AIBU to totally disagree with 'the right to buy'?

Smileless..no I don't think you are being unreasonable at all, I am in total agreement.I would go as far as to say that the "right to buy" scheme caused the lack of social housing. I was a great supporter and admirer of Mrs Thatcher (head now firmly below parapet, waiting for fallout) but this is one policy I did not agree with.
My own FIL "bought" his council house at a silly knock down price and then bragged about it unceasingly. I firmly believe that if people want to buy they should do so within the private sector and pay "the going rate" . Every council house bought is another one taken from housing stock. The younger generation have now become the renting generation, they can't get a mortgage and they can't get a council property. In effect they are trapped.

I am not sure that renting a property is such a bad thing - it is the norm in many parts of Europe. It is only the "Englishman's home is his castle" mentality that makes us extol the virtues of home owning. Many young couples devote their lives to the purchase of a house when they might be better off renting.

There seemed to be no sound reasoning behind the right to buy policy other than it being a vote catcher for council house tenants who were laughing all the way to the bank.

Now these houses are being sold off at true market value, making a killing for their owners and removing the houses from the rental market when they are so badly needed.

A bad policy I think and based on the false premise that it is better to buy than to rent. We should have been encouraging responsible councils and housing associations to expand the rental market.

Where we live, the families of residents have bought the properties in their parents' names, then sold them for many thousands when the parents popped their clogs.
Across from us, bought for £6,000, sold for £ 140,000.

Right To Buy has recently been banned in Scotland in an effort to increase housing stock. www.gov.scot/Topics/Built-Environment/Housing/16342/rtb

I do understand the sentiment when RTB was initially brought in, with people paying out rent for 40 or 50 years and having nothing to show for it at the end plus the desire to improve your own home, which many councils banned back then.

But times have changed and I think it's right to call a halt to RTB.

I agree with you both too. To me, it makes no sense to allow social housing to be sold off at often greatly reduced price.

Then what happens when more people need housing help - no houses left. Has always seemed a mad idea to me.

Labour party has said it will get rid of the right to buy if elected.

It would not be so bad if the money was used to build more houses but that never happened.

No, not unreasonable. The money raised was not ploughed back into increasing housing stock and we now have the situation where private landlords are charging huge rents with very little alternative for those needing/ wanting to rent.

I had a friend who lived in a council house -this when I was in my 30s. Her husband earned far more than my DH at the time. We were buying our house. We both had 2 children. They were able to buy their council house at a ridiculously low amount, which at the time meant that we were all subsidising these purchases.

They were able to pay off their house far sooner than we were able to. It didn't seem terribly fair to me, plus of course a decent home was taken off the social housing list.

Obviously there's not a lot that's considered newsworthy by the DM, because he bought it in 2014, the article says.

It's actually Tory policy at the moment to make councils sell off property of high value, so it would actually be hypocritical for any Tory voter to say this is wrong.

Councils were not allowed to use the money, Tizliz. Now they have to, and are supposed to build two for every one they sell.
Obviously not going to happen at the Barbican.

I understood why Margaret Thatcher introduced it, but not why subsequent Labour governments didn't put a stop to it.

Years ago when this was first introduced I naively thought that stocks would be replenished!! Many people bought their homes years ago and although some were happy with the outcome I quickly realised (from my job in banking) that many were ill equipped at being mortgage payers. Many were also completely at a loss when something went wrong with their properties having had years of very supportive council landlords.

There should always be a good stock of social housing however its managed. There will always be people who need to rent or cannot, for whatever reason, be mortgage payers. Selling off stock is shortsighted and leads to the wrong people getting a bargain whilst those who need support are left floundering.

I think everyone was supposed to think that, Hilda, about replacing the houses they'd sold. If it had happened we would not be in the mess we are now.

My parents had the opposite problem, Hilda. They had owned their house and paid off the mortgage. However, it was a seven bedroomed Victorian terrace, and they had no money for the upkeep.
They sold it to a housing association who then rented them a one bedroomed flat. They then had to work out how to pay the rent, and after the money for the house had run out they had to try and claim housing benefit in their late seventies.

I find myself torn. I object in principle to the selling of council houses, but DD got on the housing ladder by buying a flat that was once council housing and then sold it and bought an ex-council house. In each case the accommodation was privately owned when she bought it.

I totally believe in it. It's also not what you think these days. No, people don't buy well below the market rate anymore either. The properties are actually sold at the market rate with a discount which isn't huge. Houses should be available for mid income earners to buy too.

We're in this mess due to mass immigration not any other reason.

No, we are in this mess for a whole lot of reasons -

The decline in building more houses to replace those bought under right-to-buy, because it was forbidden for so long to use that money on replacements.

The change from young people living at home with their parents to them moving out and joining those wanting rented accomodation.

The increase in broken marriages, with two homes needed instead of one.

The rise in house prices making it more difficult for first time buyers.

Space standards rising, so that families do not accept children not having their own bedroom.

Probably a lot more!

Not sure "right to buy" has taken much of the market at all.

Due to cheap labour which mass immigration has perpetuated, large conglomerates have become more and more greedy profit wise and know they can pay ridiculous wages so the average English person can't really have any form of proper standard of living.

The rich have become richer and the working class have become poor.

Let's not blow smoke up peoples arses here.

I think you should report these large conglomerates to HMRC.
Everyone is supposed to pay the minimum wage now.

In DD's close of about 70 houses, I would say that 60 - 70% are now privately owned. In my own village the council recently refurbished all the houses it still owned in a small system built estate, this included putting external insulation on the houses so that is very evident which are the council houses and even in this estate of inherently not very attractive houses 60 - 70% are now privately owned.

I am sure the numbers are much lower in very large inner city council estates, but outside London council houses, especially older ones built to Parker Morris standards, are very attractive buys. Council properties have always been valued at the market price and then discounted, yes, the discounts are not as generous as they were, but they were always based on market value.

Household size has fallen from 2.9 in 1991 to 2.4 in 2008. That is equivalent to an increase in households of 17%, which equates with a demand for another 3 million houses before we even consider the housing needs of immigrants.

While immigration is an added factor mass immigration is only one factor in the increase of job insecurity and low wages. Many of the immigrants coming in, especially from the EU are highly qualified and are working in the professions, doctors, nurses, business managers, IT specialists and especially in the STEM industries where the lack of interest of British students in studying engineering and science is causing real problems. Many of the jobs with zero hours contracts are in retail, especially supermarkets and the warehouses supplying them, as the recent problems with Sports Direct has shown and the majority of retail workers are British. Similarly, many companies (like Sports Direct) do not directly employ staff but use agency staff, who can be taken on/laid off without any employers rights. Where immigrants can be found in low wage jobs it is in the industries British people do not want to work in; harvesting work in agriculture and horticulture is one.

Our economy has expanded and the number of jobs in this country has expanded, Many studies have shown that immigrants, overall contribute far more to the British economy than they draw out. The billions of pounds they pay in taxation each year would not be being paid if they were primarily in low paid work.

Makes me wonder where you get your data from Monica.

Do you have data (figures) to put against it, stillaliveandkicking? (welcome back, by the way)