Rayner hits back at ‘hypocrisy’ claims over Right-to-Buy

Can't see a problem (don't like the woman mind you), no hypocracy, just good common sense.

She is talking nonesense. Can anyone work out what her plan is with her comments at the end. Will she introduce a right for tenants to buy properties from landlords at half price then? If so the exodus will continue? Then what will happen to the prices. Instead of crying about the market try bringing something in a bit more helpful. Like deportation orders to reduce the population. The narrative from all politicians is we are not building enough houses. Rubbish there are more developments going up than ever. It’s just it does not keep pace with the influx of small boats.

To echo Angela Rayner's words, I also "... worked hard, saved and bought it [my buy-to-let property] by the book. I’m not ashamed...."

I worked hours that other people didn't have to work, took risks they didn't have to take and put up with tenants who damaged the property that I worked so hard to acquire.

And clearly Angela Rayner has no problem with ordinary people's dreams of owning their own home. But the only way that can be paid for is with investment and this investment comes either from the tax payer (unless you drive these investors offshore) or the financial services industry.

Reply to the comment left by Darren Sullivan at 26/02/2024 - 10:27
No, I don't think she means buying of the landlords at a reduced price. Won't work anyway - I have offered my tenants 10 months rent back if they buy or move - no takers - as I have said before, my grandaughter is going to end up with 6 properties !

What she doesn't mention is that the police are now involved. It seems you had to stay in the council house for 5 years after you bought it to keep the discount.
She purchased in 2007, then got married in 2010 and allegedly moved in with her new husband in another house. Why wouldn't you? Although as I understand it, she kept herself on the electoral roll at the old address. It is alleged that her brother moved into her old house when she got married but she hasn't apparently repaid any of the discount.
Seems like chickens could be coming home to roost...... One rule for them, one for us......

Reply to the comment left by Martin Thomas at 26/02/2024 - 10:49
Dunno, if she was still on the electoral register then she was still living there, unless she registered at the same time somewhere else (which actually is not always illegal)

I have read the comments on the post. What is important is that this person, bearing in mind her strong views on social housing etc, should not have exercised the right to buy introduced by the arch-enemy of social housing, Margaret Thatcher. Everyone with a once of intelligence knew that Thacher was trying to get rid of the burden of social housing and in the process increasing the numbers of the so-called property-owning voters to continue to vote for her. She had no intention to invest the money raised through the sales in rebuilding more social stock.

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 26/02/2024 - 10:52
The inference of the article I read was that she was living at one address but continued to register to vote at a different address (presumably to maintain the illusion that she hadn't moved out of the purchased property and so wouldn't need to repay any of the discount).
The Electoral Commission website says "The applicant or elector must be deemed resident at this address in accordance with electoral legislation."
Again, the inference of the article was that if she was living with her husband at a different address a mile or so away, then it was illegal for her to register to vote at an address that wasn't her permanent residence. That's why the police have been called in.

Reply to the comment left by Martin Thomas at 26/02/2024 - 11:24
I see....the article appears to be here:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13121737/Rayners-48k-profit-council-house-sale-Starmers-deputy-used-Maggies-flagship-policy.html

"Official documents seen by this newspaper show that she was registered on the electoral roll at the ex-council house in Vicarage Road for five years after she married Mark Rayner in 2010. Despite them being newlyweds, her husband was listed elsewhere – a house in Lowndes Lane, just over a mile away, which had also been bought under the right-to-buy scheme."

So it looks as though a husband and wife separately bought two council houses at a 25% discount then chose to keep their two principle private residences separate.

That's not necessarily illegal and we don't know the detail; but clearly, Angela Rayner shouldn't be attacking other people for doing that or drawing up the drawbridge so that other people can't do what she and her husband appear to have done to create financial security for themselves.

A 25% discount on a house is a really big inducement to change your behaviour isn't it? Nobody ever offered me a house for 75% of its market value.

Some years back just before Northern Rock I had a buy-to-let property that I sold just ahead of the obvious impending crash. I jointly owned the property with my wife, we declared the capital gains tax and paid it. At the time there was a big fuss because a lot of MPs were "flipping" their houses to avoid paying tax.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/dec/10/mps-expenses-50-flipped-homes

We didn't do this: We paid the tax that was due. And as a landlord I've always followed the rules relating to what I was obliged to do as a landlord, including the tax rules.

It remains to see what all the facts are but even if the police find that she hasn't technically broken the law it looks as though Angela Rayner may be no better or worse than some of the other people she's been attacking.

The houses didn’t need to be replaced because the council had one less tenant for every property sold.

The problem is too many people, too few houses. Fix one or the other - or both.