Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

From memory, when introducing the policy to start selling off council homes, Maggie T. said words to the effect of "with this policy we can wipe the scurge of socialism from Britain".

Well I say she's more or less succeeded. Where in the good old days getting your council house was the equivalent of having 'arrived' and people could sponge off the state for years thereafter, safe in the knowledge they would always have a place to live.

It seems people now have to get off their butts & go out & work to get a place to live. An absolute success story then as this has contributed enormously to the regeneration of Britain that's taken place over thelast 20 years. No longer is it an island of contented council tenants with pockets of OO's between them, it is now an island where people are striving to succeed (housing being just a part of that).

That striving process is what's created the boom IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From memory, when introducing the policy to start selling off council homes, Maggie T. said words to the effect of "with this policy we can wipe the scurge of socialism from Britain".

Well I say she's more or less succeeded. Where in the good old days getting your council house was the equivalent of having 'arrived' and people could sponge off the state for years thereafter, safe in the knowledge they would always have a place to live.

It seems people now have to get off their butts & go out & work to get a place to live. An absolute success story then as this has contributed enormously to the regeneration of Britain that's taken place over thelast 20 years. No longer is it an island of contented council tenants with pockets of OO's between them, it is now an island where people are striving to succeed (housing being just a part of that).

That striving process is what's created the boom IMO.

I grew up on a North London council estate, a large one (Watling estate). I didn't know any family where the man didn't work. I knew just about every family there; or everyone of them that had children, at least. In most families, like my own, the wife had at least 1 part time job too.

Where do you get this idea that all council tenants were spongers? They chose to rent rather than buy - I would argue that they were no more subsidised than their counterparts who enjoyed mortgage tax relief.

Do a bit of homework in future, TTRTR, if you're going to talk about pre-Thatcher society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I grew up on a North London council estate, a large one (Watling estate). I didn't know any family where the man didn't work. I knew just about every family there; or everyone of them that had children, at least. In most families, like my own, the wife had at least 1 part time job too.

Where do you get this idea that all council tenants were spongers? They chose to rent rather than buy - I would argue that they were no more subsidised than their counterparts who enjoyed mortgage tax relief.

Do a bit of homework in future, TTRTR, if you're going to talk about pre-Thatcher society.

Are you picking on my point that Maggie has succeeded, or is it just that you don't like people pointing out that the MAINSTREAM of council tenants were sponging?

I also happen to agree that mortgage interest shouldn't be deductible, but that is beside the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you picking on my point that Maggie has succeeded, or is it just that you don't like people pointing out that the MAINSTREAM of council tenants were sponging?

I also happen to agree that mortgage interest shouldn't be deductible, but that is beside the point.

1. By the way, Thatcher was actually horrified by and oposed to the sale of council homes. It was largely a Keith Joseph idea that she went along with. She apparently said "what will those who saved for a deposit and bought privately think?"

2. How were the mainstream of council tenants sponging? I've already described my experience, which I doubt is much different from any other council estate pre 1979. They were mostly populated by working or lower middle class people. (My dad worked a lot harder as a permanently employed builder than I've had to as a Chartered Engineer) My parents were like everyone else on the estate - they never missed a week's rent in their lives.

3. Bearing in mind my views and experience above, I'm not sure how you think Thatcher was sucessful in eliminating spongers. There are still spongers, there probably always will be. How did she change this aspect?

Edited by Casual Observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of council houses has gone down but the number of housing association properties has gone up. TTRTR obviously doesn't live in the real world if he thinks there is no sponging underclass anymore. Not that being outside the real world is a bad thing because I'd quite like to avoid it if I could afford to, but it's also why TTRTR thinks house prices are sustainable at these levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Thatcher created the modern day underclass. Now it's much more difficult to get off benefits into work, and if you have children at a young age you are prioritised for housing. These market distorting policies are counter to what Thatcher believed. Shows what a stupid cow she was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Thatcher created the modern day underclass. Now it's much more difficult to get off benefits into work, and if you have children at a young age you are prioritised for housing. These market distorting policies are counter to what Thatcher believed. Shows what a stupid cow she was.

I agree with that Matt. What I said earlier related to my experience of pre-Thatcher council estates, one of which I lived in myself up until when I got married in 1976.

Mum still lives there, and there is a marked difference to the type of people she shares the estate with. The hard working people have been replaced to a large degree with a kind of more feckless, state dependant tenant - a new under-class, as you say which I don't think existed before.

So TTRTR couldn't have got it more wrong if he tried! Hard working, decent populations on council estates replaced by his "spongers".

I hope he's as wrong about his other prognostications (e.g. house prices, rents) as he was about this particular topic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is slightly off topic, but bear (no pun intended <_< ) with me.

I have this little theory, which is in no way original to me and backed up with historical evidence from any number of countries, that when societies fall apart radical leaders get elected or otherwise come to power.

In the UK Thatcher is a classic example.

Now, we can look at the current situation and determine that in the UK (and to a greater or lesser extent) and other "Western" countries:

- Jobs are insecure and getting more so - unless you are part of the nomenklatura. Sod the ordinary employee in other words.

- The "Free Market" does not actually exist but is talked about incessantly by apologists for oligarchy. Sod the small businessman and unconnected entrapeneur too.

- Corporate interests - including the public sector - dominate. As I said, b*gger the small guy.

The "F*ck you" attitude of the above interests, combined with stresses caused by the destruction of the old certainties, leads to a "F*ck you" attitude in the general population. Justified anti racist/sexist legislation has spawned a political correctness that allows, no demands, that people with utterly unreasonable demands be accomodated. No wonder then that people become selfish if they see that the behaving responsibly is counter to their own best interests.

If that wasn't bad enough, seeing talentless imbiciles such as "Jade" make it big gives people entitlement issues. Add a taxation and benefits system that favours the rich and the idle to the extent that only they can afford to breed.

Mix up for a few years and let come to the boil. Mixing the metaphor slightly, all it takes is one spark.

It will be interesting to see what policies the post HPC leadership takes. Given that a lot of other "Western" countries suffer that same disenchantment amongst the honest working/middle classes we may see a ripple effect - much as Thatcherism/Reaganomics did.

My question is...

WHO IS THE NEW THATCHER?

And will they come from the right, the left or maybe even something off the wall like a libertarian/19th century liberal.

Don't expect the WTO to survive this... :unsure:

BTW, this is my second post - apologies for the first - the lyrics were drink inspired :ph34r:

Edited by Islandape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's as drastic Islandape. All I think we need is decent protection for the 'deserving unemployed' (ie those who have been made redundant) and a little less help for those who screw up their own lives. The pendulum has swung too far in one crazy direction. As for where the change will come from - these days, on social issues, I think the left and the right tend to agree. The left have come to realsie that not everything can be blamed entirerly on society and the right have come to realise that the market does not solve everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From memory, when introducing the policy to start selling off council homes, Maggie T. said words to the effect of "with this policy we can wipe the scurge of socialism from Britain".

Well I say she's more or less succeeded. Where in the good old days getting your council house was the equivalent of having 'arrived' and people could sponge off the state for years thereafter, safe in the knowledge they would always have a place to live.

It seems people now have to get off their butts & go out & work to get a place to live. An absolute success story then as this has contributed enormously to the regeneration of Britain that's taken place over thelast 20 years. No longer is it an island of contented council tenants with pockets of OO's between them, it is now an island where people are striving to succeed (housing being just a part of that).

That striving process is what's created the boom IMO.

year, mrs thatcher did great.

she got rid of a united and loyal uk populace and replaced it with cheap immigrants who would love to kill us and a social housing system that cant house its own workers.

i think she really, badly messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TTRTR couldn't have got it more wrong if he tried! Hard working, decent populations on council estates replaced by his "spongers".

To be fair, it's no wonder TTRTR has made a complete t1t of himself talking about a time when he wasn't even in the UK; he has absolutely no first-hand experience of Britain under Thatcher whatsoever, which would explain his slavish worshipping of her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TTTRT,

Maggie Thatcher's greatest success was to make the Tory Party un-electable for a generation - possibly two.  God Bless her.

p

Maybe she also succeeded in forcing the transformination of the Labour Party into one that addresses the middle class more than the working class.

Without Labour being the fair alternative it is now vs. the Torys, things wouldn't be the way they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maggie rescued the 'sick man of europe' and set him on course to become the worlds 4th biggest economy.

Sure you made mistakes, but without her vision and drive we may have remained a nation of 3 day weeks, mass strikes, huge inefficient nationalised monsters that existed entirely on gobbled up public funds (british steel, leyland, british airways etc), abd spiraling national debt.

All of u have much to thank Maggie for you ungrateful sods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, it's no wonder TTRTR has made a complete t1t of himself talking about a time when he wasn't even in the UK; he has absolutely no first-hand experience of Britain under Thatcher whatsoever, which would explain his slavish worshipping of her.

Yes I have first hand experience of the New World & Britain appears to me to have emerged into the modern world in the last 20 to 50 years.

Britain may have discovered a lot of the world, but it's dragged it's heels adapting to what the people wanted, freedom & opportunity even for the lowest classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maggie rescued the 'sick man of europe' and set him on course to become the worlds 4th biggest economy.

1. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2004rank.html - GBPÜ per capita is NOT (even close to) 4th

2. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2001rank.html - GDP the UK is 8th.. BUT

"Problems

Although GDP is widely used by economists, its value as an indicator has also been the subject of controversy. Criticisms of GDP include:

Very often different calculations of the GDP are confused among each other. For cross-border comparisons one should especially regard whether it is calculated by purchasing power parity method or current exchange rate method.

GDP doesn't take into account the black economy, where the money isn't registered, and the non-monetary economy, where no money comes into play at all, resulting in inaccurate or abnormally low GDP figures. For example, in countries with major business transactions occurring informally, portions of local economy are not easily registered. Also, bartering may be more prominent than the use of money, even extending to services (I helped you build your house ten years ago, so now you help me). In Cuba this even goes so far that everyone owns the house they live in, but people are only allowed to swap houses, not sell them.

In 'poor' countries, it may just be that everything is cheap, except for a few western goodies. So one may have little money, but if everything is cheap that evens out nicely. Thus, the standard of living may be quite reasonable, it's just that there are, say, fewer TV-sets, meaning people have to share them (which may actually increase the quality of life in a social sense).

The quality of life is determined by many other things than physical goods (economic or not). (The best thing in life are free, if they're things at all.)

If many products are of low quality in terms of durability then people will have to (unnecessarily) buy them again and again, thus boosting the GDP without increasing their satisfaction. (On the other hand, if products were very durable then that would hamper innovation because people would be less inclined to buy new products, giving producers less of an incentive to develop them.) Similarly, if many products are of low quality in terms of usability and people don't know beforehand which products are the best choice for them, then they will either have to make do with an inferior product or buy again and again until they find something more satisfying. Furthermore, if products have a short lifespan in the market (eg because of fast innovation or fashion) then this process starts all over again when people need a replacement. Note that in a capitalist society these factors working together can easily cause a very high GDP combined with low customer satisfaction.

GDP doesn't measure the sustainability of growth. A country may achieve a temporary high GDP by over-exploiting natural resources. Oil rich states can sustain high GDPs without industrializing, but this high level will not be sustainable past the point that the oil runs out.

GDP counts work that produces no net change. For example, if a factory pollutes a river, that boosts GDP, and when the taxpayers pay to have it cleaned up, that boosts GDP again. See parable of the broken window.

Negative externalities aren't subtracted from the GDP figure.

As a measure of actual sale prices, GDP does not capture the economic surplus between the price paid and subjective value received.

the annual grow of GDP is corrected by using the "GDP deflator", which tends to under-estimate the objective differences in the quality of manufactured output over time. (The deflator is explicitly based on subjective experience when measuring such things as the consumer benefit received from computer-power improvements since the early 1980s). Therefore the GDP figure may underestimate the degree to which improving technology and quality-level are increasing the real standard of living. " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product (also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_Progress_Indicator)

3. High GINI index means that the wealth in the UK is concentrated in the hands of fewer.. http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/di...dex_2004_0.html

4. Productivity/Standards are low.. Meaning that real standard of living is lower than GDP would suggest.

"labour productivity is the key

indicator of economic health. This is because over

the long haul real income growth must follow

labour productivity growth."

"So despite the

popular attention on other “proximate” indicators of

economic wellbeing, such as inflation, unemployment or

stock market values, these are largely sideshows in the long

run. Labour productivity has to be where the action is."

"But it is equally true that many European

countries with much lower degrees of inequality are able to

match the US productivity performance."

"On the latest data from

the market sector, output per hour in Britain was almost

40% below that in the United States. In other words, Jo

Doe in the US could take Thursday and Friday off and still

produce as much as poor John Bull in the UK toiling away

throughout the working week."

"Despite some recent improvement, output per hour in the

market sector in the UK is around 20% below that of

France and Germany."

"Add in the UK’s skill deficit and this

explains just about the whole productivity gap with

Continental Europe."

And productivity (as we know) is what drives real wealth.. i.e. quality and availability of goods and services...

'box-boy you really need to stop reading the tabloids and travel a bit..

so....

"In terms of health, the level of education and standard of living, Canada tops the world's countries for the fifth year running. France is second, followed by Norway and the United States. " - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/167752.stm

"The UK was ranked 14th - behind countries such as Germany, Japan and Australia - in the United Nations Development Programme's poverty index. More than a fifth of UK adults are considered functionally illiterate while 13.5% were living below the recognised level of the poverty line - half the median personal disposable income. It also says 9% of Britons are not expected to live to 60." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/167549.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...a nation of 3 day weeks, mass strikes, huge inefficient nationalised monsters that existed entirely on gobbled up public funds (british steel, leyland, british airways etc), abd spiraling national debt.

Yes, you're dead right, Doggie boy, - those early 1970's TORY years were pretty awful. Thanks for reminding us all of what the TORIES were responsible for. We need to remember, otherwise the incompetent cretins could slither in under the back door. Highly unlikely, admittedly, since they're about to appoint another far right lightweight as leader. But, we have to be on our guard.

p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you're dead right, Doggie boy, - those early 1970's TORY years were pretty awful.  Thanks for reminding us all of what the TORIES were responsible for.  We need to remember, otherwise the incompetent cretins could slither in under the back door.  Highly unlikely, admittedly, since they're about to appoint another far right lightweight as leader.  But, we have to be on our guard.

p

:lol::lol:

That's like saying GB is responsible for the current boom!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council Tenants _in_general_ today are the problem not pre thacher. Most today are lazy scroungers who havnt done a weeks work in thier lives, drugs and low level crime is the way they make thier (unofficial non-taxed) money. With topups from every benifit they can claim.

There are some 18 -30 year old council tenants that do work hard and have a degree of moral responsibility. Its just a shame we are so grossly outnumberd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.