Did Thatcher 'screw up'?

[MrXxxx]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/homeandproperty/thatcher-property-revolution-undone-by-plunging-home-ownership/ar-AA1618JH?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=65311a45f22b4d129d2f3277e66c9014

 

I don't think the Thatcher governments idea here has failed perse, although I didn't agree with her policy of selling off social housing; should have been means tested. I feel what has created the issue is successive government policies since, that have help to support and inflate house prices.

 

[DownwardSpiral]

Decisions need to be made in context (ideally with a longer term view) but nothing stays the same and therefore the context will always change as the decades pass. The swinging pendulum.

A decision can be right when it was made in the 1980s but continuing with it in 2020s be inappropriate.

[sarahbell]

From a killing strikes pov she didn't.

The mortgaged man is a lot more careful about ensuring his income continues.

 

The mistake is actually encouraging single parents. 4m single mums in the UK means 4m single men.  

 

[King Penda]

4 minutes ago, MrXxxx said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/homeandproperty/thatcher-property-revolution-undone-by-plunging-home-ownership/ar-AA1618JH?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=65311a45f22b4d129d2f3277e66c9014

 

I don't think the Thatcher governments idea here has failed perse, although I didn't agree with her policy of selling off social housing; should have been means tested. I feel what has created the issue is successive government policies since, that have help to support and inflate house prices.

 

She made many x council sink estates nice places to live and people that bought them went to work 

[MrXxxx]

44 minutes ago, King Penda said:

She made many x council sink estates nice places to live and people that bought them went to work 

OK, so where did the people that make these sink estates sink estates go to?...my view is that social housing should be for those that genuinely need it, not for some long-term council tenant to buy it at a discount, sell it at a profit to a BTL [usually], 'spunk' it on holidays/cars, and when spent to then become a burden on the state once again. The issue second time around is that then then need to be put into the Private rental sector due to the lack of council housing.

[King Penda]

14 minutes ago, MrXxxx said:

OK, so where did the people that make these sink estates sink estates go to?...my view is that social housing should be for those that genuinely need it, not for some long-term council tenant to buy it at a discount, sell it at a profit to a BTL [usually], 'spunk' it on holidays/cars, and when spent to then become a burden on the state once again. The issue second time around is that then then need to be put into the Private rental sector due to the lack of council housing.

They died of old age or sold up and moved up the ladder it’s a fact that home owners have more pride (on avarage ) that renters on sink estates .I can walk around an x sink estate and tell you with a correct guess rate (very high) which ones are private owned .there is no second time around the imigrents and single mums get them.ps my road is full of terraces before you think I’m a snob I’m far from that a home owner wrongly or rightly will tend to think they have a better stake in/with society.ask anyone that’s just cleared there morgage if they feel any better about life once it’s 100% yours

[MrXxxx]

41 minutes ago, King Penda said:

.there is no second time around the imigrants and single mums get them

You got stats to support that?...In addition, only immigrants and single mums get Housing Benefit?

[Virgil Caine]

1 hour ago, MrXxxx said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/homeandproperty/thatcher-property-revolution-undone-by-plunging-home-ownership/ar-AA1618JH?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=65311a45f22b4d129d2f3277e66c9014

 

I don't think the Thatcher governments idea here has failed perse, although I didn't agree with her policy of selling off social housing; should have been means tested. I feel what has created the issue is successive government policies since, that have help to support and inflate house prices.

 

The public Housing  stock was often sold off at below market price so it was essentially a complete contradiction of the free market principles on which Thatcherism was supposed to be based. It was pretty much vote buying with public money which basically worked for the Conservatives until the wheels eventually fell off in the 1990s.

[King Penda]

2 minutes ago, MrXxxx said:

You got stats to support that?...In addition, only immigrants and single mums get Housing Benefit?

I’ve got eyes a typical imigrent family is larger more kids is more points and moved up.I’ve only got to look in my street and the huge influx of foreigners  it will be replicated all over the country 

[MrXxxx]

3 minutes ago, King Penda said:

I’ve got eyes a typical imigrent family is larger more kids is more points and moved up.I’ve only got to look in my street and the huge influx of foreigners  it will be replicated all over the country 

So the answer to that will be "No" then?!

[Calcutta]

1 hour ago, MrXxxx said:

OK, so where did the people that make these sink estates sink estates go to?...my view is that social housing should be for those that genuinely need it, not for some long-term council tenant to buy it at a discount, sell it at a profit to a BTL [usually], 'spunk' it on holidays/cars, and when spent to then become a burden on the state once again. The issue second time around is that then then need to be put into the Private rental sector due to the lack of council housing.

Families were broken up, as opposed to taking over whole streets. That helped with the worst of it.

Most towns went from having almost all council estates that were shitholes to gradually moving the most undesirable people to the one sink estate and forgetting about them.

Economically it was a shit plan but it terms of turning estates that would have been no-go zones to outsiders in the 80s and 90s into decent places to live now it's worked well.

I grew up in these places, I live in them now, as a kid I was probably one of the people you avoided by not using our estate as a shortcut.

[King Penda]

5 minutes ago, Virgil Caine said:

The public Housing  stock was often sold off at below market price so it was essentially a complete contradiction of the free market principles on which Thatcherism was supposed to be based. It was pretty much vote buying with public money which basically worked for the Conservatives until the wheels eventually fell off in the 1990s.

I agree I could sort of get my mits on a 4 bed with 60% off but my son will buy it however many of the estates got a lot nicer to live on and that’s a fact 

[King Penda]

3 minutes ago, MrXxxx said:

So the answer to that will be "No" then?!

Is that the best you have a computer and points decide bigger families have more points and points make prizes .so we all know they have bigger families so is that a lie because I have no stats to prove it lol.

[King Penda]

4 minutes ago, Calcutta said:

Families were broken up, as opposed to taking over whole streets. That helped with the worst of it.

Most towns went from having almost all council estates that were shitholes to gradually moving the most undesirable people to the one sink estate and forgetting about them.

Economically it was a shit plan but it terms of turning estates that would have been no-go zones to outsiders in the 80s and 90s into decent places to live now it's worked well.

I grew up in these places, I live in them now, as a kid I was probably one of the people you avoided by not using our estate as a shortcut.

Correct the estates were often the fiefdoms of certain families (often x miners )

[MrXxxx]

6 minutes ago, King Penda said:

Is that the best you have a computer and points decide bigger families have more points and points make prizes .so we all know they have bigger families so is that a lie because I have no stats to prove it lol.

I suppose if you think the earth flat then it must be then?...shame, as you have previously 'promoted' yourself as someone who has valid arguments via extensive reading, and not necessarily needing to be an academic; which I agreed with.

[King Penda]

32 minutes ago, MrXxxx said:

I suppose if you think the earth flat then it must be then?...shame, as you have previously 'promoted' yourself as someone who has valid arguments via extensive reading, and not necessarily needing to be an academic; which I agreed with.

Ok we agree to disagree that there’s no way Muslims nor east Europeans or Africans have more kids on avarage that real English people and the more points you get helps you to leapfrog council waiting lists for houses .and disability from inbreeding is yet more points they don’t have more disability (kids)than other groups do they ? Lol 

[Frank Hovis]

2 hours ago, DownwardSpiral said:

Decisions need to be made in context (ideally with a longer term view) but nothing stays the same and therefore the context will always change as the decades pass. The swinging pendulum.

A decision can be right when it was made in the 1980s but continuing with it in 2020s be inappropriate.

 

Absolutely.

At the time RTB was useful in two ways in that it usually meant the buyer improving their home and hence the overall appearance of the estate and secondly it gave much needed cash to councils who needed it to repair their steadily crumbling housing stock.

The development of stock transfers to housing associations from the 1990s solved both problems at a stroke and RTB should have been scrapped as soon as it was realistically possible.

It is mental that it still hasn't been scrapped (in England) by 2023; there is now no justification for it whatsoever.  Unlike the early 1980s housing associations maintain their stock in good condition and RTBs usually turn into poorly maintained and over-filled BtLs which serve to drag down the estate rather than improve it.

[Guest]

Thatcher wasn't the one who took property ownership back down to the levels of the early 1980s and private renting back up to the levels of the 1960s, it was UK governments from the mid-1990s onwards.

UK governments over the last 25 years could have built a lot more housing (especially in cities) and disincentivised buy to letters to stop them competing with first time buyers, but they didn't.

[Virgil Caine]

1 hour ago, King Penda said:

I agree I could sort of get my mits on a 4 bed with 60% off but my son will buy it however many of the estates got a lot nicer to live on and that’s a fact 

The decline of Council estates started when public housing was doled out on the basis of social need rather than the time resident in an area which is the criteria originally applied in the 1950s to the 1960s. Basically that meant the human stock in the public housing estates declined with inevitable consequences. In addition a lot of public housing built in the early 1970s was poor quality and a lot of the inner city estates ended up being demolished in the next few decades. When I was a child Council housing was often a stepping stone to private ownership so that young families might start in a Council flat but later move into owner occupancy. Privatisation of the Council housing was a one off windfall for some families and for some people lucky enough to have the chance to buy a house cheaply. The fact remains that it was a net loss to the taxpayer because selling properties way below the market cost by its very nature meant that it could not be replaced because the receipts were never going to be sufficient to build the same number of replacements. These by their nature could only be built using land, labour and materials which were costed in the market. Like North Sea oil it was a generational windfall that was not to be repeated.

[Virgil Caine]

9 minutes ago, Darude said:

Thatcher wasn't the one who took property ownership back down to the levels of the early 1980s and private renting back up to the levels of the 1960s, it was UK governments from the mid-1990s onwards.

UK governments over the last 25 years could have built a lot more housing (especially in cities) and disincentivised buy to letters to stop them competing with first time buyers, but they didn't.

Agreed. New Labour was fonder of knocking down existing houses than building new ones.

[King Penda]

22 minutes ago, Virgil Caine said:

Agreed. New Labour was fonder of knocking down existing houses than building new ones.

True pathfinder 

[King Penda]

49 minutes ago, Virgil Caine said:

The decline of Council estates started when public housing was doled out on the basis of social need rather than the time resident in an area which is the criteria originally applied in the 1950s to the 1960s. Basically that meant the human stock in the public housing estates declined with inevitable consequences. In addition a lot of public housing built in the early 1970s was poor quality and a lot of the inner city estates ended up being demolished in the next few decades. When I was a child Council housing was often a stepping stone to private ownership so that young families might start in a Council flat but later move into owner occupancy. Privatisation of the Council housing was a one off windfall for some families and for some people lucky enough to have the chance to buy a house cheaply. The fact remains that it was a net loss to the taxpayer because selling properties way below the market cost by its very nature meant that it could not be replaced because the receipts were never going to be sufficient to build the same number of replacements. These by their nature could only be built using land, labour and materials which were costed in the market. Like North Sea oil it was a generational windfall that was not to be repeated.

Indeed but what we have we use badly tens of thousands of single pensioners in 3 beds these are family houses .take my x bangs my son on the tenancy and the 60% discount carries on to him it’s fucked  up.they can’t get her out of a 4 bed (5 realy one room downstairs is adapted ).right look at this this is the avarage birth rate   (Allegadly).but let’s run with it council houses are allocated on points kids and more points mean prizes (disability is big points ).it stands to reason has a computer is not racist that Muslims on avarage will have more kids hence more points I’m useing logic to come to this conclusion.other foreign groups are also above the English white avarage ps this is British Muslim I’d guess it’s even higher for those from there home country 

[HousePriceMania]

4 hours ago, MrXxxx said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/homeandproperty/thatcher-property-revolution-undone-by-plunging-home-ownership/ar-AA1618JH?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=65311a45f22b4d129d2f3277e66c9014

 

I don't think the Thatcher governments idea here has failed perse, although I didn't agree with her policy of selling off social housing; should have been means tested. I feel what has created the issue is successive government policies since, that have help to support and inflate house prices.

 

Screw up, that would imply the current state of affairs with council houses and property being owned by the rich/london spivs/banks and the establishment was not the original plan.

I'd say she's played a blinder ( or was extremely stupid )

[haroldshand]

Regardless of what our(now official) Number 1 c*** on Dosbods has to say @SNACR I was an anti Thatch comedy store going lefty/anti fascist anti racist   of the late 1980's and early 1990's, I despised the Woman. Then time passes you see endless politicians dying without even a ounce of emotion and then I get chocked up when Mrs Thatcher died knowing I hated her at the time.

Apart from knowing it was a better world then on reflection and  I had my first home at 23 years old living in a wonderful   3 bedroom mortgaged terrace, hard work paid and the local community was just brilliant, yes immigrants @SNACR from arriving only 20 years earlier but they were the right type.

But above all Thatcher conducted her politics by saying  "it does what it says on the can" and if you do not like it kick me out, every politician since has bullshitted and stood for nothing and gone ahead and run the country as they see fit and fuck the electorate, for that alone and regardless of  the mistakes she did make I applaud her.

[MrXxxx]

49 minutes ago, King Penda said:

Indeed but what we have we use badly tens of thousands of single pensioners in 3 beds these are family houses .take my x bangs my son on the tenancy and the 60% discount carries on to him it’s fucked  up.they can’t get her out of a 4 bed (5 realy one room downstairs is adapted ).right look at this this is the avarage birth rate   (Allegadly).but let’s run with it council houses are allocated on points kids and more points mean prizes (disability is big points ).it stands to reason has a computer is not racist that Muslims on avarage will have more kids hence more points I’m useing logic to come to this conclusion.other foreign groups are also above the English white avarage ps this is British Muslim I’d guess it’s even higher for those from there home country 

:-))))...if only you had read beyond the headlines of the 'evidence' you posted you would have seen this statement:

A 2007 study by demographers Charles Westhoff and Tomas Frejka identified the same trend among Muslim immigrant populations in most countries where data was available, including Austria, Slovenia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and England and Wales.

The total fertility rate among Muslim women is almost always higher than that of the native population, but “with the passage of time Muslim fertility moves closer to the fertility of the majority of the population in the respective countries”.

 

and this one:

 

But it’s equally clear that the gap in fertility between Muslim and non-Muslim will continue to lessen over time, as it has in recent decades.

Mr Cooper suggests that there are “strong cultural reasons for higher Muslim birth rates”, but this ignores the fact that birth rates have fallen dramatically in many Muslim countries.

FactCheck wouldn’t bet on the British Muslim population ever topping 10 per cent, let alone 50 per cent.

 

...and the quote in your evidence is based on an average between 2005-2010...so not very current.