Reply With QuoteI totally agree
It was a disgraceful policy yet she's given it validation
Pathetic to read her saying she worked hard and did it by the book......that's the problem , its totally unfair in the first place
I can't stand her
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
I thought she would be all for letting councils keep their housing stock rather than selling it. So find it strange she bought her own council home with 25% discount and then sold it for a 48% profit
I totally agree
It was a disgraceful policy yet she's given it validation
Pathetic to read her saying she worked hard and did it by the book......that's the problem , its totally unfair in the first place
I can't stand her
Are you sure about this?Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
He problem is she is so pious and so intolerant of others. Any slip up from others and she's on them like a tonne of bricks. So she should expect the same.
Hypocrite too, but most politicians are.
She looks like a bloke
I can understand why she did it, just like Dianne Abbott campaigning against private schools and then sending her to one (he still ended up in jail though) or even Corbyn who went to a grammar school as did his son. It does stink a bit though and shows them up for what they are (human) and hypocrits.
Luckily our Charlotte has come to the rescue by singing from the river to the sea in Caerphilly on Saturday to divert attention.....
The next bit of heat is coming to Vaughan Gething it seems taking a donation of 200k from a bloke who has twice been convicted of environmental damage and then another donation from the company behind the coal exchange 20k (I wonder what they wanted in return...) now gone bust -seemingly on purpose after they skanked their investors - many just caught up in a time share scam - well done Mr Gething - nice work...
It's the pathetic attempt to say she'd worked hard etc
What she did by buying her council house was stick two fingers up to the many people who could not get what was effectively a government cash bung like she did to buy her council house
And then slag off the policy .....which she benefitted from
Couldn't make it up
I agree it doesn't look good, but my parents had the chance of buying the council house they were renting back in the mid 70s (before Thatcher became Prime Minister) and paid what always struck me as a bargain price for it. The house was left to me, my brother and sister when my parents died and in 2018 we sold it for what was about twenty five times more than what my parents paid for it. Maybe, I'm being stupid here, but if you're saying Angela Raynor was wrong for selling the house at a profit some years after she bought it, were my siblings and I wrong for selling the house left to us for what the market deemed was a fair price?
Legally no
Morally yes
Lots of people never bought what essentially was a state asset and made money out of it
They refused to take up right to buy and gave the council houses back to the council so future generations with no chance of owning a home could rent and have a roof over their head for a relatively cheap rent
Council houses should be for the community and there should be no right to buy something .....even if its for your children ......if that reduces the availability of housing for those in need in the future
If there is to be a equitable society there is no compromise on this wether its Angela raynor or the man in the street
If you are going to stand on a platform and protest / shout about something - and then do something else - it's wrong on every level. She will counter (like Abbott) that she was doing it for her family. Which is a valent attempt - but it doesnt wash.
Raynor has taken the offer (of Thatcher I guess) on the chance to get on the property ladder, be responsible for her own home, keep it clean and tidy, look after it and make the neighbourhood a better place. Far too often when it's the council's job to look after somewhere rather than the person living there - it doesnt take long for the neighbourhood to become a sh1thole.
She has deprived someone else the chance of making a start in life without having a mortgage round their necks. It should have been - move in - get a job get settled - save up - move out. But people dont - they realise they are on a good screw and wont shift - like Bob Crow - on 120K a year and still wouldnt move out of his council house
So, what you’re saying is we should have put the house on the market for a lot less than £10,000 in 2018 some forty two years after my parents bought the house?
The housing association model is a better way - you own half - they own half. Damage the property wilfully - and you're out. Housing association help with big repairs etc. If the person decides to move out - Im not sure if the housing association buys them out or what.
Interesting to see what happens with council flats going up on the site where the council demolished the community centre. 81 flats going in there.
When my nan died my dad was given the opportunity to buy her council flat in London and refused because he hates the policy/saw it as highly damaging. Ultimately this has cost us hundreds of thousands and I imagine my sister's are deep down a bit peeved but over time my respect for that decision has grown and grown. It's a fair bit different to your situation as none of us would have lived in it, it would have only been an investment vehicle but I suppose the point is, if my dad can prioritise principles over wealth then I'd expect politicians to also.
Obviously the net effect is that someone else probably bought it and made a mint on it so taking a principled stance doesn't actually achieve anything in reality.
I saw a news piece a few years back about a scheme where the value of a new build dwelling would forever be linked at a low multiplier to the local median wage. If the area became more prosperous then you could make a modest return but otherwise you were buying the house to live in and not to make obscene amounts of money. The people being shown around couldn't get their head around how it was so cheap, I dont think they quite got it and thought they had won the lottery.
This is what the state should be building but no prizes for guessing why it didn't take off.
The flip side to that is - your Dad could have bought and the money that went to the council could have been used to build another flat somewhere else. Building costs havent gone up as much as the property cost - so they could have even been able to build 2 flats.
Until the population flattens out - we are going to have the same problem. UK population before Blair was around 60 million - it's now around 68-70 million depending on you you listen to.
Going back to Raynor - she is a fecking hypocrit, rides on the bandwagon of "Im one of you" when in reality she wants to be as far away from that as possible - until it comes to an election.
ps - did someone mention her boob job being done in a private hospital ?
Shared ownership isn't 'the housing association model'.
It can apply to council housing new build as well as other registered providers.
There are about 110,000 housing association shared ownership homes out of 2.8m total stock. (Council housing - including ALMO managed - is down to about 1.6m).
What a load of ignorant cobblers!
Until the introduction of the Self Financing Housing Revenue Account in 2012 the government's housing subsidy rules effectively prevented any Council from using Right To Buy receipts to build replacement council housing.
Since then it has been possible - but still a proportion of the receipts had to be used to pay off historic debt.
In March last year the government made a big announcement that 100% of Right To Buy receipts could be used for Council new build - but didn't lift the cap that only 40% of development costs could be funded that way. Most Councils that were trying to build new homes were already at the 40% limit so the announcement made no practical difference.
The key fact remains what it has been since Thatcher massively expanded Right To Buy in 1980 - the capital receipt from sales is a fraction of the value of the property because of the discount. New build costs have always outstripped values even if they weren't discounted for Right To Buy sales.
The Councils that owned the Right To Buy property usually funded them with a 60 year loan from the Public Works Loan Board (finally abolished by the government in 2020 and absorbed into HM Treasury). Councils still had to carry on paying off the historic debt when their rental income stream had been stopped by the sale. The capital receipt - before 2012 - went towards that debt but very often - depending on values and age of the property - there remained a debt for other tenants to pay via their rents!
Angela Raynor does not come out of this well. Eric C's dad does.
You can't justify the sale of community housing wether you benefit from it or not
The fault lies with the system allowing the sale of council housing to tenants
I am not slagging off you or your parents the system is wrong and the likes of rayner is a hypocrite
I think that stance is admirable and born out of principle
It's so damaging yet those that criticise council house sales buy them?
Unbelievable
The money from council house sales was legally prevented from being used to build new houses to replace them
It was ring fenced as the tory government called it
This
Council housing should have remained as a publicly owned rental option for anyone - regardless of circumstances.
As it was when the majority of Council housing was built on the back of slum clearances and war damage.
When I first started working for my Council housing service in the mid 1980s there was still a massive pride by many in being Council tenants. They felt Council housing was a social achievement. They felt pride in paying their rent. They had rights as tenants as well as obligations. They had no interest in becoming owner occupiers or seeing their home as an asset to make money from. Tenants Associations were strong, and important parts of the community and the local policy making process. They were consulted and usually involved in the way the Council developed.
Then came the growing impact of Right To Buy, underfunding, and national/local policies that created 'sink estates' and concentrations of poverty, deprivation, alcohol/drug dependency and mental health crises. From a tenure of choice, Council housing became a tenure of last resort - and the Labour Party under Blair (endorsing the Thatcher approach) did a lot to cement that view - although they did bring in the Decent Homes Programme and Choice Based Lettings.
But there is no reason why public housing cannot be a tenure of choice again - as it is in many European countries.
That is the bottom line
If true (no reason to doubt it isnt) then that is the wrong decision no what matter what colour your rosette is. If I remember right - at the time the council (in Cardiff) where I worked, wanted to move away from the ownership / management / mortgage and pass it over to some other housing association type organisation. Never saw the logic - as properties still got built - but had better management. (used to work in the housing dept at CCC) - it would have gone bust if a private company due to amount of dead wood it had.
I think you probably need to pick a lane here. Either you support right to buy and therefore support Rayner or you don't support right to buy and therefore don't support Rayner. You can't pick and choose when you think it's good based solely on who did it, otherwise you are exactly what you are accusing her of being.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not against the concept of right to buy, but the discounts on offer made no mathematical sense and also the money should be ring-fenced for house building to replace the stock.
It's noticeable that now that the private rental sector has grown massively (partly due to rtb) the conservatives are not in favour of an equivalent rtb scheme for those renters.
This policy ended up not being about home ownership, but about buying some votes in the short term and in the end, getting public housing stock into the hands of wealthy landlords. Either Thatcher was cynical or dumb, I was a mere boy back then so I will let others decide.
Posting Permissions
