Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B965 - Right to Buy and Right to Acquire Schemes Abolition Bill 2016 Watch

    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You tell me since you seem to be endorsing exactly that

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And the bottom rung of the ladder have an income of 40k PA do they?
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not. The idea that hard working can own their own homes is something that I strongly Believe in.

    Nay
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    Absolutely not. The idea that hard working can own their own homes is something that I strongly Believe in.

    Nay
    That's the thing, not all hard workers can afford to

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Agree, current right to buy only applies above a high income. Nothing wrong with encouraging you to own your home (and I support that) but right to buy is flawed.
    Where do you get that idea from? The only income restriction is how much of a mortgage you can get (unless you save the money outright).

    My parents council house is something i'll potentially get for £60k at a ~40-50% discount. There's no better way that government could aid me in my aspirational flight from humble prole to member of the middle classes.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    Abstain
    May i ask what held you back from a Nay.

    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    I'm glad we agree, we too support owning your own home. Not more than one though.
    If you want to try ban second homes then do so but don't shaft those of who may be able to use the right to buy.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    May i ask what held you back from a Nay.



    If you want to try ban second homes then do so but don't shaft those of who may be able to use the right to buy.
    I agree with the concerns the authors raised but also with the ones you raised so I thought I'd abstain.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Nay
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    I agree with the concerns the authors raised but also with the ones you raised so I thought I'd abstain.
    Rakas21
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    Absolutely not. The idea that hard working can own their own homes is something that I strongly Believe in.

    Nay
    It is something we believe in as well, but the 'Right to Buy' scheme is inherently flawed.
    With this scheme, speculating investors were able to buy up council properties through deferred transaction agreements, hastening the rise in property costs; and the remaining stock of council housing was concentrated in undesirable areas with little employment opportunity, further isolating and stigmatising the tenants.

    Moreover, a study in 2013 found that the scheme "heaped more pressure on local authority waiting lists and led to more Londoners being forced into the under-regulated private rented sector, driving up house prices".
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Nay.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is a bad idea. What's your problem with allowing people to buy their property? If they've been living in their homes for years, then there will be memories attached. Furthermore, we all want some sort of investment, something to call our own; Right to Buy has expanded that opportunity to those who aren't as wealthy.

    Think about it. You're hurting the people you claim to protect.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    I agree with the concerns the authors raised but also with the ones you raised so I thought I'd abstain.
    Perhaps go for Nay and back my bill dropping restrictions on local authorities replacing the home.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The Financier)
    Nay.
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    Nay
    May I ask why?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Whiggy)
    This is a bad idea. What's your problem with allowing people to buy their property? If they've been living in their homes for years, then there will be memories attached. Furthermore, we all want some sort of investment, something to call our own; Right to Buy has expanded that opportunity to those who aren't as wealthy.

    Think about it. You're hurting the people you claim to protect.
    We have no problem with people owning their own homes - the problem is that the Right to Buy scheme is fundamentally flawed.

    With this scheme, speculating investors were able to buy up council properties through deferred transaction agreements, hastening the rise in property costs; and the remaining stock of council housing was concentrated in undesirable areas with little employment opportunity, further isolating and stigmatising the tenants.

    Also, a study in 2013 found that the scheme "heaped more pressure on local authority waiting lists and led to more Londoners being forced into the under-regulated private rented sector, driving up house prices".

    The remaining stock of social housing is now prioritised for the very needy, but as soon as they get back on their feet they're thrown out.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    We have no problem with people owning their own homes - the problem is that the Right to Buy scheme is fundamentally flawed.

    With this scheme, speculating investors were able to buy up council properties through deferred transaction agreements, hastening the rise in property costs; and the remaining stock of council housing was concentrated in undesirable areas with little employment opportunity, further isolating and stigmatising the tenants.

    Also, a study in 2013 found that the scheme "heaped more pressure on local authority waiting lists and led to more Londoners being forced into the under-regulated private rented sector, driving up house prices".

    The remaining stock of social housing is now prioritised for the very needy, but as soon as they get back on their feet they're thrown out.
    Well, they clearly lied, didn't know negative regulation was a thing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Well, they clearly lied, didn't know negative regulation was a thing.
    "They clearly lied" reeeal professional critical analysis.
    They didn't say it was negatively regulated, they said it isn't regulated enough.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    "They clearly lied" reeeal professional critical analysis.
    They didn't say it was negatively regulated, they said it isn't regulated enough.
    But for something to be under-regulated there needs to be, by some strange logic, "negative" regulation, either that or the regulation is just fine (no regulation) or it is over-regulated (what they actually should have said given there is regulation)
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But for something to be under-regulated there needs to be, by some strange logic, "negative" regulation, either that or the regulation is just fine (no regulation) or it is over-regulated (what they actually should have said given there is regulation)
    They were saying that the private sector needs more regulation, not that it was sufficiently regulated. A more appropriate word may have been 'insufficiently'
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    They were saying that the private sector needs more regulation, not that it was sufficiently regulated. A more appropriate word may have been 'insufficiently'
    Well, they're wrong, there is way too much regulation, just like in all legal industries.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    toronto353 The Financier can you take this to vote in this format please?

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    B9xx, Right to Buy and Right to Acquire (Abolition) Bill 2016

    Right to Buy and Right to Acquire Schemes Abolition Bill 2016
    A bill to abolish the ‘Right to Buy' and 'Right to Acquire' schemes

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

    1. Abolition of 'Right to Buy' and 'Right to Acquire'
    1. The right of a secure tenant to buy their property as provided in Part V, schedule 118 of the Housing Act (1985) shall be repealed.
    2. The preserved right to buy under section 171A of the Housing Act (1985) shall be repealed.
    3. The right to acquire under section 16 of the Housing Act (1996) shall be repealed.


    2. Commencement, short title and extent
    1. This Act may be cited as the Right to Buy Abolition Bill 2016
    2. This bill shall extend to the United Kingdom with the exception of Scotland; and
    3. Shall come into force immediately following Royal Assent.


    Notes
    Spoiler:
    Show
    These schemes have compounded a housing shortage for those of low income, initiated a national house price bubble, and caused the displacement and social cleansing of traditional communities.
    Speculating investors have been able to buy up council properties through deferred transaction agreements, hastening the rise in property costs;
    Commercially and socially valuable council assets have been sold at below their market value or replacement cost
    The remaining stock of council housing is concentrated in undesirable areas with little employment opportunity, further isolating and stigmatising the tenants.

    A report published in January 2013 by London Assembly member Tom Copley showed that 36% of homes sold under Right to Buy in London (52,000 homes) were being let out by councils from private landlords, leading to criticisms that the scheme "represents incredibly poor value for money to taxpayers" since it "helped to fuel the increase in the housing benefit bill, heaped more pressure on local authority waiting lists and led to more Londoners being forced into the under-regulated private rented sector".


    This Bill does not extend to Scotland because in July 2013, the Scottish Government confirmed that Right to Buy would be abolished in Scotland from 2017.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    toronto353 The Financier can you take this to vote in this format please?
    Will do, can you take it out of the quotation marks please because otherwise I can't put it up with the formatting you want? Thanks.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 7, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.