pap

How would they help? What are you going to do with them? Y'know, if I suspected you had any fúcking interest in said figures, I'd call the number or send something to the email address on the doc (you could too!). However, we can both see that this is a man with no facts of his own trying to dump on what someone else has provided.

The issue is non-trivial enough so that government felt it had to cover it during the 2012 revamp of the scheme. Reckon the govt were just pulling numbers out of their arses to determine this?

Well, it's evidently more research than you've ever done on the subject, Wes. How many times have you been educated about some facet of the Right to Buy scheme in this thread alone? Still, I'm sure your ragtag collection of unsubstantiated assumptions are easier to find on the Internet than my linked content proving the case. Keep on making the assumptions though, kid. It's worked out excellently for you so far. It's not just Westminster, and it wasn't just last year. I can remember people being targeted back in the day with sale and rent schemes. This document from the current government acknowledges that abuse of the system has taken place in the past, but it doesn't provide any figures, so it must be wrong https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5936/2102605.pdf The issue is non-trivial enough so that government felt it had to cover it during the 2012 revamp of the scheme. I reckon you might be better off suggesting I'm going to turf me ma out on the street again.

You've got a recent example of a firm hoovering up the last of the stuff in London. Amazingly, 20% of homes bought under the scheme there were paid for by claimants on housing benefit. Maybe that's how Jamie's parents got their house! You are quite right. I haven't got the time nor inclination to provide complete figures, but then, I was never relying on a specific claim about figures. You introduced that requirement, presumably to narrow the argument in your favour. "Give me all the facts now or you're wrong!" is a shíte debating tactic. Especially when you can type "right to buy scam" or "right to buy fraud" into Google.

Not sure, but then you knew that anyway. Still being ruthlessly exploited as late as last year. http://z2k.org/2014/09/right-to-buy-the-london-investment-property-group/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905827/The-tenants-benefits-buying-council-house-one-five-applicants-receive-handouts.html

Really? You spent enough time trying to establish it I think it's always better to research than suspect, btw. If you'd done your research, you'd have discovered that there were actually firms aggressively targeting people in council accommodation offering to buy the house on the tenant's behalf. The tenant would normally clear out after the three year period, and the landlord would end up getting the property. As I said at the start, I don't really have an issue with right to buy as it applies to council houses as long as the stock is being replaced. My personal view is that it really should be for people who want to own their own home because it's their home, not because it offers a cheap way to speculate on the housing market. Applying it to housing associations is madness. It's one thing to sell off things the public owns, quite another to sell off something that other people own.

The whole thing is a joke. The big new idea is that the government will force charities to sell their assets at a knockdown price. At the moment, we don't even know if it's legal, but practically, you'd think the government would need to compensate for the huge loss in assets. If they do, then the taxpayer is essentially going to bear the cost of paying the HAs off, all for the benefit of a small section of HA tenants. If they don't, then that's social housing over. I like the way you've quoted "unplanned", btw. Just like the "unplanned" consequences of the HB bill.

I suspect Wes knew all this already.

Thank you, VFTT.

I was explaining how the three year limit is not a safeguard. For the record though, if I did ever buy the old dear's gaffe, she'd get to live there in perpetuity and the house would go to my siblings afterward. Not as sensational as your take, but it is not as fictional either.

There you go, liar Wes. I've quoted my post so you don't have to lie about it. Perhaps you'd like to point out where I kick my mum out and trouser the profit.

I'm not riled at all. I just find the area of attack amusing. Batman introduced his parents to this debate long before this thread ever got started, but here he states that his mum was lifted out of state support by the Housing Act of 1980. Let's hear how. He said it. Let him back it up. How did she get a mortgage with no job, for example?

I loved your interpretation of that post, btw. Worst case scenario Wes. Suggesting that I'd chuck the old dear onto the street? A fascinating insight into the way your mind fails to work. Like Jeff, you're having to lie to make your point against me. Mum would be proud

It's not a case of it being ok or not. I am truly not arsed. If you are upset, I'd suggest not using your family as components of your argument when discussing this issue. You've shown yourself to be lying on one level here, mush. You say they were lifted out of state handouts on the back of this policy alone. I don't see how that's possible.

Where did I say I couldn't afford my own? I think you'll find I said we'd be buying another place when both the girls have left for Uni. That is less of a cost thing and more of a "where the f**k will we be" question. Do we need to swap out "Unbelievable" for "Liar"?

Ha. I do enough for my family. Worst angle of attack you could have tried. Says it all for your collective political acumen that this very poor invention is all you have.

I love this. I really do. We have 35 years of evidence pertaining to the effects of right to buy, including knowing that a third of all sold off council estate properties are now in the hands of private landlords. We know that it wasn't the poorest who benefited from the scheme, despite Jamie's implicit claim that his parents bought their council house on benefits And yet, we get this. An argument so simplistic and reductive that it sounds like UJ has been told to say it by a bigger boy, who had to explain it to UJ in terms simple enough to be able to convey. The best thing is, it's actually all UJ

A marketed product that people choose to buy, worn discreetly on their person is an entirely different proposal from a potentially mandatory and definitely visible means of identification.

"Extending right to buy is both financially illiterate and morally wrong" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11535234/Extending-the-right-to-buy-is-economically-illiterate-and-morally-wrong.html

You can perhaps see why some of them mightn't fancy southerners making decisions for them [emoji3]

That's because you're not a son of rock and roll*, KRG * lyric

I give both song and video my 100% approval. Turn it up, full screen it and have fun. This video contains scenes of violence commensurate with what you would expect from the song's title.

Under the M27 bridge by the River Hamble? Great views and fresh water.

What more of a position did you need? Not only did you have the stuff I posted here, but also a blog piece I wrote three years ago decrying right to buy. You had the answer all along, but have admitted you were stupid enough to need it spelling out. Progress of a sort I suppose.