Breaking News: Right to Buy not responsible for depleting social housing stock, new research suggests
Published: March 10, 2023 | Category: Politics, Social Housing, Homelessness | Tags: Right to Buy, Social Housing, Homelessness, Housing Market, UK Politics
London, UK – A recent study has cast doubt on the widely-held belief that the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme has contributed significantly to the decline of social housing stock in the UK. The findings suggest that other factors, such as lack of investment and changes in government policy, have had a much greater impact on the depletion of social housing.
The study, conducted by the Centre for Housing Policy at the University of York, analyzed data from over 100 councils across England to determine the causes of the decline in social housing stock. According to the researchers, while the RTB scheme has undoubtedly led to the loss of some social housing, it is not the primary cause of the problem.
"We found that the number of social housing properties being sold under Right to Buy has been significantly outweighed by the number of new social housing properties being built," said Dr. Paula Mahon, lead researcher on the study. "In fact, our findings suggest that a lack of investment in social housing, combined with changes in government policy, have had a much greater impact on the decline of social housing stock."
The Right to Buy scheme, introduced by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government in 1980, allowed council tenants to purchase their homes at a discounted rate. While the scheme was intended to give tenants greater control over their living situation, it has been widely criticized for exacerbating social housing shortages.
However, the new study suggests that the impact of RTB on social housing stock has been overstated. The researchers found that, while some councils have sold significant numbers of properties under the scheme, many others have not. Additionally, they found that the number of new social housing properties being built has been insufficient to replace those sold under RTB.
"This study is a wake-up call for policymakers and highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of the complex factors contributing to the decline of social housing stock," said a spokesperson for the UK’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
SEO Tags:
- Right to Buy
- Social Housing
- Homelessness
- Housing Market
- UK Politics
- Housing Policy
- Government Investment
- Council Housing
- Tenants’ Rights
- Property Prices
- Affordable Housing
- Social Housing Crisis
- UK Housing Market Trends
Related News:
- UK Housing Market Shows Signs of Slowing Down (February 2023)
- New Study Highlights Impact of Brexit on UK Housing Market (January 2023)
- Government Announces New Measures to Address Homelessness Crisis (December 2022)
Stay up-to-date with the latest news and developments in the world of housing and politics by following us on social media:
- Twitter: @BreakingNewsUK
- Facebook: @BreakingNewsUK
- LinkedIn: @BreakingNewsUK
I can provide the link to this article, but this sub doesn't allow links to post in here.
View info-news.info by nkay_10
Post the link in a comment, some mod changed a setting it’s quite annoying.
https://www.cityam.com/right-to-buy-isnt-to-blame-for-depleted-social-housing-stock/
With out having read this article, is it written by someone with their tongue so far up Thatchers bum hole they can clean her ascending colon?
This is a boring topic to me. The issue of housing is influenced heavily by the population…the amount of people let into the country.
The plan should be reduce immigration and build more. That way the govt can catch up with this housing target.
This whole issue is completely by design.
Housing associations getting no blame tho
It depends on what you mean by right to buy. If just the ability for social housing tenants to buy their home at a discount, then there’s at least an argument there about the benefits and not being a blocker to building more social housing.
But if you mean the entire policy, then it’s absolutely to blame given that the money was explicitly not allowed to be used to replace the social housing being sold off. The article author brushes this off with the very confusing argument that because that rule has now been softened we should just pretend it’s not responsible for the state we’re in now
They need to end RTB for HAs at least.
Why would you build a property only to know it could be sold at a loss in x number of years.
It’s not a bad thing for council stock, as it’s all so old and in need of money spent on it they’d be better off shorting it and investing in new.
I always think there are a couple of points that don’t seem to be made that often:
1. It was council tenants who bought the homes suggesting that home ownership over council renting was something they wanted.
2. The population wasn’t growing as fast in the 80s so little need to replace housing stock as quickly. A-lot was just relocation from inner cities to towns with new estates.
“Margaret Thatcher created a generation of homeowners, giving them and their families a sense of security and a stake in society that they would otherwise have been unable to afford.”
She also created future generations of renters who get shafted at every turn.
Well, it isn’t, directly.
Right to buy removes one house from the stock, and removes one household from the demand. So it’s entirely neutral in the first order.
But it doesn’t stop new demand from arising over time, and the ratio of incremental demand to stock therefore goes up.
If government chose to use the proceeds to RTB to construct new stock, then that could be fixed – *if we put aside the very real problem of net migration*. Yes there is a RTB discount but that’s approximately equal to a typical development margin so government could fund development at cost price at least.
But as we all know, they don’t do that. They do the thing that governments always have a tendency to do, which is disproportionately prioritise operational spending that supports current consumption, rather than investment spending that supports current investment (and therefore *future* consumption, which another later government will get the feelgood vibes from)
Right to buy exemplifies an issue with housing and wages in the UK imo. A council house should never be an answer to a serious issue. Can’t afford rent or to have children? That’s a wage issue. A council house should be a temporary solution to that, but allowing it to become a permanent answer through right to buy has been a 40 year bandage on a sucking wound.
As is frequently trotted out when we discuss landlords exiting the PRS, that house didn’t cease to exist, someone who would have otherwise requried housing (by the council) is living in it.
The issue is that new building hasn’t even remotely kept pace with what’s required.