General Chat

Absolutely.

However the small scale landlord was getting a bit too pushy so the Tories (!) yanjked the rug from under his feet. Consistent with a corporate state with "managed" democracy.

There is an ethnic cleansing operation going on in London on an epic scale. .
Manchester esp Salford and Heptonstall has also been at the wrong end of the wrecking ball.

Mr Peabody would revolve in his grave.

I would say that the best way to keep the masses under control is to keep them in debt with no safety blanket and that the real winners in the situation were those who had the money to lend as mortgages.

In the last 20/30 years people that have never owned/bought a Council house but had bought a house when they got married.

You would be surprised how many couples have actually sold a home privately and got Council housing for there so called old age.

Then they have had the cheek to ask and get Council tax and rent paid hiding that they have no money.
I bloody disgusts me and especially when I worked 37 years in Council housing.

The policy was thought through.
Policy objectives - all met.

1. Weaken / remove the primary base for Labour votes 1945-1997
2. It was anticipated that many CH buyers would sell up with the house ending up tenented again this time with a biz landlord; Labour invented Housing Associations as a way to morph the pain but these are now just large business with little or no social credo.
3. Weaken local democracy.
This succeeded so well that one hardline Tory council has gone bust (Northants) and three more are on the line (W. Somerset, S Dorset , Wight)
4. Provide rich pickings in the same way as the Rail franchise racket.

Would Corbyn be any better ?
Probably not.
Best move for the young , skilled people: leave.

I think you are right so it must have been government policy to encourage home ownership. A policy not thought through.

As I recall, councils were not allowed to invest in housing stock.

The housing stock went right down as so many council houses were bought. Good for those in the position to buy and it got many on the housing ladder. However the mistake was not to invest in building more houses to increase the stock again.

Yes Maggie gave us the right to buy but did not invest the money for move social housing. They build these part ownerships now.

I watched 7UP63 last night and was quite taken aback by what one lady said.

She stated that she thought housing was very difficult to come by for young people and that, for those of her age whose parents were in council housing there was almost a guarantee of council housing for themselves.

Indeed, she herself had been able to take on council housing which she had bought and then sold to get on the housing ladder.

Could this be why it is difficult for the young to access social housing?