'Right to buy' to be scrapped in Scotland

OffGridLiving

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.

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.

Is it not just the case that there is a qualifying period of 5 years and so those who are 1 yr to 4 yrs into this qualifying period would be unfairly discriminated against if they just pulled the rug from under them immediately? With this approach, they are drawing a line and saying that no new tenants will qualify for this, but those already in the system will.

This is no different to the introduction of many forms of legislation that negatively impacts people. When they took VAT away from alterations to listed buildings, they allowed all those projects that had started (or had their paperwork approved before the cut-off date) to remain VAT free. Pensions is another one where they phase negative changes in (such as lengthening the retirement age for women from 60 to 65) to allow people to adjust their plans.

Seems fair and sensible.

Graham_Devon

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Is it not just the case that there is a qualifying period of 5 years and so those who are 1 yr to 4 yrs into this qualifying period would be unfairly discriminated against if they just pulled the rug from under them immediately? With this approach, they are drawing a line and saying that no new tenants will qualify for this, but those already in the system will.

New tenants don't qualify anyway in Scotland. So the above makes no difference to this.

I'm just struggling to understand how you could claim that changing policy is discrimination. EVERY change of policy effects someone. We don't hang fire on every policy change because of that.

Discrimination is a very overused word. It's become simply a word of convinience IMO.

IronWolf

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Is it not just the case that there is a qualifying period of 5 years and so those who are 1 yr to 4 yrs into this qualifying period would be unfairly discriminated against if they just pulled the rug from under them immediately? With this approach, they are drawing a line and saying that no new tenants will qualify for this, but those already in the system will.

This is no different to the introduction of many forms of legislation that negatively impacts people. When they took VAT away from alterations to listed buildings, they allowed all those projects that had started (or had their paperwork approved before the cut-off date) to remain VAT free. Pensions is another one where they phase negative changes in (such as lengthening the retirement age for women from 60 to 65) to allow people to adjust their plans.

Seems fair and sensible.

Oh give me a break. Its not 'discrimination' to withdraw a massive windfall to those lucky enough to have a council house. Cut it immediately I say, who gives a f*** about people in social housing not being able to buy their house, they're already better off than private tenants.

OffGridLiving

Graham_Devon wrote: »

New tenants don't qualify anyway in Scotland. So the above makes no difference to this.

I'm just struggling to understand how you could claim that changing policy is discrimination. EVERY change of policy effects someone. We don't hang fire on every policy change because of that.

Discrimination is a very overused word. It's become simply a word of convinience IMO.

I was using the word discrimination as it's original dictionary definition, rather than its use as a civil rights stick. People already in the system had expectations that they could buy their council house, especially those who could be just a couple of months away from meeting the qualifying criteria. It would be unfair for these guys to miss out, while other guys who moved into their house 2 months earlier get it.

I gave a few examples of how new legislation has been phased in to make it more fair, and you either agree with them or dismiss them depending on whether you're the one impacted or not.

ILW

OffGridLiving wrote: »

I was using the word discrimination as it's original dictionary definition, rather than its use as a civil rights stick. of months away from meeting the qualifying criteria. It would be unfPeople already in the system had expectations that they could buy their council house, especially those who could be just a couple air for these guys to miss out, while other guys who moved into their house 2 months earlier get it.

I gave a few examples of how new legislation has been phased in to make it more fair, and you either agree with them or dismiss them depending on whether you're the one impacted or not.

Surely that is just life.

Graham_Devon

OffGridLiving wrote: »

People already in the system had expectations that they could buy their council house, especially those who could be just a couple of months away from meeting the qualifying criteria. It would be unfair for these guys to miss out, while other guys who moved into their house 2 months earlier get it.

Blimey - well I don't really know where to start with this one.

What about all those people who moved out of their council house just before right to buy was announced by Thatcher?.

They lost out due to discrimination too. Maybe we should compensate them all?

What about all those people who fixed their mortgage rate at 6% just before interest rates fell to 5% within a few months? They were discriminated against too. They could have had the option at fixing at a lower rate, but missed out.

What about all those people who took pensions and then found the rules changed? Maybe we should compensate them all too. Discrimination see.

What about all the people who took didn't taken an NHS pension before the rules were changed. They had the option to take the pension but hadn't yet taken it up. They found that the next day, they could no longer join the old pension scheme. Maybe we should compesate them aswell.

What about all those people who sold their cars just before the scrappage scheme came in and missed out? Indeed, what about all those people who's car was 9 years 3 months old just before the first year scheme ended? Maybe they then sold their car the normal way thinking they wouldn't qualify only to find the scrappage scheme was extended and they would have done. They would have lost out too. We should compensate them all.

I could go on.... But to be frank, this is beyond ridiculous.

OffGridLiving

ILW wrote: »

Surely that is just life.

Yep, but if politicians can make life a little bit easier then why shouldn't they?

A good example is the change to move women's retirement from 60 to 65. That was given a huge lead-time so that those impacted could make additional pension arrangements.

The government could have simply pulled the rug and say "tough", and as it only impacted a relatively small proportion of people, the rest of society would just shrug and say "that's life".

It wouldn't make much difference to the housing shortage to allow those people already 'in the system' to continue. As I said, it all depends on whether you're the one impacted whether you think it's fair or not.

OffGridLiving

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I could go on.... But to be frank, this is beyond ridiculous.

Indeed, it was. It's a gift that you're so self-aware.

CLAPTON

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Yep, but if politicians can make life a little bit easier then why shouldn't they?

A good example is the change to move women's retirement from 60 to 65. That was given a huge lead-time so that those impacted could make additional pension arrangements.

The government could have simply pulled the rug and say "tough", and as it only impacted a relatively small proportion of people, the rest of society would just shrug and say "that's life".

It wouldn't make much difference to the housing shortage to allow those people already 'in the system' to continue. As I said, it all depends on whether you're the one impacted whether you think it's fair or not.

I'm not sure that the RTB was ever considered 'fair' even by those in favour.

It was introduced partly because of political convictions/dogma and also to raise revenue.

grizzly1911

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Yep, but if politicians can make life a little bit easier then why shouldn't they?

A good example is the change to move women's retirement from 60 to 65. That was given a huge lead-time so that those impacted could make additional pension arrangements.

The government could have simply pulled the rug and say "tough", and as it only impacted a relatively small proportion of people, the rest of society would just shrug and say "that's life".

Politicians - making life easier for whom? Themselves perhaps?

If you are working to a retirement age and planning for it, an "overnight" shift from 60 - 65 would be a difficult hole to fill at 50+

Simply being told you don't have the right to buy a house you rent, first and foremost, where the RTB wasn't (or shouldn't) have been the overriding need to take the accommodation, is easier to live with. It is not as though their tenancy is being terminated. They can still continue to rent a roof over their heads.

If they feel a need to buy save up and do it the hard way like responsible people have always done.