Goodness - golden boy Sunak now less popular than Starmer!

I agree DiamondLily.

We mustn't forget that much social housing is run by Housing Associations now, not Councils.

Gosh, I’m nowhere near being a saint DaisyAnne but won’t apologise for thinking that Thatcher, and Blair to a lesser extent, did so much damage to poorer peoples housing prospects!

I’m glad the position has finally changed in Wales at least.

Right to Buy was just wrong imo. Even more wrong was not allowing councils to use the money it generated to build more affordable rental housing stock . Compound it all by making Housing Associations do the same
It makes me so cross to see drug dealers evicted from council housing move back into a private rent in the same area and continue trading

Of course it worked for them DiamondLily. But why should tenants who pay a moderate rent then be offered their house at a ridiculously low price while others are paying at least twice the council rent in mortgage payments. There is no logical reason for selling off council housing.
It's a disgrace and the reason people pay so much for private rentals which they could lose any time.

MayBee70

I’m wondering if some of this is being instigated by some Conservatives themselves as part of Operation save big dog given that Sunak was becoming a danger to Johnson?

That crossed my mind too.

growstuff

MayBee70

I’m wondering if some of this is being instigated by some Conservatives themselves as part of Operation save big dog given that Sunak was becoming a danger to Johnson?

That crossed my mind too.

It's being noted as that by various commentators.

Opening the way for the lovely (never pass up a photo opportunity) Liz Truss...

Agree with Grostuff and Maybee. In the long run this is not good news. It should not matter what ministers' spouses do or don't do unless against the law.

RS is able and there are not so many able people in the Cabinet. If he's driven to resign, who to replace him who would be any better?

RS is most definitely not 'able'. Or do you think 'able' means he's very good at channeling wealth towards the 'haves' in society and indifferent to the wellbeing of the have nots?

I don't think that tipping even more people into poverty and enforcing completely unnecessary tax increases that will slow down the economy looks particularly 'able'.

I agree with Maizie. I think Sunak is lightweight. He was a hedge fund manager, not an economist, and he really does not seem to have much idea of the crises people are facing.

I think what his wife does with her money does matter. I don't suppose for one minute she doesn't share some of it with him. Her status and what she's doing with taxes is legal, but it's not a good look when her husband turns a blind eye to increasing poverty. What happened to the idea that "we're all in this together?"

However, I do agree with you winterwhite that's there's a complete absence of ability (and values) on the Tory front bench. Why anybody supports any of them is a mystery to me.

nadateturbe

Of course it worked for them DiamondLily. But why should tenants who pay a moderate rent then be offered their house at a ridiculously low price while others are paying at least twice the council rent in mortgage payments. There is no logical reason for selling off council housing.
It's a disgrace and the reason people pay so much for private rentals which they could lose any time.

I think that you are forgetting that part of the mortgage repayments are capital. You should be comparing like with like, by calculating the interest over the length of the mortgage so that you can work out the capital element and then deduct the capital from the total repayments.

Usually interest is front loaded and the capital element is low and the proportions change gradually during the duration of the mortgage.

I think that had the fuel price increases been capped at a much lower price the economy would be better off. Think about all the delivery costs which are being passed on to the consumer. I heard the other day that some businesses which are heavily dependent on power may go out of business because they cannot afford the increased payments.

PECS

DaisyAnne some people do try to live by principles, e.g. not buying a council property when offered one at reduced rates, not sending child to private school, not choosing to pay for private health care even though we could have done so. Not trying to say I have lived a perfect life ..far from it & I have benefitted from financial schemes, e.g. 100% low interest mortgage in exchange for working in a certain area for a number of years. But there are loads of people who do do their best to put principles before personal gain.

Ouch. You seem to be saying that because my views are not yours, they are not principled.

I agree with this quote "great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Putting other people in the "unprincipled" box will not persuade them to begin to consider what you are saying - as you can see.

trisher

MaizieD

Thatcher wasn't bothered about those consequences, though, was she?

All she wanted was to reduce investment in public services and get more tory voters.

Selling off council housing meant lower council tax (or was it still 'the rates' at that time?) because the councils wouldn't have to pay out on maintenance and administration costs involved (did she forget about lost rental revenue?) Which would make voters grateful..

She also reckoned that houseowners were more likely to vote tory.

As for the rest, well, that was their own fault for not working hard to better themselves...

Many of the former council houses were sold at a profit to landlords. Former council housing is now expensive private rental property... Fun, isn't it?

I have a theory about that Rents must have given some councils quite a large income, especially the large cities. Removing that income left them more vulnerable to cuts in the money they receive from the government. Just think how powerful a council with a large housing stock, all paying rent, would be today.

That sounds perfectly believable trisher.

Iam64

Right to Buy was just wrong imo. Even more wrong was not allowing councils to use the money it generated to build more affordable rental housing stock . Compound it all by making Housing Associations do the same
It makes me so cross to see drug dealers evicted from council housing move back into a private rent in the same area and continue trading

I agree,"it was just wrong", Iam but anyone left of centre by even a tad would think that. It was a New Right Market Economy move. It achieved all Thatcher set out to achieve and so it has continued, with few interruptions, for 40 years.

Worrying about the detail, though understandable, will not achieve what a centrist/left of centre government or pact could achieve. (Although I worry about detail too )

Dinahmo whatever way you explain it, tenants paid much less then those paying a mortgage then got the opportunity to buy the house for a pittance. (We were offered ours for £6k). After a time they could sell and make a huge profit towards theirnext home. How is that fair? Council housing should never be sold, it's for those who can't afford to buy.

nadateturbe

Dinahmo whatever way you explain it, tenants paid much less then those paying a mortgage then got the opportunity to buy the house for a pittance. (We were offered ours for £6k). After a time they could sell and make a huge profit towards theirnext home. How is that fair? Council housing should never be sold, it's for those who can't afford to buy.

As I said, you need to strip the capital element before you can really compare.

MissAdventure

I didn't know that, Petera.
Well, perhaps some other scheme to help people have a home, then?

I'm sure the original intention wasnt to allow ex council properties to be owned and let out by people who were never tenants in the first place.

From a BBC article

"Under the rules, councils were prevented from reinvesting most of the proceeds of council house sales in new homes. After 1990, most local authorities were only allowed to spend 25% of such receipts on building houses."

trisher I have a theory about that Rents must have given some councils quite a large income, especially the large cities.

There's a frequently quoted statement - I've never checked it, but could believe it - that Glasgow City Council were the biggest landlords in Europe.

Perhaps they could have tightened up on the reselling rules?
I think it used to be that you had to give the council first refusal if you sold within 5 years (or 10?)

Interest..capital.. whatever..you obviously don't get my point Dinahmo...

nadateturbe

Interest..capital.. whatever..you obviously don't get my point Dinahmo...

I can assure you I did. It seems to me that you are the one not understanding. It seems to me that you are just comparing the amount of money your mortgage outgoings with the rents paid by someone else for social housing.

I took the following figures from Lloyds Bank website - today's rates for a first time buyer.

Mortgage £140k (Over 25 years)
Total paid over 25 years £226k
Interest element = £86k

Monthly repayments £753, capital element £467 therefore interest £286.

Whilst you are paying out £753 per month, you are in effect investing £467 in your home. Assuming that there are no increases in the value of property at the end of 25 years you would have an asset worth £140,000. Someone renting social housing would, at the end of 25 years, not have an asset.

For the purpose of this exercise I have ignored a deposit and obviously interest rates will fluctuate over 25 years.

nadateturbe

Of course it worked for them DiamondLily. But why should tenants who pay a moderate rent then be offered their house at a ridiculously low price while others are paying at least twice the council rent in mortgage payments. There is no logical reason for selling off council housing.
It's a disgrace and the reason people pay so much for private rentals which they could lose any time.

Well, I didn't take up the offer to buy mine, but many friends and neighbours did, which was up to them.

We all do what what we consider best for our families, I suppose.

I still think the problem now is due to not replacing the stock as it was sold. If that had happened, we wouldn't have had the dire affordable housing shortage we have now.

Both political parties need to take responsibility for this, as neither, since the 80's, have built enough affordable housing.

The reason why the fact that Sunak’s wife “earns” £11.5 million in her Indian company and pays no tax on it because of the archaic tax laws is an issue, is that - her husband, who no doubt benefits from this wealth, has done nothing to ease the cost of living crisis which will push thousands into poverty. Sunak could have done something to help the poorest , but chose to protect the wealthiest instead. We now have the highest inflation and the highest taxation in decades.

Avoided £20 million over the past decade apparently.

Not bad.