Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
sam

I Miss The Honesty Of Maggie Thatcher

Recommended Posts

This is the first time words like this have ever come out of my mouth, i cannot believe i am even saying it, GOD I MISS MAGGIE.

During the Thatcher years i was a bit of Socialist(i suppose i still am a little), the crazy thing was though i owned a lovely home(smallish mortgage), and apart from protesting against the evil Tories i was ok in myself.

What was the thing i did not like about the Tory's years i ask myself, i hated what i thought was greed, i hated the yuppies, the underdog working classes had to be stood up for, in general i hated what i though was the me me me society.

Fast foward to today and Nu Labour, the party that i worked so hard to get into power, the party that when they failed under Foot and then Kinnock, i was so gutted.

This is a property forum, so rather than go into a political rant i will keep ithe subject about property, my question these days, WHAT IS THE LABOUR PARTYS ETHIC ON HOUSING.

Now love her or loathe her Mrs Thatcher was not at all confusing, you asked her what her principles were and you got a straight answer, Maggie wanted homeownership, and that is what she set out to do.

Ask Blair, or any of these Labour t*****s for that matter where they stand on Housing and all you will get is media waffle(spin).

Maggie stood up for people that worked hard, you work hard and you get something out of life, Blairs children's ethic is that you make money anyway possible, from being a welfare ponce to getting on big Brother and selling your soul.

Drug dealers and criminals not only get away with there lifestyle, they are thriving, and even if they were caught, there is no where to put them. Blair has created a Gamblers society, the hard work ethic is gone, if you want property gamble on getting a fraudulant Mortgage, because you will not do it through blood and sweat.

So what is the big difference between the two Partys, Tories make it in life with hard work, Labour is to survive and make money by any means.

Just answer me this Tony Bliar, if you are wanting a society of renters, please tell me straight, if you really do not give a toss about housing and want to meave it to market forces, please tell me staright.

But for F*** sake, for just once in your spin spin spin political career JUST GIVE ME A STRAIGHT ANSWER.

My concern is BTL, in private Blair must be all for it, he is even a landlord himself while playing at being PM, apart from the people who have been filling their boots, i have never met anyone who wants to go down this road, we wanted our own homes during Maggies term(and bless her she tried for us), and we still want to own our own home, it is a human right.

We do not aspire to live in rented, we just have no choice, you BTL lot have a gun to our heads, and yes you included Blair.

Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, rose tinted glasses.

h.

You must find it really astonishing then that in European countries there are many voices with the same wistfulness in speaking of Maggie [this is handbagging anti-EU Maggie who has been gone and could have been forgotten more than 15 years ago we are talking of here...] in comparison with their politicians - except in Germany where there are some hopes that they have one of their own. Why do you think that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been on the pop again I see.

Yes, you knew where you were with Maggie. You were f***ed.

Edited by LTD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been on the pop again I see.

Yes, you knew where you were with Maggie. You were f***ed.

I see. Tony and his merry band do that and any other conceivable perversion to us but it's so much better 'cos it's service with a smile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

No, all Thatcher did was break up and sell off all of Britains public-owned resources and services; Public Transport System, Refuse Collection, Water, Gas, Electricity to the highest bidders who didn't really care about the services they provided to the people but just wanted to charge the public more money for a worse level of service. In short, she just wanted to make more money to let the rich, (who owned shares in these services) get richer and the poor get poorer. Oh, yeah and she also closed the Coal Mines making thousands of people unemployed, and when the original Live Aid concert was broadcast in 1985 SHE was the person who wanted to charge a tax on every public contribution made to the cause. Not forgetting that SHE was the person who wanted to charge tax on free school milk, hence her nickname "milksnatcher Thatcher"...So, actually no she was just as much of a lying, scheming, thieving, greedy waste of a human shell as the rest of these so-called politicians. Such a hard childhood she had, what with her parents owning a shop and all...amazing how these people from obviously priviledged backgrounds think that they are qualified to run the country when they wouldn't know what it would be like to go and work for a living, or indeed to complain that their rubbish hasn't been taken by the local councils excuses for binmen who are obviously more interested in staying clean so as to preserve the image of the company rather than remember that their job is to get dirty and full of s**t.

msp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. Tony and his merry band do that and any other conceivable perversion to us but it's so much better 'cos it's service with a smile.

No, I despise them both equally. I don't see the need to pledge my loyalty to some moral imbecile with a psychopathic urge to order the rest of us about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

No, all Thatcher did was break up and sell off all of Britains public-owned resources and services; Public Transport System, Refuse Collection, Water, Gas, Electricity to the highest bidders who didn't really care about the services they provided to the people but just wanted to charge the public more money for a worse level of service.

How well were all these doing in providing services and doing so efficiently? How many millions in the UK ended up with shares in some of these and made money? What was the impact to the public purse between subsidies/contributions to the Exchequer before and after? BT was a great story - I notice you miss that one off your list.

She never intended to sell the all did she? A shame - if only she had decided to do more to the NHS we might have less of a mess now.

No, I despise them both equally. I don't see the need to pledge my loyalty to some moral imbecile with a psychopathic urge to order the rest of us about.

I would not want to spend time with her socially. But as you and I are unlikely to be PM, and someone always end up there, she's the best we've had in decades and I regret her when I see the malevolent political dwarfs competing for television time now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

The public transport system for 1, was much better before it got privatised, now if you need a bus after 5pm you're looking at a 30min wait for a single decker which will always be full of people getting off work and waiting for the same bus 30mins down the street. Back in the day you could get a bus to anywhere at any time day or night, if you missed a bus you'd be guaranteed another one within 10 minutes. A big double-decker at that. Whereas now, they have empty single-deckers driving around all day 'cos no-one wants to travel on them through the working day, and once it hits 4pm you're down to a couple of single deckers for the entire GB workforce. Trains are the same but worse than the buses. We also pay the most for Public Transport fares in the whole of Europe. Refuse collection has took a nosedive since privatisation, companies like Onyx, who refuse to handle any binbags themselves, but prefer to only take binbags that are in big steel bins or wheelie bins so that they don't get their gloves dirty. We've just had 2 weeks without the binmen coming to our courtyard to empty them, as there are only 2 large steel dustbins to cater for approx 15 families, you can imagine that after 2 weeks of no emptying there are obvious overflow issues. Binmen came this week, emptied the 2 dustbins and left about 6 binbags on the floor by the side of the dustbins. I called to explain this to our local council and I was advised to "put them in the dustbin yourself so that they'll take them next week". So, I'm paying people to not do their job properly, and getting advised to clean up after them!

msp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the Maggie days--thats when I could afford a decent house!

We often blame politicians for the economic cycle as if they can control the tides. Some politicians just exacerbate a bad economic cycle by adding fuel to the fire as Gordon "Miracle Economy" Brown has done. He should have written his words of 1997 above his desk: "No more boom and bust" and regulated lending to sensible standards (3 X income) and taxed second homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest horace

Can anyone recall how much unemployment there was under Thatcher or what our oil revenues were spent on?

h. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the Maggie days--thats when I could afford a decent house!

We often blame politicians for the economic cycle as if they can control the tides. Some politicians just exacerbate a bad economic cycle by adding fuel to the fire as Gordon "Miracle Economy" Brown has done. He should have written his words of 1997 above his desk: "No more boom and bust" and regulated lending to sensible standards (3 X income) and taxed second homes.

Bingo!

You're spot on Realistbear, the "idiot" never stuck to his promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the Maggie days--thats when I could afford a decent house!

We often blame politicians for the economic cycle as if they can control the tides. Some politicians just exacerbate a bad economic cycle by adding fuel to the fire as Gordon "Miracle Economy" Brown has done. He should have written his words of 1997 above his desk: "No more boom and bust" and regulated lending to sensible standards (3 X income) and taxed second homes.

Maggie was fantastic; she won elections because there was no bullsh**, no spinning and no equivocation. Would cowardly nobodies like Major and Blair have taken on the militant unions and defended the Falklands??? Dream on.

Thatcherism actually narrowed the gap between rich and poor by making Britain more meritocratic; ie, the rise of the white working classes owning their own homes, starting businesses and getting jobs in the City. It suits Labour to keep this group of people down so they'll always live on a council estate and vote labour. Maggie changed all that.

How ironic that it is the Socialists who have created a Britain where the rich are doing very well and our institutions appear to have become more dominated by ex public schoolboys. I would say Britain is now more class ridden than at any time since the 50s. That's what happens when you get rid of grammar schools, BTW. :(

Edited by shermanator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now love her or loathe her Mrs Thatcher was not at all confusing, you asked her what her principles were and you got a straight answer, Maggie wanted homeownership, and that is what she set out to do.

Actually Sam, setting aside other more political issues about Thatcher vs Blair, it was the Thatcher government that did the most to create the current situation.

Firstly she made the biggest step towards shifting power in favour of landlords in tenancies - Thatcher felt that landlords were too restricted by red tape and fair rents and changed tenancy law (there was another Housing Act under Major that carried this process onward). This was one very direct cause of the current huge rise in BTL as it made it far easier to become a landlord without taking too much risk or responsibility.

Secondly the sell-off of council housing at knock-down prices did have had some good aspects, but it also did a lot to destroy the country's social housing stock (as they ringfenced the proceeds to prevent any more being built) - it also gave a generation the idea that property always goes up because of the big profit they made from selling council houses on, thus feeding the current mindset.

Blair's done nothing to turn the clock back on all this, but it was Thatcher that started the ball rolling towards the current property market, dominated by greed, speculation and a quick buck, with tenants seen merely as fodder for speculative profits. So don't get too sentimental about her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maggie was fantastic; she won elections because there was no bullsh**, no spinning and no equivocation. Would cowardly nobodies like Major and Blair have taken on the militant unions and defended the Falklands??? Dream on.

Thatcherism actually narrowed the gap between rich and poor by making Britain more meritocratic; ie, the rise of the white working classes owning their own homes, starting businesses and getting jobs in the City. It suits Labour to keep this group of people down so they'll always live on a council estate and vote labour. Maggie changed all that.

How ironic that it is the Socialists who have created a Britain where the rich are doing very well and our institutions appear to have become more dominated by ex public schoolboys. I would say Britain is now more class ridden than at any time since the 50s. That's what happens when you get rid of grammar schools, BTW. :(

If Margret Thatchers policies narrowed the gap between rich and poor why was there a doubling of the number of children in the UK living in poverty during her time in power.

( This is a matter of fact )

If there was one fact to be ashamed of this would be it.

I think you will find if you do your research that social mobility, the ability to move up the social scale has in fact been diminishing under all governments.

Quotes from London School of Economics

* In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility

* Social mobility in Britain has declined whereas in the US it is stable

* Part of the reason for Britain's decline has been that the better off have benefited disproportionately from increased educational opportunity

Edited by bigben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time words like this have ever come out of my mouth, i cannot believe i am even saying it, GOD I MISS MAGGIE.

During the Thatcher years i was a bit of Socialist(i suppose i still am a little), the crazy thing was though i owned a lovely home(smallish mortgage), and apart from protesting against the evil Tories i was ok in myself.

What was the thing i did not like about the Tory's years i ask myself, i hated what i thought was greed, i hated the yuppies, the underdog working classes had to be stood up for, in general i hated what i though was the me me me society.

Fast foward to today and Nu Labour, the party that i worked so hard to get into power, the party that when they failed under Foot and then Kinnock, i was so gutted.

This is a property forum, so rather than go into a political rant i will keep ithe subject about property, my question these days, WHAT IS THE LABOUR PARTYS ETHIC ON HOUSING.

Now love her or loathe her Mrs Thatcher was not at all confusing, you asked her what her principles were and you got a straight answer, Maggie wanted homeownership, and that is what she set out to do.

Ask Blair, or any of these Labour t*****s for that matter where they stand on Housing and all you will get is media waffle(spin).

Maggie stood up for people that worked hard, you work hard and you get something out of life, Blairs children's ethic is that you make money anyway possible, from being a welfare ponce to getting on big Brother and selling your soul.

Drug dealers and criminals not only get away with there lifestyle, they are thriving, and even if they were caught, there is no where to put them. Blair has created a Gamblers society, the hard work ethic is gone, if you want property gamble on getting a fraudulant Mortgage, because you will not do it through blood and sweat.

So what is the big difference between the two Partys, Tories make it in life with hard work, Labour is to survive and make money by any means.

Just answer me this Tony Bliar, if you are wanting a society of renters, please tell me straight, if you really do not give a toss about housing and want to meave it to market forces, please tell me staright.

But for F*** sake, for just once in your spin spin spin political career JUST GIVE ME A STRAIGHT ANSWER.

My concern is BTL, in private Blair must be all for it, he is even a landlord himself while playing at being PM, apart from the people who have been filling their boots, i have never met anyone who wants to go down this road, we wanted our own homes during Maggies term(and bless her she tried for us), and we still want to own our own home, it is a human right.

We do not aspire to live in rented, we just have no choice, you BTL lot have a gun to our heads, and yes you included Blair.

Sam

Glad to see you've finally seen sense.

Socialism is nothing but a way to enable a large section of the population to take an easy ride on the backs of those that graft.

Maggie Thatcher is my idol. BRING BACK MAGGIE!!!

And incidentally I'm not some toffee-nosed rich kid who went to boarding school and has a horse, a convertible and an inheritance waiting when daddy pops his clogs. On the contrary, my dad grew up on a council estate and my mum's parents were immigrants, but my whole family have an ethic of you work hard for what you get and you have to graft if you want to improve your lot in life.

During the 80's things were great, my parents worked hard, brought up 3 kids, bought their own home, eventually bought their own business and were doing well.

These days... the harder you work the more you get taken away from you, to support the lazy spongers with ten kids who expect free education, free healthcare, free housing and benefits, without the slightest consideration that somebody somewhere has to pay for it all.

"FEED ME, CLOTHE ME, HOUSE ME, EDUCATE ME, LOOK AFTER ME WHEN I'M ILL, AND I WON'T LIFT A FINGER IN RETURN."

- THE ETHOS OF BLAIR'S "NU" BRITISH GENERATION

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Margret Thatchers policies narrowed the gap between rich and poor why was there a doubling of the number of children in the UK living in poverty during her time in power.

( This is a matter of fact )

If there was one fact to be ashamed of this would be it.

This thing about poverty is very arbitrary. Are you talking about relative or absolute poverty??? I know Blair & co. like to trumpet this 'achievement', but it's meaningless I'm afraid. How clever do you have to be to tax the middle class to pay for a massive rise in the public sector workforce and benefits galore. The welfare state is nothing but Communism.

Edited by shermanator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He who is not a socialist when young has no soul, he who is not conservative when older has no brain".

To clarify i mean conservative in the traditional use, not actually tory!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thing about poverty is very arbitrary. Are you talking about relative or absolute poverty??? I know Blair & co. like to trumpet this 'achievement', but it's meaningless I'm afraid. How clever do you have to be to tax the middle class to pay for a massive rise in the public sector workforce and benefits galore. The welfare state is nothing but Communism.

You spoke of poverty as the gap between rich and poor in your post so I used your measure. Using this measure the gap between rich and poor has been rising for years under successive governments. Margret Thatcher certainly didnt close this gap as you suggested.

* In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility

* Social mobility in Britain has declined whereas in the US it is stable

* Part of the reason for Britain's decline has been that the better off have benefited disproportionately from increased educational opportunity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying for one minute that i thought everything Thatcher did was right, what i am saying is that you knew where you stood with her.

One example i have, a good friend of mine who is a sikh has said to me on a number of occasions that he has liked(some) racists, but hates racism, period.

A few years back he met up with a BNP member on a managers course, by the end of the week they were drinking together and travelled home in the same car.

The BNP chappy did not change his views at all(not by much anyway) by the end of the course, but my mate did have time for him for being honest. He hated more the racists that hid behind political correctness, something like Blair, i have no idea what the man is all about. Everytime i hear him on the Tv or radio i am trying to decypher his bulls***t

Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Margret Thatchers policies narrowed the gap between rich and poor why was there a doubling of the number of children in the UK living in poverty during her time in power.

( This is a matter of fact )

If there was one fact to be ashamed of this would be it.

Firstly any statistics about poverty are open to question, as poverty is not objective and can be measured in many different ways (Sociology 101).

I know people with Sky TV, playstations, i-pods and laptops who claim to be poor.

This is not the sort of poverty my grandparents experienced during the war.

If it COULD be proved that there were genuinely more poorer people in Thatchers time, I would suggest that it may be something to do with the following comparison:

Thatcher Years:

Lazy spongers - can't be bothered to work, have no money, can't feed copious offspring

Grafters - earning a good living, it is worthwhile working hard under Thatcher

Pre Thatcher / Post Thatcher years:

Lazy spongers - receiving lots of benefits and therefore happy as larry

Grafters - working all the hours god sends to afford to live after tax deducted which gets given to lazy spongers, relatively poor despite all hard work and effort put in to earning a living

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly any statistics about poverty are open to question, as poverty is not objective and can be measured in many different ways (Sociology 101).

I know people with Sky TV, playstations, i-pods and laptops who claim to be poor.

This is not the sort of poverty my grandparents experienced during the war.

If it COULD be proved that there were genuinely more poorer people in Thatchers time, I would suggest that it may be something to do with the following comparison:

Thatcher Years:

Lazy spongers - can't be bothered to work, have no money, can't feed copious offspring

Grafters - earning a good living, it is worthwhile working hard under Thatcher

Pre Thatcher / Post Thatcher years:

Lazy spongers - receiving lots of benefits and therefore happy as larry

Grafters - working all the hours god sends to afford to live after tax deducted which gets given to lazy spongers, relatively poor despite all hard work and effort put in to earning a living

Also

The widely accepted definition of poverty is having an income which is less than 60% of the national average (excluding the wealthiest members of society). On this measure, the proportion of the UK population defined as in poverty is roughly one in five.

And this roughly one in five figure has remained stubbornly high through both Conservative and Labour governments.

:ph34r:

AsI said I used the gap between rich and poor and the example of social mobility the quotes were from the London School of Economics not some Nu Labour spin.Bother Margret Thatcher and Tony are resonsible for this.

"Comparing surveys of children born in the 1950s and the 1970s, the researchers went on to examine the reason for Britain's low, and declining, mobility. They found that it is in part due to the strong and increasing relationship between family income and educational attainment."

* In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility

* Social mobility in Britain has declined whereas in the US it is stable

* Part of the reason for Britain's decline has been that the better off have benefited disproportionately from increased educational opportunity

• UK has worst record on social mobility of developed nations, report finds

• Class barrier more easily broken by those born in 1958 than 1970

• Education gap between social classes grows in UK but is static in US

Edited by bigben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in terms of poverty you can see from this that the gap has been getting worse certainly Margret Thatcher didnt close it nor have successive governments

"During the 1980s incomes substantially diverged and in the late 1990s there are signs that the income gap is again widening. Problems of dislocation, insecurity, multiple deprivation, conflict, divided loyalties and divided activities all result. Major questions are being posed for the future of social cohesion. High rates of poverty and social exclusion have the effects of worsening health, education, skills in the changing labour market, relationships within the family, between ethnic groups and in society generally. The structural problem has to be addressed with a concerted national strategy"

# The survey confirms the picture, based on government low income data, that poverty rates have risen sharply. In 1983 14% of households lacked three or more necessities because they could not afford them. That proportion had increased to 21% in 1990 and to over 24% by 1999. (Items defined as necessities are those that more than 50% of the population believes 'all adults should be able to afford and which they should not have to do without'.)See a list of related documents...

# By the end of 1999 a quarter (26%) of the British population were living in poverty, measured in terms of low income and multiple deprivation of necessities. See a list of related documents...

# Roughly 9.5 million people in Britain today cannot afford adequate housing conditions. About 8 million cannot afford one or more essential household goods. Almost 7.5 million people are too poor to engage in common social activities considered necessary by the majority of the population. About 2 million British children go without at least two things they need. About 6.5 million adults go without essential clothing. Around 4 million are not properly fed by today's standards. Over 10.5 million suffer from financial insecurity.See a list of related documents...

# One in six people (17%) considered themselves and their families to be living in 'absolute poverty' as defined by the United Nations.See a list of related documents...

# Over 90% of the population think that beds and bedding for everyone, heating to warm living areas of the home, a damp-free home, the ability to visit family and friends in hospital, two meals a day, and medicines prescribed by the doctor are necessities which adults should not have to do without because they cannot afford them.See a list of related documents...

# Less than 10% of the population sees a dishwasher, a mobile phone, Internet access or satellite television as necessities.

Edited by bigben

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • 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.