Did Thatcher 'screw up'?

[PatronizingGit]

On 14/01/2023 at 13:19, Snake Plissken said:

Right to buy wasn't the problem on its own, its that they coupled that with preventing the councils from building new council houses through borrowing and only a fraction of the profit of the sale of the council houses going to the council, most went to the treasury. If for every house sold at least one was built then it would have been fine, but I suspect we basically saw with the privitisation of housing, like water, power, the aim was not to improve housing but to make sure the treasury had a short term boost to fund tax cuts, and longer term the richest could make profit from housing as more people who used to rely on renting council homes would have to rent private. So like most of the privatised industries, you end up with the state giving money to the richest. Its ended up as a disaster for the country but its worked as intended privatising social housing.

Wasnt that just a reflection of the demographics of the time? The UK population was basically stable between 1970 to the mid 90s. Going on a council house building spree would have likely just resulted in a lot of vacant homes.

No one in 1987 knew that ten years later you'd have a fully accredited globalist with a cabinet replete with a host of international jews inviting the dregs of the third world to repopulate the sink areas of most towns and cities. 

Sure there was some movement from North to South (though from the stats i've seen, not as large scale as you might think) but generally the housing bubble from 1983ish to 1989 was a credit issue, and prices * affordability returned to long term averages throughout the 1990s, with FTB ages being much as they were the preceding 30 years, even if council housing had largely been cut off. 

It didnt become such a destructive issue until the immigration disaster of 1997 onwards.

[Covid19 and life to go]

Her advisors didn't.  We're now powering up the coal stations that would've been exhausted if we kept using them.  A fair bit of protectionism in using the rest of the world tangible resources against our own intangible culture.

Whether it was our is a good move at all likely depends on a lot of factors.