On 22/01/2021 13:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
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.

Family of private tenants also inherited the right to carry on living
there. But I'm sure a good Tory like you would prefer them to go to the
workhouse.
Doesn't concern me directly. I did very well out of Thatcher selling
off the family silver.

Spoken like a true socialist.

Very sad the way you Tories think only you are entitled to be well off.
Everyone else should be poor.

Quite where the well heeled wanted cheap labour from Eastern Europe or
retired so it no longer mattered.