'Right to buy' to be scrapped in Scotland

[Deleted User]

On a related point, I hear that the public and private sectors should be more alike. Can you imagine the howls of anguish if BTL landlords were compelled to sell their properties to sitting tenants at a substantial discount irrespective of the purchase price, or the outstanding loan on the property?

Surely that would give hundreds of thousands of people a "leg up" on the housing ladder?:rotfl:

WR

olly300

Conrad wrote: »

I mention it because he specifically mentioned it. I think he was painting himself as a lad from the hood done good?

You forgot to add another black guy later came on and said his parents didn't and explained why.

IronWolf

Wow, Scotland did something sensible.

Excuse me while I look out the window for the flying pigs

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

going back to the RTB policy change, if the implemented straight away, they might open themselves up for litigation for discrimination by not allowing due notification and process.

See I just don't buy this. The government implemented terrorism laws without giving anyone any notice and therefore discriminating againt "terrorists" by not allowing them due notification (Terrorists in quotations simply because it wasn't really about terrorism").

They implement lend a hand for housing without giving anyone due notification, therefore discriminating against anyone who just bought a house.

Policy changes happen instantly all the time. Indeed, new policies are implemented all the time. The budget for instance implements new policy that very day.

This is simply a case of saying it's wrong, but they won't do anything about it for 4 years. It's about buying votes without actually doing anything. By the time this is put into force, they will have had plenty of opportunities to back down from it, and it won't matter. They are no worse than labour or tories in this respect, but with the scottish independance party there is seemingly ALWAYS a catch. At least it's only 70% of the time with the other two.

John_Pierpoint

Conrad wrote: »

Just listening to LBC 97.3 FM Radio.

Black guy called into say he got his council house just because he chose to leave home, and went on to buy it for £70k, now worth £350k.
Like winning the lottery.

Yet again rewarded for nothing! Welcome to Britain.

There is a strange TV channel BBC3, that I finance with my TV licence, it seems to be aimed at those failed by our education system. It is featuring a "how to keep a roof over your head" series (while still paying tens of pounds to have your nails painted).
Last night it claimed to have found a council house sold for peanuts now worth £2 million.

Urban Scotland has a proud tradition of buying votes with rents that were cheaper than smoking fags.

Margaret Thatcher realised that Southern England was populated by Sierrra Man who had aspirations to be a house owner as well as a car owner.
Those were the votes that kept her in power.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

See I just don't buy this. The government implemented terrorism laws without giving anyone any notice and therefore discriminating againt "terrorists" by not allowing them due notification (Terrorists in quotations simply because it wasn't really about terrorism").

Come on now Graham, trying to link a change the the RTB options with terrorism acts is pure folly.

Let's try to be realistic.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They implement lend a hand for housing without giving anyone due notification, therefore discriminating against anyone who just bought a house.

I see a difference between offering something as opposed to taking it away.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Policy changes happen instantly all the time. Indeed, new policies are implemented all the time. The budget for instance implements new policy that very day.

The analogy of the budgets is something I foresaw you using, but in reality, we, the public already have been notified that the budget will adjust rates etc, it's just that the details are announce on particular days.

Liking this to the business world, it's akin to a last chance buy situation.
Much better to offer this solution to the customers so they know the offer will be withdrawn at sometime in the near future as opposed to let customers down who come looking for a product and find it's no longer on offer.

IveSeenTheLight

IronWolf wrote: »

Wow, Scotland did something sensible.

Excuse me while I look out the window for the flying pigs

LOL, Scotland often leads the way.

elantan

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

LOL, Scotland often leads the way.

Think he was trying to change the subject matter

elantan

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

There is a strange TV channel BBC3, that I finance with my TV licence, it seems to be aimed at those failed by our education system. It is featuring a "how to keep a roof over your head" series (while still paying tens of pounds to have your nails painted).
Last night it claimed to have found a council house sold for peanuts now worth £2 million.

Urban Scotland has a proud tradition of buying votes with rents that were cheaper than smoking fags.

Margaret Thatcher realised that Southern England was populated by Sierrra Man who had aspirations to be a house owner as well as a car owner.
Those were the votes that kept her in power.

At one point there was not one single Tory mp in Scotland ... Thatcher still got in

the_flying_pig

Right to buy was only ever a policy aimed at bringing in some (very) short-term cash whilst earning a few (very very) short-term votes. I suppose that maybe if the Scottish government feels secure enough not to really need either, and fairly confident that it, rather than someone else, will in the future be around to pick up the pieces of today's policy, then RTB would be an insane policy.