The 2019 General Election - Campaign Debate and Discussion

Puffing Devil · 20 Nov 2019

Puffing Devil said:
Had the housing stock been retained by councils, or replaced after right to buy sales, we would have a pool of affordable rent-controlled housing. Instead, a chunk of affordable rented housing has been gifted to the private sector who now charge "market rents" for what should be affordable housing.

Xenophon PCDGS said:
Do you have any statistics that state the percentages of council house stock that were sold to sitting residents under the right-to-buy scheme, which were then resold by the original purchasers?

It's in the report I linked to.

RailUK Forums

AlterEgo · 20 Nov 2019

Starmill said:
I was accusing you of ignoring the actual objectives of the policy in favour of a sound-bite.

... rather like this one.

Let’s see how Labour and the Lib Dems do.

Mojo · 20 Nov 2019

Starmill said:
There is a growing plurality of support for the repeal of the Vagrancy Act, so if that happens they will no longer even be considered "vagrants".

That is deeply worrying given the negative effects of such behaviour, although such laws are very rarely used now due to the negative public reaction, a growing example of how left wing views are affecting policing and public life even though they are not supposedly "in power." My life was nearly turned upside down by such behaviour, even though various organisations in power had the law and resources to deal with the behaviours of a vagrant who used to "live" near my house, but were not willing to do so because of pressure. If people had to actually put up with these people on a daily basis I'm sure attitudes may well harden!

Puffing Devil · 20 Nov 2019

DarloRich said:
the first was a massive success as a concept. it allowed people to own their own home. What it missed was a plan to reinvest in council housing stocks.

The second is untrue imo.

I will keep saying this: right to buy is not and was not a fiasco as a concept. It allowed people to own their own home who would never have been able to do so. My family is one that benefited.

I find it odd that people, especially Coirbyn fan boys, want to keep people dependent rather than independent. Labour wasn't always like this.

The lack of reinvestment turned it from a concept into a fiasco. As an indirect beneficiary of the state's largesse, I would posit that your view is somewhat tainted.

Obsession in the UK with homeownership is a uniquely Thatcherite driven concept - you could look at that bastion of socialism which is Switzerland and seen owner-occupier rates less than 45%. Germany and Austria are in the very low 50% and neither could be accused of encouraging dependence on the state. [Eurostat - Data Explorer - Distribution of population by tenure status, type of household and income group". Eurostat. 12 March 2015.]

The right to buy scheme has led to a huge reduction in quality social housing forcing many into the hands of private landlords, ironically renting previous social housing units with worse maintenance and higher rents.

As an aside, please explain why I'm a "Coirbyn fan boy"[sic]? I'm sure you have some good evidence for this.

Starmill · 20 Nov 2019

Puffing Devil said:
The right to buy scheme has led to a huge reduction in quality social housing forcing many into the hands of private landlords, ironically renting previous social housing units with worse maintenance and higher rents.

As I understand it, this was the real objective of the policy.

Social housing tenants are far more likely to be Labour voters. Homeowners are far more likely to be Conservative voters.

The policy was made by Conservative government for the benefit and encouragement of Conservative voters at the expense of Labour ones.

Starmill · 20 Nov 2019

Mojo said:
That is deeply worrying given the negative effects of such behaviour, although such laws are very rarely used now due to the negative public reaction

I'm not convinced of this. In 2018 there were more than 1300 prosecutions under the Vagrancy Act, although perhaps those cover in whole or in part behaviours the Act makes offenses other than the ones you've identified.

Anyway, Labour said moths ago that they think these prosecutions are unfair because they criminalise poverty, and that they would repeal the act.

Puffing Devil · 20 Nov 2019

Starmill said:
As I understand it, this was the real objective of the policy.

Social housing tenants are far more likely to be Labour voters. Homeowners are far more likely to be Conservative voters.

The policy was made by Conservative government for the benefit and encouragement of Conservative voters at the expense of Labour ones.

So cynical at such a tender age

DarloRich · 20 Nov 2019

Puffing Devil said:
The lack of reinvestment turned it from a concept into a fiasco. As an indirect beneficiary of the state's largesse, I would posit that your view is somewhat tainted.

Obsession in the UK with homeownership is a uniquely Thatcherite driven concept - you could look at that bastion of socialism which is Switzerland and seen owner-occupier rates less than 45%. Germany and Austria are in the very low 50% and neither could be accused of encouraging dependence on the state. [Eurostat - Data Explorer - Distribution of population by tenure status, type of household and income group". Eurostat. 12 March 2015.]

The right to buy scheme has led to a huge reduction in quality social housing forcing many into the hands of private landlords, ironically renting previous social housing units with worse maintenance and higher rents.

As an aside, please explain why I'm a "Coirbyn fan boy"[sic]? I'm sure you have some good evidence for this.

home ownership is absolutely is not a Thatcherite concept. My great grand parents always wanted to buy a house but never could for many years before Thatcher. They were old school labour to their core. Many people like them wanted to own their own homes but were unable to do so because they had no capital or the earnings sufficient to obtain a mortgage. They absolutely resented paying a landlord or the council rent. Right to buy changed that.

I maintain: The mistake was not allowing the reinvestment of the money released by the sales back into the council housing stock. The policy should have been the route for the majority of people into this country to own their own home by providing a pool of good quality, affordable, houses that people could aspire towards owning if they wanted to. THAT was the failing. Not selling the houses.

Starmill said:
The policy was made by Conservative government for the benefit and encouragement of Conservative voters at the expense of Labour ones.

Odd then that so many where I come from are solid labour. I agree the Tory hope was home ownership would make people vote Tory. I doubt it did in Sunderland or Middlesbrough! People wanted to buy their home and were given the opportunity to do so

I agree entirely the application of the policy was designed to remove the council from the housing market and transfer the remaining homes to the private sector.

underbank · 20 Nov 2019

Starmill said:
The policy was made by Conservative government for the benefit and encouragement of Conservative voters at the expense of Labour ones.

So Labour never choose policies to suit their voters at the expense of Tory ones then?????

underbank · 20 Nov 2019

DarloRich said:
I maintain: The mistake was not allowing the reinvestment of the money released by the sales back into the council housing stock. The policy should have been the route for the majority of people into this country to own their own home by providing a pool of good quality, affordable, houses that people could aspire towards owning if they wanted to. THAT was the failing. Not selling the houses.

Exactly. Had the councils re-invested the proceeds into new council housing, then the whole thing would have been a massive success. I've never really understood the logic (if any) of that not being required. As it was, it seemed that councils just had to sit on the money in bank accounts/reserves as there were restrictions on what they could spend it on.

DarloRich · 20 Nov 2019

underbank said:
I've never really understood the logic (if any) of that not being required. As it was, it seemed that councils just had to sit on the money in bank accounts/reserves as there were restrictions on what they could spend it on.

The logic was to remove the council from the housing market because the Tories felt the councils should not be providing housing.

Puffing Devil · 20 Nov 2019

DarloRich said:
I find it odd that people, especially Coirbyn fan boys, want to keep people dependent rather than independent. Labour wasn't always like this.

Still looking for you to support your claim of me being a "Coirbyn fan boy"......

DarloRich said:
home ownership is absolutely is not a Thatcherite concept. My great grand parents always wanted to buy a house but never could for many years before Thatcher. They were old school labour to their core. Many people like them wanted to own their own homes but were unable to do so because they had no capital or the earnings sufficient to obtain a mortgage. They absolutely resented paying a landlord or the council rent. Right to buy changed that.

I maintain: The mistake was not allowing the reinvestment of the money released by the sales back into the council housing stock. The policy should have been the route for the majority of people into this country to own their own home by providing a pool of good quality, affordable, houses that people could aspire towards owning if they wanted to. THAT was the failing. Not selling the houses.

At the time, Heseltine said "no single piece of legislation has enabled the transfer of so much capital wealth from the state to the people". The taxpayers, council taxpayers and ratepayers subsidised the purchase of your great grandparents house. They were unable to buy a house as they "no capital or the earnings sufficient to obtain a mortgage" - it does not mean that the state should subsidise their purchase. The state should provide them with a clean, pleasant and safe place to live with a secure tenancy, which they had.

DarloRich said:
Odd then that so many where I come from are solid labour. I agree the Tory hope was home ownership would make people vote Tory. I doubt it did in Sunderland or Middlesbrough! People wanted to buy their home and were given the opportunity to do so

I agree entirely the application of the policy was designed to remove the council from the housing market and transfer the remaining homes to the private sector.

If the Tories had been able to restrict the policy to marginal seats, I'm sure they would have done.

underbank said:
So Labour never choose policies to suit their voters at the expense of Tory ones then?????

This was a massive gutting of the social housing stock of the country, not a small policy.

DarloRich said:
The logic was to remove the council from the housing market because the Tories felt the councils should not be providing housing.

And leave it to the free market, which has ended up costing us a lot more as a country in the long run. We've seen this time and time again with public sector failures.[/QUOTE]

507021 · 20 Nov 2019

Comstock said:
Me too, kind of. Trouble is I'm also a leaver and a supporter of controlled immigration.

There is no mainstream political party out there for us centre-left leavers. And the only two MPs of that ilk, Frank Field and Kate Hoey, are retiring this time.

With a heavy heart and the other hand firmly on my nose, I'm voting BoJo.

That's fair enough, although personally, I could never vote Tory.

I did consider voting for the Lib Dems but I'm not a fan of their Brexit policy (I voted remain but respect the result).

DynamicSpirit · 20 Nov 2019

DarloRich said:
Yet Corbyn couldn't answer simple questions like which side of a brexit referendum would you campaign on and would you rule out a Scottish independence referendum in year 1 of the parliament!

If I recall correct, Boris couldn't decide which side of a referendum he would campaign on, even when the campaign was just about to start! I'm surprised that no-one seems to point that out whenever Boris does his soundbite about Corbyn not yet knowing whether he would be for or against a deal that hasn't yet been negotiated and whose terms are therefore not yet known.

(I do however think it would've been simpler and made more sense for Corbyn/Labour to just do it that the Government would remain neutral in any referendum on a Corbyn/EU deal).

DynamicSpirit · 20 Nov 2019

433N said:
... and can we try to remember that Right to Buy was originally a Labour Party manifesto pledge (1959 , if wiki remembers correctly).

So it seems... From the 1959 Labour Manifesto:

LabourManifesto1959 said:
At the last count there were seven million households in Britain with no bath, and over three million sharing or entirely without a w.c. The Tories have tried to induce private land lords to improve their property by means of public grants, with very small success. Labour's plan is that, with reasonable exceptions, local councils shall take over houses which were rent-controlled before 1 January, 1956, and are still tenanted. They will repair and modernise these houses and let them at fair rents. This is a big job which will take time and its speed will vary according to local conditions.

Every tenant, however, will have a chance first to buy from the Council the house he lives in; and all Council tenants in future will enjoy the same security of tenure as rent-restricted tenants.

(Love how archaic the language sounds, even though it was only 60 years ago btw).

AM9 · 20 Nov 2019

DarloRich said:
The logic was to remove the council from the housing market because the Tories felt the councils should not be providing housing.

As I remember it, the Conservatives saw council housing as a Labour creation, that in itself amplified support for Labour candidates. In their view, owner-occupiers were seen as natural Conservative voters, so the policy was to force the sale of council housing stock to create new mini-capitalists out of ordinary households. In order to maximise this change of the working class's political leaning, the councils were prevented fromre-investing in new social housing, instead, using the cash to reduce rates for all citizens, particularly those in properties in high rateable value properties, i.e. the Conservatives' traditional owner-occupiers supporters.

bramling · 20 Nov 2019

AM9 said:
As I remember it, the Conservatives saw council housing as a Labour creation, that in itself amplified support for Labour candidates. In their view, owner-occupiers were seen as natural Conservative voters, so the policy was to force the sale of council housing stock to create new mini-capitalists out of ordinary households. In order to maximise this change of the working class's political leaning, the councils were prevented fromre-investing in new social housing, instead, using the cash to reduce rates for all citizens, particularly those in properties in high rateable value properties, i.e. the Conservatives' traditional owner-occupiers supporters.

All of which I remember being pretty popular at the time.

Things seem to have gone wrong more recently, with demand for housing versus supply having increased greatly from the late 1990s onwards (I pick that date going by property values in my road). Rising population seems to be the root cause of housing issues more so than anything else.

I don’t see how selling off council houses on its own can be seen to have caused a supply problem as it merely replaced one element of housing stock with another, the overall number of houses remained the same.

DynamicSpirit · 21 Nov 2019

bramling said:
All of which I remember being pretty popular at the time.

Things seem to have gone wrong more recently, with demand for housing versus supply having increased greatly from the late 1990s onwards (I pick that date going by property values in my road). Rising population seems to be the root cause of housing issues more so than anything else.

I don’t see how selling off council houses on its own can be seen to have caused a supply problem as it merely replaced one element of housing stock with another, the overall number of houses remained the same.

The problem is that, up until the advent of the Thatcher Government, councils were on the whole actively building houses to meet demand. The Conservatives stopped that, introducing regulations that actually prevented significant council house building. For whatever reason, the private sector didn't fill the gap - and even if it did, there would have been the problem that many people who needed a house wouldn't have been able to afford to buy one or rent privately. So from the early 80s onwards, the level of housebuilding in the UK plummeted. In the 1970s it was typically 300K/year. Since the early 90s it's been typically hovering at a bit more than 100K/year. Pressure on housing comes not only from population growth, but also from the trend to families getting smaller, so the same numbers of people need more houses.

So I would say that overall the Thatcher Government (and following Governments') housing policies were a failure, both in terms of over-reliance on a market that didn't deliver, and in terms of preventing much social housing from being built. But the effects of this have taken time to accumulate, so it's only in the last 10-15 years that the problem has become acute.

Xenophon PCDGS · 21 Nov 2019

Looking at Europe as a whole, how has renting as opposed to actual property owning been more of the norm since the end of WWII?

radamfi · 21 Nov 2019

Xenophon PCDGS said:
Looking at Europe as a whole, how has renting as opposed to actual property owning been more of the norm since the end of WWII?

Some European countries have almost universal home ownership. After the fall of Communism, many people were given the houses they lived in. With the recent decline in British home ownership, it now has one of the lowest ownership rates in Europe. Conversely, Germanic countries culturally support highly regulated rents. Vienna famously has very low rents with the majority of people, including professionals, living in quality social housing. Transport in Vienna is also cheap and high quality. So the cost of living in Vienna is low yet wages are high, meaning it is a highly attractive place to live and regularly tops liveable city rankings.

Xenophon PCDGS · 21 Nov 2019

When we married in 1975, Manchester and surrounding satellite towns seemed a hive of new starter home building by the large building companies such as Wimpey and many of the estates of these properties can be seen these days. The Manchester Evening News in the mid 1970s always featured a number of advertisements for these new sites of properties in its Thursday editions, which then allowed prospective buyers to peruse then to visit the site sales offices on those new estates at the weekend.

radamfi · 21 Nov 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
So I would say that overall the Thatcher Government (and following Governments') housing policies were a failure, both in terms of over-reliance on a market that didn't deliver, and in terms of preventing much social housing from being built. But the effects of this have taken time to accumulate, so it's only in the last 10-15 years that the problem has become acute.

Thatcher also presided over an almighty crash in southern property prices. Negative equity was common until the mid 90s. People were scared to get into property ownership again causing rents to go sky high. In the mid 90s, a one bed flat in SW London that would sell for about £60,000 would cost about £600 per month to rent. That same flat today would cost about £350,000 but would cost about £1,100 to rent, so rents have actually gone down in real terms since the 90s whereas the property price is now stratospheric.

Xenophon PCDGS · 21 Nov 2019

radamfi said:
Thatcher also presided over an almighty crash in southern property prices. Negative equity was common until the mid 90s. People were scared to get into property ownership again causing rents to go sky high. In the mid 90s, a one bed flat in SW London that would sell for about £60,000 would cost about £600 per month to rent. That same flat today would cost about £350,000 but would cost about £1,100 to rent, so rents have actually gone down in real terms since the 90s whereas the property price is now stratospheric.

Yet the "southern property price" areas you refer to were the Conservative-voting heartlands.

DarloRich · 21 Nov 2019

Puffing Devil said:
Still looking for you to support your claim of me being a "Coirbyn fan boy"......

Thanks for trying to make fun of my dyslexia. Cheers.

BTW - Corbyn fan boy wasn't meant to be aimed at you. I should have broken it out of the quoited text.

Xenophon PCDGS · 21 Nov 2019

DarloRich said:
Thanks for trying to make fun of my dyslexia. Cheers. BTW - Corbyn fan boy wasn't meant to be aimed at you. I should have broken it out of the quoited text.

The word I have emboldened, whilst noting what you say about your dyslexia above, took me back over 40 years when we treated our twin sons to a set of garden quoits for their 5th birthday, but in those far-off days, text was not part of the game, but only in the printed rules inside the lid of the wooden box that the game came in.

DarloRich · 21 Nov 2019

Xenophon PCDGS said:
The word I have emboldened, whilst noting what you say about your dyslexia above, took me back over 40 years when we treated our twin sons to a set of garden quoits for their 5th birthday, but in those far-off days, text was not part of the game, but only in the printed rules inside the lid of the wooden box that the game came in.

I did that one on purpose

Quoits is still played in many rural villages and working mens clubs at home.

Puffing Devil · 21 Nov 2019

DarloRich said:
Thanks for trying to make fun of my dyslexia. Cheers.

BTW - Corbyn fan boy wasn't meant to be aimed at you. I should have broken it out of the quoited text.

Don't rock that back on me - I thought Coirbyn was a play on Fan Boi and I simply quoted what you posted, I had no idea you were dyslexic.

Tetchytyke · 21 Nov 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
people in the Labour Party are still, on the whole, motivated by moral principles (

Agreed. One may not agree with Corbyn's principles, but nobody can seriously argue that he is unprincipled.

Tetchytyke · 21 Nov 2019

Xenophon PCDGS said:
Do you have any statistics that state the percentages of council house stock that were sold to sitting residents under the right-to-buy scheme, which were then resold by the original purchasers?

It's in the report. It's also here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mi...uy-housing-shame-third-ex-council-1743338.amp

The son of the Tory housing minister responsible for right-to-buy now owns NINETY-THREE ex-council houses in one London borough alone.

Still, "market forces" eh?

Puffing Devil · 21 Nov 2019

Tetchytyke said:
Agreed. One may not agree with Corbyn's principles, but nobody can seriously argue that he is unprincipled.

I agree - unfortunately I think Corbyn is a much better campaigner that leader and is very much not my choice for the Labour Leader. His election performances have been good so far, with the screaming exception of his failure to declare which side of a second referendum debate he would campaign for during the leaders debate.

The 2019 General Election - Campaign Debate and Discussion

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member