FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Right to Buy - More like Running out of ideas

Jump to newest
 

By *bernath OP   Couple
over a year ago

Gloucestershire

So the slob announced that people on benefits will be able to buy their hovels, including forcing housing associations to sell their properties to tenants. I see lots of problems with this idea.

1. The housing stock left is generally poor

2. It will force owners of these properties to pay for their own insulation if they don’t have it (don’t think benefits can afford that)

3. Housing associations are private companies there will be massive pushback to sell their only source of income.

4. Because housing stock is not being replenished then it leads to more shortages.

5. Some of these properties have been cladded so who will pay for replacing this, the new owners or the government.

Its a massive swindle to push costs of failed housing polices to the most poorest in society.

Giving houses to people who cannot maintain their own properties leads to higher debts for those at the lower end, which means repossessions of properties increase.

And who swoops in to buy these properties? Rich developers, who will flatten the places to the ground, build luxury properties and clear these communities out.

Mark my words, this will come to pass.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham


"So the slob announced that people on benefits will be able to buy their hovels, including forcing housing associations to sell their properties to tenants. I see lots of problems with this idea.

1. The housing stock left is generally poor

2. It will force owners of these properties to pay for their own insulation if they don’t have it (don’t think benefits can afford that)

3. Housing associations are private companies there will be massive pushback to sell their only source of income.

4. Because housing stock is not being replenished then it leads to more shortages.

5. Some of these properties have been cladded so who will pay for replacing this, the new owners or the government.

Its a massive swindle to push costs of failed housing polices to the most poorest in society.

Giving houses to people who cannot maintain their own properties leads to higher debts for those at the lower end, which means repossessions of properties increase.

And who swoops in to buy these properties? Rich developers, who will flatten the places to the ground, build luxury properties and clear these communities out.

Mark my words, this will come to pass. "

Is there a reason you're not standing for election? Assuming you're not of course

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

A stickler for facts.

Housing Associations are not for profit organisations and a 3rd of them are registered charities . I agree with the sentiment that their source of income would diminish.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bernath OP   Couple
over a year ago

Gloucestershire


"A stickler for facts.

Housing Associations are not for profit organisations and a 3rd of them are registered charities . I agree with the sentiment that their source of income would diminish. "

This is the problem, reduce income which can be fed into maintaining their remaining stock, not for profit is a fancy way of saying full reinvestment back into their businesses.

The sooner the slob is kicked out the better. He is failing seriously.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

Have to admit… conflicted here…

My mum took advantage of the original right to buy, and the family would not have got to where we all are house wise without that first step on the ladder!

But the basic thing about right to buy is that it doesn’t work unless you are building comparable stock and if you are in effect losing subsidised housing because the building costs are higher than the market prices then are you really helping as many people as you could….

The grim truth is that the major house building companies aren’t building houses aimed at the poor because where is the profit?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ornucopiaMan
over a year ago

Bexley

It is cash for votes dressed up to look legal.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bernath OP   Couple
over a year ago

Gloucestershire


"Have to admit… conflicted here…

My mum took advantage of the original right to buy, and the family would not have got to where we all are house wise without that first step on the ladder!

But the basic thing about right to buy is that it doesn’t work unless you are building comparable stock and if you are in effect losing subsidised housing because the building costs are higher than the market prices then are you really helping as many people as you could….

The grim truth is that the major house building companies aren’t building houses aimed at the poor because where is the profit? "

Right to buy then compared to this car crash rehash is disingenuous, it fails on multiple levels, mainly this policy is a distraction on the current government lack of talent in governing this country properly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *os19Man
over a year ago

Edmonton

I can’t see how this will work.People on Universal Credit are generally on it because they are not working , are considered to ill to work , those who are working are claiming it for the housing element of Universal Credit.With the price of food and utility bills going up I can’t see how this will work

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago

Longridge


"Have to admit… conflicted here…

My mum took advantage of the original right to buy, and the family would not have got to where we all are house wise without that first step on the ladder!

But the basic thing about right to buy is that it doesn’t work unless you are building comparable stock and if you are in effect losing subsidised housing because the building costs are higher than the market prices then are you really helping as many people as you could….

The grim truth is that the major house building companies aren’t building houses aimed at the poor because where is the profit? "

It was a good idea in essence, but completely screwed up the replacement of sold housing.

Landlords have cash bought most of the houses at the point that the ones illegible to the discounts, moved on, split up or were repossessed.

This allowed them to build cheap portfolios in exactly the places where councils would eventually and indirectly pay rent at a substantially higher cost than owing themselves to private individuals who have pocketed billions of tax payers money in rents and resales.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *oolyCoolyCplCouple
over a year ago

Newcastle under Lyme

Personally, the biggest concern about this is how are people on low incomes, often with families, expected to afford a mortgage? Unless were talking about those horrible inner city houses in rough areas that councils advertise for £1. You know the sort...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top