Privatisation was one of the greatest achievements of the government together with the creation of a property owning sector by the selling of council houses. It created a whole lot of folk with a real stake in society as did the increase in property ownership across society.
There was no mad gleam, there was the ongoing evolution to small government and freedom to prosper for Joe Public, something that my wife and I took full advantage of.
I LIKE small government and am a rabid free marketeer. I LIKE dog eat dog society as long as there is a safety net providing the essentials of life for those who fail or can’t cut it, a safety net but NOTHING else.
It’s the horrible and morally corrupt redistribution of income that Socialists hanker after that sickens me. It demotivates people from improving themselves and steals the hard earned money from those who do.
I thought she was called the Iron Lady because she had an iron will and would not bend. I very much doubt she could engineer the fastening of a safety pin.
How they going to establish a balance 2020 and beyond now that everything has gone tits up because of the politicians we have had recently. Nothing much more to sell off is there? How are they going to sort this lot out without disadvantaging more folks?
Oh I know they did - anyone would if they were getting something for practically nothing and not paying the going rate. It was still immoral IMO because the opportunity was not available to everyone - only those who already were living in subsidised housing. Those who sacrificed and saved to get a stake on the housing market off their own bat and buying on the open market got nowt of what was after all public money and a giveaway.
Why immoral? It enabled people to buy property that they had been renting in some cases for many years with a rebate based on rent paid and so acquire both a stake in society and the means to get onto the property ladder that they might otherwise never have had.
For that matter why should tax payers pay for houses that people rent? That should be down to the private sector. Why should there even BE "Social aka Council houses?
The role of government is primarily to govern and manage the economy and legal statutes. It should NOT be a landlord or an owner of businesses.
Maggie did a cracking job of getting UK plc back on its feet after years of socialist wrecking policies being pushed on us by the powerful Union leaders’ puppets (the Parliamentary Labour Party).
As far as I know, the only mistake made was the sale of local authority housing. Instead of allowing the LA’s to plough the money from the sales back into house building, it went straight back to the Treasury. This failure left the LA’s skint and short of housing for those on the housing lists.
Well actually not quite so. The first thing that people did after invoking “Right to Buy” (after changing the front door!) was to set about preparing them for sale and once the retention time was over set about flogging them in order to get out of council estates - and who could blame them - and move up the housing ladder.
That gave others the opportunity to buy the ex council houses and so gain second or more houses at the market rate that could then be rented in the private market AND improve the market for those who had already owned prior to RTB so they would gain also.
It was a very sensible move to take ownership of houses out of government hands. There should not have ever been LA ownership of houses. The private sector is and always has been the correct supplier of rented accommodation to the public.
Lower the expectations that people have and manage the reduction of living standards that are considerably higher than are affordable. Mention was made of workhouses. I really believe that we will se integrated accommodation and work opportunities sooner rather than later and a good solution they will be.
BTW re MT as an engineer, she did work for some time as a research chemist before entering politics.
Yes I know they did and that gave them a double whammy of advantage which not everybody was given. Why on earth it was sanctioned I will never know. Those people who were in “decent” traditional council housing bought and the high rise flats and property in unfavourable districts or houses which were not conventionally built nobody wanted and was what was left behind.
Many people who bought their council house were naive and underestimated what it was all about and ended up getting into debt and being re-possessed - then back into the social housing system again or private rental.
Others capitalised on the situation (unfairly in my opinion, for reasons already stated). If people wanted to buy they should have paid the market rate at the time and not been given up to 60% discounts. Rent is rent and purchase is another - they are not the same. Just because a person rents a property does not mean they are entitled to a discount as a sitting tennant IMO. If handouts are being given then they should be for every household not just the council house dwellers.
The fact that a person buys an ex council house is not relevant - it has passed into private housing and will perform as private housing does.
There is no way in the world that I will ever be persuaded that selling off council housing was a good idea for this country.
