils to give away millions of pounds worth of land to private investors in exchange for 10 out of 100 new built homes on the land being affordable housing. I fear it's going to be more of the same.
Yea he pledged to end rough sleeping nearly a decade ago. That worked out well didn't it? It's one thing to pledge something, but it takes actual work to make it happen in reality.
He's so full of shit, he also promised to eradicate homelessness in Manchester. He's conveniently dropped that promise .
Bollocks
Free beer tomorrow. It's the Labour way.
It's usually the Tories that reduce the duty on booze when elections are near