Trying to buy a house in this area is near impossible

[numbers]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

This was NOT happening before 1980, no

> matter how many people you know who were allowed

> to purchase before 1980.

Just to be clear - I never said that I knew people who purchased pre-1980. It was a Labour government, early 80s.

As an aside, from reading some comments on this thread (not directed at you btw), you'd be forgiven for thinking that those who managed to buy a council property had it handed to them without them having to do any work in order to achieve it. No-one I know who bought back then was 'lucky enough to be given a windfall'. Incredulous that people think it was in any way easy. Maybe they should 'known their place' and done fuck all about it.

Blair & Brown... New Labour shocker re not removing policy when they were in power.

edited to add: govt

[Zebedee Tring]

Poker Time has confirmed what I said above in my earlier post. Right to Buy was very much a flagship Tory policy designed to woo Labour voting Council tenants - this was very successful in places such as Basildon and Harlow, hence the "Essex Man" stereotype (I say this as an Essex Man myself).

[Zebedee Tring]

Numbers, I don't know how old you were in the early 1980s, but your grasp of recent political history is somewhat shaky.

Here are the Prime Ministers since 1970:

1970-74 Heath

1974-6 Wilson

1976-9 Callaghan

1979-90 Thatcher

1990-97 Major

1997-2007 Blair

2007-10 Brown

2010 to date Cameron.

I think that you will find that in the early 1980s Thatcher was PM. Unless you are suggesting that she was a Labour PM ....

[PokerTime]

But Labour were not responsible for the Right to Buy scheme numbers. They weren't even responsible for the restricted regulation allowing LAs to sell porperty prior to that either (as I wrote above, that came into existence under the Conservative government of 1936).

I don't think anyone is blaming those who buy through right-to-buy to be fair. It is fair however to criticise the policy as a whole. It has absolutely contributed (along with many other things) to the housing crisis. And 40% of those 1.9 million homes bought have been sold on to private landlords. In real terms it's a reduction in affordable housing by a third accross the country.

Yet we haven't seen a closing of the gap between rich and poor (it's now as wide as it's ever been and getting wider), just as we haven't seen a dramatic increase in those earning average and above wages. Salaries have not risen in line with the cost of living. Any idea that we'd become a democratic nation of property owners with a better distribution of wealth as a result (the Tory line), has been shown for the nonsense it is. I agree with the comment above 'a ploy to woo labour voters' (one reason why New Labour could not revoke the right-to-buy scheme) . And in turn New Labour sought to woo the home owners of the South.

There are 1.8 million people/households on council waiting lists accross the country. If LAs have been allowed to replace the homes sold, the picture would now be very different, and far healthier.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@ numbers - You have quoted my post and then paraphased an arguement (not made) that people should have 'known their place'. You are inferring that I have criticised those taking up the Right to Buy. I have explicitly stated the opposite. That is not engaging with the arguements made.

[numbers]

ZT - okay it was 1983 I was old enough to know my history but not old enough to vote then but as I said the policy was started by Labour which was where they first heard about it. Also from Harlow and Harold Hill I believe. Not Labour voting council tenants but working class Tories.

Still good to see people on here finding excuses for a Labour government coming up with the policy in the first place which then paved the way for Thatcher's 'flagship' policy and which was not removed by....Labour when they got into power again. No surprise there.

[numbers]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @ numbers - You have quoted my post and then

> paraphased an arguement (not made) that people

> should have 'known their place'. You are inferring

> that I have criticised those taking up the Right

> to Buy. I have explicitly stated the opposite.

> That is not engaging with the arguements made.

I wasn't paraphrasing you, apologies if my post wasn't clear. I will say that I wasn't inferring that you were criticising those taking it up. I was actually using the 'knowing their place' to make my own point, using quids earlier words which is how I feel about it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Fair enough, my bad.

[numbers]

no its not your fault rah rah, my posts are quite incoherent today. I don't want to even read them back as I will cringe as I know I'm not putting my point across properly I know that. sorry everyone reading this thread, I will shut up... for a bit x

[PokerTime]

Numbers, you are referring to a Labour Party Manifesto idea of 1959 !!!! (an election they lost btw). The form of the idea that influenced Thatcher, was actually first proposed by the Conservative controlled GLC's chairman of Housing in the Late 60s. When the GLC was lost to Labour no sales were allowed. When the same Chairman of Housing became GLC leader in 1977 the idea came back on the table. Horace Cutler was a good friend of Thatcher, but was never advocating a scheme based on free market principles. That was all Thatchers doing. You can try all you like to pin this one on Labour but it's just nonsense to suggest that a vague general idea made part of a party manifesto in 1959 is somehow responsible for what Thatcher delivered.

I think the points about policy being shaped by votes is an important one. It transcends all aspects of housing, both private and social. Markets can be regulated to correct imbalances but housing seems to be the poisoned chalice no party now dare tackle in any kind of meaningful way.

It is all about votes. It is also all about keeping a culture of home ownership over rental going - essential to keep the fodder churning into the bottom of the pyramid scheme. And that won't change until private tenants are given more protection over length and security of tenancy. After all, who would want to rent when they can be turfed out every six months, and have no say in the decor of the home they pay a huge proportion of their salaries for.

Worse than that, the coalition seem to think social hosuing should be stripped of it's protections (set in law) and operate under the same conditions s private rented property. Well that's just no solution to anything - completely dreamt up by people who have no conception of life at the bottom end.

[Zebedee Tring]

Numbers, I hope that you can now agree with Poker Time and myself that the STATUTORY (as opposed to voluntary) Council house sales policy was actually introduced by a Tory government, not a Labour one. There was no Labour Government between 1951 and 1964 and then between 1979 and 1997.

However, I am not letting the most recent Labour Government off the hook for failing to introduce a massive public sector house building programme - they had thirteen years to do so.

[numbers]

Yes, ZT, I do now agree about that particular point. I've since discovered that I gave the wrong dates yesterday, it was 1968 apparently, during Horace Cutler time as PokerTime had already explained.

I do not attribute the blame to one single policy though, there are numerous contributing factors which should really have their own thread in another part of the forum. I don't think even I could blame a Government (of any political persuasion)as responsible for building crappy concrete structures that wouldn't last.

[StraferJack]

yup, at the moment I'm less interested in historical blame - where does that begin and end?? - and more interested in recognising and accepting there is a problem here and now, so what do we do about it

(although I am interested in PT's study and reporting)

[the-e-dealer]

Same in Sydenham - Estate Agents leave sold stuff on as available both on websites and in Magasines. Flippin Crooks!

Pedder even sent me detail of a property they sold 2 weeks ago.

[aileking]

Now some estate agents are charging finders fees to the buyers. Adds ?1000s on to the price (which obviously has to come out of the deposit). Seems so wrong as they are actually working for the seller, but the more they sell you the house for the more they charge you. I wouldn't mind if it was Kirsty and Phil actually finding you a house, but this is for properties that you find on zoopla (so how they can justify a finders fee when you contacted them is just weird).

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/10/house-buyers-beware-estate-agents-double-charge

[miga]

.

[Twirly]

Surely this represents a conflict of interest? How can you represent both parties in the deal?

[the-e-dealer]

Yes but estate agents are scrupulously honest.

[Twirly]

What a relief!!

[Ramble66]

All the estate agents we got valuations from used 'if you sell through us we'll give you priority on viewings' line.

When I emailed one estate agent, who had given us a valuation, about a property they'd sent me details for, they replied saying there was a priority viewing for their vendors and therefore no room for us, unless of course we decided to sell through them. Blatant blackmail.

[LondonMix]

Another Winkworth property has seen a price reduction: the 5 bed on Chesterfield Grove has reduced to 1.1m vs 1.2m. Winkworth was Aldo behind the crazy 925k valuation for the Frogley rd property which has been reduced to 850k and is still on the market.

Hopefully this means the market is calming down somewhat!

[worldwiser]

Just saw that on Frogley myself. Owners. Egg. Face. Oh the embarrassment :-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

yep, 3 bed on Heber has droppped price pretty quickly too.

[edcam]

Ramble66 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> All the estate agents we got valuations from used

> 'if you sell through us we'll give you priority on

> viewings' line.

>

> When I emailed one estate agent, who had given us

> a valuation, about a property they'd sent me

> details for, they replied saying there was a

> priority viewing for their vendors and therefore

> no room for us, unless of course we decided to

> sell through them. Blatant blackmail.

If that happened to me I'd put a note through the vendor's door, telling them the estate agent was limiting potential buyers.

[the-e-dealer]

A fiver to anyone who picks an advertised property at random from Pedders Website or Rightmove and rings them and finds the house / flat really is available. (do estate Agents sh1t in the woods!)