Margaret Thatcher Thread - Read the first post before posting

[Lotusflower]

I see that IPSA are offering MPs upto £3,750 in expenses to attend the Commons today. Nice eh.

I just hope for that money MPs will respect the truth, and reflect the fact that not everyone in this country thinks like the Dail Mail or Telegraph.

 

EDIT: One of the more perceptive commentators of Thatcher put it very well:

"She wanted the British people to be like her father, but they turned out more like her son."

 

KERCHING!

 

Like taking candy from babies.

[harvey19]

If we are discussing the morality of selling council properties at a discount I'd argue that what the owners subsequently do with them is relevant.

 

Even if the house was sold with no discount the situation would be the same.

 

That would be difficult with the current shortage in housing. Landlords would just rent to people who could afford to pay more and those who needed housing benefit would be left homeless.

 

I linked this to the amount of rent landlords could charge.

 

]The Conservative government that introduced the right to buy scheme ruled the proceeds of council house sales couldn't be spent on building new houses. Labour were left without having that money to reinvest and the prospect of any newly built houses being sold at a loss before there had been a chance to recover the costs under the right to buy scheme.

 

People who bought their houses continued to live in them and relieved the council of admin, repair and modernisation costs.

 

]Both parties had an interest in encouraging hyperinflation in the housing market because it makes people feel[1] wealthy and happier with the government. The only real way to reduce house prices is to build more houses - council or otherwise. I can't imagine any government wanting that because falling house prices makes people feel poorer - and not just those who would be plunged into negative equity by it either.

 

The way house prices rose and mortgages given over the past few years was disgraceful.

The view of many who bought their homes was that paying rent and paying for improvements was dead money whilst buying gave you something to leave to their family

 

[1] I say feel wealthy because, since people need somewhere to live, rising house prices are bad for people unless they downsize as they get old or sell up to go into an OAP's home.

 

A person owning their home was liable to pay their own fees whilst a council tenant had them paid for them.

 

Anyone trading up to a more expensive property should welcome falling house prices. If you sell it before then, you may have made a profit on it but you'll need somewhere to live and a new property will be more expensive as well so you profit will be of no use. Better to have house prices remain relatively static and everybody be able to afford one.

 

Do you disagree with the sale of council properties or giving a discount ?

Edited April 10, 2013 by harvey19
closing the brackets to 'bold' the statements

[staninoodle]

But the supply remains the same, a council house that is sold is still a house, selling it asn’t altered the amount of houses. The only way to affect prices is do as Labour did and demolish the house, then the supply as reduced and prices will rise.

 

Dont see how supply can be the same if there bieng sold and no new ones built.Hence Mr Cameron and Grant Shapps promising to re invest from any future sales in a programme of rebuilding.

True labour have knocked down houses where they were considered unfit to live or there was no cash to bring them upto standard,as all that cash has gone on benefits and tax cuts initiated by the thatch regime.

The lack of social housing has meant a rise in the average age of first time buyers leaping to 38,and pricing young people out of the market.

Edited April 10, 2013 by staninoodle

[MrSmith]

Dont see how supply can be the same if there bieng sold and no new ones built.

100,000 council houses with 100,000 families occupying them is the same as 100,000 sold council house with 100,000 families occupying them, same amount of houses, same amount of people, this situation cannot possibley make houses more expensive.

Then Labour came along and knocked some down, they also encouraged mass immigration, this increased demand and house price went up but it was nothing at all to do with the original sale of the houses.

[altus]

Even if the house was sold with no discount the situation would be the same.

Apart from the council having more money to provide new housing.

 

I linked this to the amount of rent landlords could charge.

Reducing housing benefit by itself wouldn't solve the problem because landlords would just avoid people on HB. Reintroducing rent controls, that applied to everyone - not just HB recipients, at the same time would and I'd support that.

 

People who bought their houses continued to live in them and relieved the council of admin, repair and modernisation costs.

Maintenance costs for council properties are not relevant to this discussion - they would be covered by the rents. As for councils not wanting to have the burden of maintaining properties, I'm sure there are lots of things they would not like the burden of providing, but they are there to provide services and maintaining social housing is part of that.

 

The way house prices rose and mortgages given over the past few years was disgraceful.

The view of many who bought their homes was that paying rent and paying for improvements was dead money whilst buying gave you something to leave to their family

You can probably tell I agree with you about what's happened to house prices and mortgages. I think everyone who buys a property views renting as dead money.

 

A person owning their home was liable to pay their own fees whilst a council tenant had them paid for them.

They are means tested. So a council tenant with enough savings will have to pay as well.

 

Do you disagree with the sale of council properties or giving a discount ?

I think a level of social housing stock should be maintained for housing those who can't afford to rent (or buy) in the private sector. Without some social housing tax payers end up paying too much to private landlords.

 

I don't object to people being able to buy a council property they've been renting as long as the proceeds are used to replace the property they've bought. That pretty much dictates that any sale should be at market rates.

[harvey19]

Apart from the council having more money to provide new housing.

 

Reducing housing benefit by itself wouldn't solve the problem because landlords would just avoid people on HB. Reintroducing rent controls, that applied to everyone - not just HB recipients, at the same time would and I'd support that.

 

 

Maintenance costs for council properties are not relevant to this discussion - they would be covered by the rents. As for councils not wanting to have the burden of maintaining properties, I'm sure there are lots of things they would not like the burden of providing, but they are there to provide services and maintaining social housing is part of that.

 

You can probably tell I agree with you about what's happened to house prices and mortgages. I think everyone who buys a property views renting as dead money.

 

 

They are means tested. So a council tenant with enough savings will have to pay as well.

 

I think a level of social housing stock should be maintained for housing those who can't afford to rent (or buy) in the private sector. Without some social housing tax payers end up paying too much to private landlords.

 

I don't object to people being able to buy a council property they've been renting as long as the proceeds are used to replace the property they've bought. That pretty much dictates that any sale should be at market rates.

Ref your last paragraph.

We need to determine the price of building an house and not its selling price which may not be far off the discounted sale price of an older house.

As I said in my first post if the council/government were serious about increasing the council housing stock they could erect prefabs as happened after the last war to ease the housing problem.

If houses were sold without a discount it would make absolutely no difference to building new council houses as this money could not be used for that purpose.

Ref care home costs.

Means testing is carried out on all but if neither have savings the council tenant gets free care whereas the home owner has to sell their home to pay.

It was a very shrewd move by the government to sell off council houses it took away their responsibility and expense, received money from their sale and enabled them take the money from the sale the owners home for care costs thus saving them more money.(The value of the house will have increased therefore the council will get back the increased value of the property)

Do you really think they were giving people something for nothing ?

[mikem8634]

I have been trying to answer you earlier reponse, but whenever I try to post, it says I am not logged in, having typing in my response. So, I'm giving up on that one - not because you have defeated my argument - Sheffield Forum has defeated me.

 

Pesky forum - fair enough, point taken.

 

As for strong or weak govt?

 

A strong govt, as I said, is one that does not react to short-term, popularist views.

 

A weak govt does - it changes course because the popular view is that it should.

 

Thatcher did not change course (ultimately her undoing - the Poll Tax), even when her popular rating in the country was at an all time low (during the miner's strike and the early spending cuts).

 

She has been proved right now - not only because they were the right actions to take, but also because no successive govt's have reversed the policies her govt implemented.

 

You may say she was wrong - history and govt's that followed disagree.

 

Firstly, I don't think that Thatcherite politicians not reversing Thatcherite policy is a very sound justification for the initial quality of that policy. Furthermore, I imagine the re-nationalisation process would be a very costly one without the financial gains of both North Sea Oil and the initial privatisation itself to draw upon. Whether or not that is the case I do not think there has been the political will to push through an about face as wel still live in profoundly Thatcherite times. And yes, I do include New Labour in that.

 

 

I agree with you about courting the popular vote at the expense of ideological integrity. However, I asked you if a strong government was inherently a good one. I don't think that ideological integrity, in itself, is necessarily a good thing as the ideology itself has to be just. The obvious example, Godwin's Law aside, is Nazi Germany. For the record, I am not suggesting there are any latent nazi traits in Thatherite policy.

 

So, I think it is fair to say that strength (in your terms), in and of itself, is not necessarily a quality to admire. Before that can happen it must be allied to compassion and wisdom.

[Chris_B_1983]

The country's strongest EVER leader by far.

Her passion about her beliefs convinces me, for one, that she had the country's best interests at heart.

And she removed credence from trade unions which was essential if any sort of manufacturing was ever to prosper in Britain.

[Stan Tamudo]

The country's strongest EVER leader by far.

Her passion about her beliefs convinces me, for one, that she had the country's best interests at heart.

And she removed credence from trade unions which was essential if any sort of manufacturing was ever to prosper in Britain.

 

How old are you Chris?

[pottedplant]

How old are you Chris?

 

I guess 29/30.