Well David for the first time I disagree with you. Council houses should be for people who can not afford to but their own. Young married couples on a low income ..etc. And if you can afford to buy, then make it compulsary to buy in the private sector.And not let people claim a new council house at a cheap price thus depriving needy people of a home.

Coaldust,

It would be a dull world if we all agree all the time!

They just love their 'sink estates', no city is complete without one or two, to grace it's image, and to enhance the crime rate!- are they just longing to replace The Gorbals and all those other fine monuments to egalitarianism, which everyone, without exception, was glad to see the back of.

The high rise estates in the east of London were a total disgrace and did more harm to communities than the so-called 'slums' they replaced, which at least had some sense of community and cohesiveness. Nothing encourages such a sense of despair and abandonment, as living in such places.

Like all socialist inspired ideas - it's very worthy in concept, but a total disaster in it's execution.

The architects responsible for the design of these 'estates', designing more for some international award, while totally forgetting the people who will have to live in their soulless and barren monstrosities.

It isn't as though the authorities charged with administering these modern ghettos, even bother to do any maintenance, the expense of doing so being seen as unnecessary and a financial burden. Little wonder that, with barely any exception, so-called social housing always deteriorates into crime ridden hell holes, and rapidly become police 'no-go' areas.

Wherever these sops to socialist doctrine are built, they have failed, whether it be Glasgow, London, Paris, New York or Moscow, all eventually end up increasing the very problem they were supposed to cure.

Do these people never learn anything from history?

It's a controversial issue, since when Thatcher brought in the right to buy, people were buying up homes who would normally not be able to afford to do so, and it led to massive repossessions in the 80's and 90's. The renting sector in NI has grown outrageously. Many young people are forced into renting from private landlords, costing something like £500ppm for a basic two up two down in a back street. It looks like the only people profiting are landlords, where young families starting out have no secure tenancy. Many who rent these homes have no pride in; them because they don't belong to them, which pulls down the appearance of neighbourhoods were once everybody knew everybody else. The large influx of immigrant people has pushed up prices to rent in the private sector, pushed up the price of buying a home, and put a huge squeeze on council homes which are affordable to rent.

Social housing like all public services is feeling the pressure from immigration, and due to this many will not now have the right to buy. Shame really as so many took advantage of that scheme.

Ernest Young -

Well said. I'll only add, however, that the Jocks have elected a bunch of commies so they only have themselves to blame.

From the linked story:

"And the right to buy would end on new social housing built by councils and housing associations, with an exception for existing tenants already eligible to buy their houses who are forced to move...

The SNP administration also announced plans to help first-time buyers get on the property ladder, through a mix of government grants, shared equity schemes and mortgage-related products.

Hardly communism in action, but of course if you're at the far right of the political spectrum everyone to the left of you must by definition be a commie.

Ernest,

Like the Bourbons, they learn nothing and they forget nothing.

Like the Welsh, the Scots were brought up on socialism, and taught from earliest childhood that socialism was next to godliness, and that the market, self advancement, and private enterprise were words for which your mouth was washed out with carbolic soap.So grew a slew of political parties up there with different names, ...Labour, Scottish Labour, Scottish National Party, etc etc. But, all are socialist first, including the conservative party. Poor mites,... they never knew any better. The state comes first, second, and last. You would think that Adam Smith was a sassenac, ah! Bless!

You're right about the Scottish Conservatives, - they are socialists because unless they don the dreary garb of socialism they would entirely cease to exist. Scotland is a socialist sewer, lovely country, many decent people, but those who vote - vote socialist uber alles. More welfare anyone?

Peter -

Hardly communism in action, but of course if you're at the far right of the political spectrum everyone to the left of you must by definition be a commie.

Possibly, but you'd better find someone on the far right for confirmation. Speaking from the political centre, the proposals are far closer to to communism than the free market. 'Government grants' of course give the state an ownership in land or leave the borrower in debt to the state. 'Shared equity schemes' of course give the state an ownership in land. Other 'mortgage related products' will no doubt do the same thing.

They may as well be honest, drop the fancy language, ditch the sales patter and just say they want to collectivise home ownership.

Speaking from the political centre

LOL! At least you have a sense of humour.