Goodness - golden boy Sunak now less popular than Starmer!

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 )

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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'.

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?

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

I agree DiamondLily.

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

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.

I don't think Right to Buy was a problem. It worked well for many council tenants. The problem started with not replacing the properties sold off with more social housing.

Hence the shortage today - not dealt with by either Labour or Tory governments.

That original decision was down to Thatcher - councils weren't allowed to replace their housing stock.

I wonder if Rishi might resign.

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.

Once the houses were in private hands the new owners (i.e former council tenants) were free to do whatever they liked with them Including selling them on at a profit.

Thatcher didn't really care, so long as it brought her party more voters.

Silly me, trisher; you're right about loss of rental income = increased dependency on central government. The tories really, really, hate ordinary people and democracy don't they?

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.

Pantglas2

“The houses should not have been offered for discounted sale. As they were I don't see why people should not buy them. If you, or the buyer don't want a small government market economy which will always make choices like this then work towards changing the government. “

I’m glad we agree with the first sentence above DaisyAnne and I’m not sure how changing Thatcher for Blair made any difference as he continued the policy and with his majority could’ve stopped it stone dead!

So many people put their own interests first on this one without thinking how it would affect future generations - it was plain as day there’d be a massive price to pay for low earners stuck in expensive private rentals.

Apologies to OP for going off on a tangent...

Everyone bar a saint (and I've always thought they would be impossible to live with) puts their interests first in the long run. Or are you saying you don't Pantglas?

Equally your way of fighting for the future is not everyone else's way. Yours is not necessarily right ... or wrong. It is your way. Others see things differently and fight in their way for what they think will affect future generations. It sounds as if you think only your view of the future can be right. Being open-minded about the future seems to me a better way of actually achieving something useful.

Pantglas2

Casdon

I thought you lived in Wales Pantglas2? The right to buy council houses here has been abolished.

I do Casdon but the right to buy here wasn’t abolished until 2019...too little, too late methinks!

Not sure of the position in the rest of UK - perhaps other posters know?

Too late I agree, but at least it’s happening now. Having faced up to the issues, councils in Wales are also building new council homes in some areas, I’d be interested to know if that’s happening elsewhere as well.

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?

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.

MissAdventure

Well, it may have been an idea to build some more when they sold them off...

That was part of the original deal, if I remember, Councils were not allowed to use the revenue to build more houses.