Sort of an odd way of putting that (well, a politically inspired one no doubt). Housing associations are in the business of providing housing "dirt cheap" in the form of rent. It's not as if it would make much sense for them to sell property at market. Also it's not a given that tenants who bought would not successfully manage them for decades either.
Are you objecting simply because this is a tory policy so it must be all bad?
Do you then agree with Mike G that they produce perverse incentives, distort markets, increase all other new housing costs (thus decreasing supply), and help trap another generation into a culture of dependency on the state? And are you, like him, curious that anyone would see this as positive?
I understand Mr Farage has some concerns in this regard too
2%?
Correct. It was apples versus pomegranates.
I did say, "can be set to upto 80%..."
How does this constitute, "a better deal to low income tenants"? HAs certainly will lose control of existing assets, which will almost certainly have an impact on what they retain. Isolated properties may not be much of an issue, but what about the piecemeal selling off of flats within large developments? This can turn out to be as much a posioned chalice for buyers as it can be for the authority that retains control of parts of the rest of the building, as has been the case with ex-council stock.
You seemed to say the purchase discount ("dirt cheap") they would get from Cameron's bribe is more generous than the rent discount they get now. That would make it a better deal. Perhaps you want it both ways--ripping off HAs and nothing for the tenant.
That's certainly not impossible to legislate. Like you I can't see the tories, or Labour doing it. It would of course probably push up rents though.
Neither way. Tenants to continue not to be ripped off, by being able to rent high quality affordable housing, while HAs are not ripped off by being required to dispose of their stock through forced sales at a discount.
I was thinking of tenants as a group, not the individuals who might get lucky. The whole measure smacks as much of a desire to undermine the concept of social housing as it does of bribing-for-votes renters within the sector. This strikes me as little different from the carpetbaggers who pushed through the demutualisation of so many building societies previously, by danging sweeteners under the noses of those who had already bennefited from what those institutions were actually set up for in the first place.
right ...