In article , Fredxx
writes
On 21/01/2021 14:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
We did once have a decent amount of social housing. The reasonable
rents for that set a base for other rented housing, and to some extent
the value of housing in that sort of bracket for sale. Which would be
what most first time buyers bought.

And a decade of Labour didn't increase the housing stock to match
demand, similarly Tories and ConDem pact.
Very difficult to reverse such things once Thatcher had sold all the
family silver and given the proceeds away.

I still don't see how selling off houses reduced housing? At the time
there was enough housing to go round as evidence by dips in house
values. Now the situation regarding the quantity of housing and demand
for housing is very different

It didn't. The problem with council housing was that family members
"inherited" the tenancy regardless of need or income so the stock never
came back into the pool. Thatcher was concerned that giving the proceeds
to councils to build more houses would simply kick the cycle off again.
Doesn't concern me directly. I did very well out of Thatcher selling off
the family silver.

Spoken like a true socialist.
And don't have kids to worry about them being able to
buy a house.

Selling off the silver hasn't made silver disappear.

It would seem it was what the public wanted, by the voting. So no point in
crying over spilt milk now.

It doesn't stop many whingeing about the referendum.



--
bert