This book is a paean of praise for the right to buy (RTB). It is unashamedly partisan in its approach – King is a long-term committed Conservative. He writes: ‘my aim is not to be balanced but to redress the balance’ (p. 13). He justifies this lack of balance on the following grounds: ‘it is my view that has seldom been heard and critics of the RTB have had a pretty much open field. Stating my position boldly, why should I present the arguments that have already been well aired at the expense of ideas and positions that are seldom, if ever, heard?’ (p. ix). In other words, he asks, why should I try to be fair to the position of others when they have not been fair to mine? To which one could answer: two wrongs do not make a right. By the end of the book, he is ready to admit that his focus has been ‘fairly narrow’ and ‘there has been a lot left out’ (p. 113). He justifies this on the grounds that ‘with the large existing literature there seems little point in trying to be comprehensive and include all the various arguments’ (p. 113). Since the book is very repetitive and often long-winded, however, it seems to me that it could have been reduced to a fraction of its current length, thereby freeing space up for King to provide a more comprehensive assessment.

The content of the book can be summarised very briefly. Chapter 2 considers the nature of conservatism, with a particular emphasis on property ownership and domestic budget management. Chapter 3 tells the story of how RTB came to pass, with particular emphasis on the Conservative Party 1976 publication The Right Approach. Chapter 4 looks at some of the effects of RTB since 1980. Chapter 5 responds to some of the criticisms of RTB. Chapter 6 makes further claims about why RTB has been successful.

This reviewer was a member of Labour Housing Group at the time that it pioneered Labour's acceptance of the RTB back in 1984. All the arguments that King rehearses in this book were considered at that time, along with many arguments that he does not mention, for example on repairs, leasehold and housing management. The outcome of the debate was the adoption of a position of tenure neutrality, according to which owner-occupation and social renting were to be treated on an equal footing. This more balanced approach is entirely missing from King's book, which assumes a kind of moral superiority of owning over renting.

King's partisan approach is, in the end, counter-productive, as it means that those who do not share his ideological preconceptions are unlikely to take him seriously. This is a shame because he makes some important points about the significance of RTB – for example, that it increases the sum of human freedom, that it adds to individual responsibility, and that it resonates with people's desire to conserve what is close to them (see p. 110). A serious problem with King's approach, however, is that he tends to identify this natural conservation of autonomy with Conservatism as expressed in actual policies of the Conservative Party. He characterises conservatism in vague terms as ‘a general disposition towards tradition’ (p. 21), with the result that we all become conservatives, except perhaps for certain revolutionaries. Conservatism, we are told, has no particular end ‘other than that of good government’ (p. 20), but we are not told what might count as good government and why. So King's political philosophy seems to be devoid of any clear content – it just seems to mean looking after our own (kith and kin and property) and, in relation to social institutions, ‘if it ain't broke, don't fix it’. There is nothing particularly objectionable about this, but it hardly passes muster as a guide for government, particularly if, as the Conservatives say, Britain is indeed broken. We need, in particular, to know which institutions are worth conserving and which need to be changed, and King's approach does not really help us to do this.

King shows a regrettable lack of understanding of the position of people less fortunate than himself. He often uses the words ‘we’ and ‘our’, but never explains who these people are that he presumes to be so like himself. He does not seem to appreciate that people come from all sorts of different backgrounds, and those backgrounds may constrain them in different ways, which we cannot fully understand. In the context of these constraints, they may make choices, which, with hindsight, can be seen to have been the wrong ones (see p. 42). King is right to say that they are nevertheless responsible for those choices, but this does not necessarily mean that they do not deserve our help.

A notable absence from the book is the use of primary research. King does not seem to recognise that this might be necessary, for example, to enhance our understanding of the experience of households of different kinds. His only primary data come from interviews with just two households who are RTB purchasers and are, on his own admission, not typical, anyway (p. 5).

There are three other major gaps in the book. First, if the RTB is so great, why not argue for it to be extended to housing association and private tenants? After all, as King says, it is individuals that matter rather than organisations (non-institutional landlords could be exempted!). Second, King assumes that, once they have bought their homes, RTB purchasers stay in them: ‘It is crucial to any understanding of the RTB to remember that the households who bought their dwellings did not move away’ (p. 72). But of course many of them did move away. Nowhere in the book is there any discussion of what has happened to properties bought under the RTB after their original purchasers have moved on. This omission is sufficient on its own to invalidate King's claim to provide an accurate assessment of the success of the RTB. Third, on several occasions, King criticises what he alleges to be the views of ‘housing commentators’ or ‘critics of RTB’ or ‘housing academics’ without naming any names or providing any references. This is poor academic practice, which I am sure would not pass without comment from King if it were presented by one of his own students.