In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And Maggie dramatically improved the lot of the poorest,
those who were in council houses, much more dramatically
than any Tories had done before her.

You really think the poorest living in council houses could get a mortgage
to buy it?
And once that council house was sold - and not allowed to be replaced by
Thatcher - one fewer house for the less well off.

But carry on with your fantasies about the socialist who was Thatcher.

--
*OK, who stopped payment on my reality check?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And Maggie dramatically improved the lot of the
poorest, those who were in council houses, much more
dramatically than any Tories had done before her.

You really think the poorest living in council
houses could get a mortgage to buy it?

Corse those with a job could do that given that the houses
were sold to them for much less than their real value.

And once that council house was sold - and not allowed to
be replaced by Thatcher - one fewer house for the less well off.

Separate matter entirely to your bare faced lie
that she never did anything for the poorest.

But carry on with your fantasies about
the socialist who was Thatcher.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Never ever said anything about her being a socialist
although she did continue with plenty of socialist
stuff, most obviously with govt schools, the govt
phone service, the govt postal service etc etc etc.

On Wed, 18 May 2016 00:48:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And Maggie dramatically improved the lot of the poorest,
those who were in council houses, much more dramatically than any
Tories had done before her.

You really think the poorest living in council houses could get a
mortgage to buy it?
And once that council house was sold - and not allowed to be replaced by
Thatcher - one fewer house for the less well off.

But carry on with your fantasies about the socialist who was Thatcher.

Umm, it was the Labour party who first mooted right-to-buy, y'know.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Adrian" wrote in message ..

Umm, it was the Labour party who first mooted right-to-buy, y'know.


The relevant proposal was made in the 1959 Labour Manifesto

quote

At the last count there were seven million households in Britain with no
bath, and over three million sharing or entirely without a w.c. The Tories
have tried to induce private land lords to improve their property by means
of public grants, with very small success. Labour's plan is that, with
reasonable exceptions, local councils shall take over houses which were
rent-controlled before 1 January, 1956, and are still tenanted. They will
repair and modernise these houses and let them at fair rents. This is a
big job which will take time and its speed will vary according to local
conditions.

Every tenant, however, will have a chance first to buy from the Council
the house he lives in; and all Council tenants in future will enjoy the
same security of tenure as rent-restricted tenants.

/quote

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab59.htm


On one reading at least, this proposal can be seen as intended to
apply to tenants in properties which were rent-controlled
before Jan 56; which it was being proposed local councils should
take over.

In any case there's no mention of discounts; which while not as
necessary at 1959 prices maybe, are it's claimed, what made the
Conservative proposal so attractive to voters 20 years later.


michael adams

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And Maggie dramatically improved the lot of the
poorest, those who were in council houses, much more
dramatically than any Tories had done before her.

You really think the poorest living in council
houses could get a mortgage to buy it?

Corse those with a job could do that given that the houses
were sold to them for much less than their real value.

It was often those who could have afforded to buy a house on the open
market anyway. The selling off of council housing at below market value
was simply a way of buying votes. At the expense of those who really
needed subsidised housing.

And once that council house was sold - and not allowed to
be replaced by Thatcher - one fewer house for the less well off.

Separate matter entirely to your bare faced lie
that she never did anything for the poorest.

Nice to see as usual you don't care to read or understand the problem.
Many were living in council houses who could easily afford to buy on the
open market. As they'd been there a long time and their circumstances
improved. Plenty of poor around who hadn't any chance of buying - even a
discounted council house. Assuming they had one anyway.

But carry on with your fantasies about
the socialist who was Thatcher.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Never ever said anything about her being a socialist
although she did continue with plenty of socialist
stuff, most obviously with govt schools, the govt
phone service, the govt postal service etc etc etc.

Your definition of socialism is selling off the family silver at a knocked
down price to your pals, is it?

--
*One of us is thinking about sex... OK, it's me.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 00:48:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And Maggie dramatically improved the lot of the poorest,
those who were in council houses, much more dramatically than any
Tories had done before her.

You really think the poorest living in council houses could get a
mortgage to buy it? And once that council house was sold - and not
allowed to be replaced by Thatcher - one fewer house for the less well
off.

But carry on with your fantasies about the socialist who was Thatcher.

Umm, it was the Labour party who first mooted right-to-buy, y'know.

And that the money raised from the sale of council houses would not be
allowed to be used to replace them and or build more?
That is the crucial difference.

I'm a great believer in anyone being able to afford to buy their own
house, BTW. But it's not going to be suitable for everyone.

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Adrian" wrote in message
..

Umm, it was the Labour party who first mooted right-to-buy, y'know.


The relevant proposal was made in the 1959 Labour Manifesto

Doesn’t mean that it would have been implemented if Labour had
stayed in govt.

quote

At the last count there were seven million households in Britain with no
bath, and over three million sharing or entirely without a w.c.

So they just tip the **** and **** out the windows eh ?

The Tories have tried to induce private land lords to improve their
property by means of public grants, with very small success. Labour's plan
is that, with reasonable exceptions, local councils shall take over houses
which were rent-
controlled before 1 January, 1956, and are still tenanted.

****ing hell, that is the exact opposite of what Maggie did.

They will repair and modernise these houses and let them at fair rents.

Nothing like what Maggie did.

This is a big job which will take time and its speed will vary according
to local conditions.

Every tenant, however, will have a chance first to buy from the Council
the house he lives in; and all Council tenants in future will enjoy the
same security of tenure as rent-restricted tenants.

/quote

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab59.htm

On one reading at least, this proposal can be seen as intended to
apply to tenants in properties which were rent-controlled before Jan 56;
which it was being proposed local councils should take over.

In any case there's no mention of discounts; which while not as
necessary at 1959 prices maybe, are it's claimed, what made the
Conservative proposal so attractive to voters 20 years later.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 00:48:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And Maggie dramatically improved the lot of the poorest,
those who were in council houses, much more dramatically than any
Tories had done before her.

You really think the poorest living in council houses could get a
mortgage to buy it? And once that council house was sold - and not
allowed to be replaced by Thatcher - one fewer house for the less well
off.

But carry on with your fantasies about the socialist who was Thatcher.

Umm, it was the Labour party who first mooted right-to-buy, y'know.

And that the money raised from the sale of council houses would not be
allowed to be used to replace them and or build more?
That is the crucial difference.

I'm a great believer in anyone being able to afford to buy their own
house, BTW. But it's not going to be suitable for everyone.

AAMOI what happened to the capital receipts from the sales? I vaguely
remember local councils not being allowed to spend it at the time.


--
Tim Lamb

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And Maggie dramatically improved the lot of the
poorest, those who were in council houses, much more
dramatically than any Tories had done before her.

You really think the poorest living in council
houses could get a mortgage to buy it?

Corse those with a job could do that given that the houses
were sold to them for much less than their real value.

It was often those who could have afforded
to buy a house on the open market anyway.

Must be why they were renting a council house.

The selling off of council housing at below
market value was simply a way of buying votes.

Corse Labour only proposed doing that
for entirely different reasons, eh ?

At the expense of those who really
needed subsidised housing.

No one was forcing those to buy the council house they were renting.

And once that council house was sold - and not allowed to
be replaced by Thatcher - one fewer house for the less well off.

Separate matter entirely to your bare faced lie
that she never did anything for the poorest.

Nice to see as usual you don't care to read or understand the problem.

Labour too eh ?

Many were living in council houses who could
easily afford to buy on the open market.

BULL****.

As they'd been there a long time and their circumstances
improved. Plenty of poor around who hadn't any chance of buying -
even a discounted council house. Assuming they had one anyway.

Irrelevant to the FACT that Maggie did plenty for the poor
in council houses, much more than Labour ever did for them.

But carry on with your fantasies about
the socialist who was Thatcher.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Never ever said anything about her being a socialist
although she did continue with plenty of socialist
stuff, most obviously with govt schools, the govt
phone service, the govt postal service etc etc etc.

Your definition of socialism is selling off the family
silver at a knocked down price to your pals, is it?

Nope, my definition of socialism the normal one
of the govt doing it instead of non government,
most obviously with govt schools, the postal
service, the phone service, the cops etc etc etc.

Council houses are nothing even remotely
like the family silver and the council houses
that were sold to those who were renting
them were nothing even remotely like
Maggie's mates either.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 00:48:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And Maggie dramatically improved the lot of the poorest,
those who were in council houses, much more dramatically than any
Tories had done before her.

You really think the poorest living in council houses could get a
mortgage to buy it? And once that council house was sold - and not
allowed to be replaced by Thatcher - one fewer house for the less well
off.

But carry on with your fantasies about the socialist who was Thatcher.

Umm, it was the Labour party who first mooted right-to-buy, y'know.

And that the money raised from the sale of council houses would not be
allowed to be used to replace them and or build more?
That is the crucial difference.

I'm a great believer in anyone being able to afford to buy their own
house, BTW. But it's not going to be suitable for everyone.

It is going to be suitable for almost everyone, particularly
if what they currently pay in rent is used to buy that house.

On Wed, 18 May 2016 11:00:10 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Many were living in council houses who could easily afford to buy on the
open market. As they'd been there a long time and their circumstances
improved.

That sounds like a good reason to remove the life-long guaranteed
tenancies, and make them more needs-based.

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
And that the money raised from the sale of council houses would not be
allowed to be used to replace them and or build more?
That is the crucial difference.

I'm a great believer in anyone being able to afford to buy their own
house, BTW. But it's not going to be suitable for everyone.

AAMOI what happened to the capital receipts from the sales? I vaguely
remember local councils not being allowed to spend it at the time.

Thatcher forbade the money raised from such sales being used to build more
council houses. Showing exactly what her purpose in selling them was. And
was at least partially responsible for the lack of affordable housing in
many areas. Once you stop the municipal house building program and remove
the funding for it, can be very difficult to start it again.

--
*A cartoonist was found dead in his home. Details are sketchy.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It was often those who could have afforded
to buy a house on the open market anyway.

Must be why they were renting a council house.

Sigh. Many started renting when young and with a family. The kids grow up,
and mum and dad now both have jobs and are still quite young. Even someone
as stupid as you might just see they'll now have more disposable income.

--
*Caution: I drive like you do.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
And that the money raised from the sale of council houses would not be
allowed to be used to replace them and or build more?
That is the crucial difference.

I'm a great believer in anyone being able to afford to buy their own
house, BTW. But it's not going to be suitable for everyone.

AAMOI what happened to the capital receipts from the sales? I vaguely
remember local councils not being allowed to spend it at the time.

Thatcher forbade the money raised from such sales being used to build more
council houses. Showing exactly what her purpose in selling them was. And
was at least partially responsible for the lack of affordable housing in
many areas. Once you stop the municipal house building program and remove
the funding for it, can be very difficult to start it again.

So. Did it get spent on something else?

I realise the various govt. changes since then have failed to re-start
directly funded social housing but any large scale development has a
quota system.


--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 11:00:10 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Many were living in council houses who could easily afford to buy on
the open market. As they'd been there a long time and their
circumstances improved.

That sounds like a good reason to remove the life-long guaranteed
tenancies, and make them more needs-based.

Or make them pay an economic rent.

--
*The modem is the message *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 13:03:29 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 11:00:10 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Many were living in council houses who could easily afford to buy on the
open market. As they'd been there a long time and their circumstances
improved.

That sounds like a good reason to remove the life-long guaranteed
tenancies, and make them more needs-based.

The way the EU works well Germany anyway is that you get long lease tenancies with rent agreements as to how much the rent will go up from year to year.
In the UK most don;t have this sort of agreement and the tenacnies are typicaly 6 months or 1 year.

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
Thatcher forbade the money raised from such sales being used to build
more council houses. Showing exactly what her purpose in selling them
was. And was at least partially responsible for the lack of affordable
housing in many areas. Once you stop the municipal house building
program and remove the funding for it, can be very difficult to start
it again.

So. Did it get spent on something else?

Presumably. I doubt it is all in a bank somewhere. ;-)

I realise the various govt. changes since then have failed to re-start
directly funded social housing but any large scale development has a
quota system.

It tends to be dogma. Anything done by the public sector bad. So only the
private sector can be allowed to build houses, etc. The privately built
schools - using public money - in Edinburgh of course showing this is
always true. Not to mention the number of gerry built estates dotted
around the country.

--
*Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 13:19:06 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It was often those who could have afforded
to buy a house on the open market anyway.

Must be why they were renting a council house.

Sigh. Many started renting when young and with a family.

That was the idea of council houses they weren't really for young single people who were meant to stay with their parents until married.

The kids grow up,
and mum and dad now both have jobs and are still quite young.

Not the ones I knew, even when they were being sold off the renters were no spring chickens most were 50+ if not older. Council housing becaome popular in the 60s that was over 50 years ago.


Even someone
as stupid as you might just see they'll now have more disposable income.

Pensioners yes.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Not the ones I knew, even when they were being sold off the renters were
no spring chickens most were 50+ if not older. Council housing becaome
popular in the 60s that was over 50 years ago.

Plenty of council housing was build before the '60s. That might have been
when it peaked, though.

It could be a problem giving a mortgage - especially a first one - to an
older person who could retire before it is paid off.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 15:10:22 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Not the ones I knew, even when they were being sold off the renters were
no spring chickens most were 50+ if not older. Council housing becaome
popular in the 60s that was over 50 years ago.

Plenty of council housing was build before the '60s. That might have been
when it peaked, though.

yes I know so if a young couple got a council house in the 50s how old would they be now. ?


It could be a problem giving a mortgage - especially a first one - to an
older person who could retire before it is paid off.

So if yuo brpought a house now in london for 450k lets say you have enough od a deposit of 20k what salery would you need to pay back a 25 years mortgage of 430k ?

Not sure how many young couples could afford it.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
And that the money raised from the sale of council houses would not be
allowed to be used to replace them and or build more?
That is the crucial difference.

I'm a great believer in anyone being able to afford to buy their own
house, BTW. But it's not going to be suitable for everyone.

AAMOI what happened to the capital receipts from the sales? I vaguely
remember local councils not being allowed to spend it at the time.

Thatcher forbade the money raised from such sales being used to build more
council houses. Showing exactly what her purpose in selling them was. And
was at least partially responsible for the lack of affordable housing in
many areas. Once you stop the municipal house building program and remove
the funding for it, can be very difficult to start it again.

Bull**** it is on that last.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It was often those who could have afforded
to buy a house on the open market anyway.

Must be why they were renting a council house.

Sigh.

Heavy breathing aint gunna save your bacon...

Many started renting when young and with a family. The kids grow
up, and mum and dad now both have jobs and are still quite young.

So what was wrong with Thatcher encouraging them to buy the
house they are renting and then look after it a lot better than
they would do if the council gets to fix whatever they **** over ?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 11:00:10 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Many were living in council houses who could easily afford to buy on
the open market. As they'd been there a long time and their
circumstances improved.

That sounds like a good reason to remove the life-long guaranteed
tenancies, and make them more needs-based.

Or make them pay an economic rent.

Makes a lot more sense to encourage them to
buy the house they are living in so they get to
look after it a lot better than they do with any
place they are renting.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And Maggie dramatically improved the lot of the poorest,
those who were in council houses, much more dramatically
than any Tories had done before her.

You really think the poorest living in council houses could get a mortgage
to buy it?
And once that council house was sold - and not allowed to be replaced by
Thatcher - one fewer house for the less well off.

A rule not changed by the Labour government.
But carry on with your fantasies about the socialist who was Thatcher.


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And Maggie dramatically improved the lot of the
poorest, those who were in council houses, much more
dramatically than any Tories had done before her.

You really think the poorest living in council
houses could get a mortgage to buy it?

Corse those with a job could do that given that the houses
were sold to them for much less than their real value.

It was often those who could have afforded to buy a house on the open
market anyway. The selling off of council housing at below market value
was simply a way of buying votes. At the expense of those who really
needed subsidised housing.

And once that council house was sold - and not allowed to
be replaced by Thatcher - one fewer house for the less well off.

Separate matter entirely to your bare faced lie
that she never did anything for the poorest.

Nice to see as usual you don't care to read or understand the problem.
Many were living in council houses who could easily afford to buy on the
open market. As they'd been there a long time and their circumstances
improved.

And Labour's solution to that problem was? Oh yes let the rest of us
carry on subsidising those who were better off than us,

Snip
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 00:48:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And Maggie dramatically improved the lot of the poorest,
those who were in council houses, much more dramatically than any
Tories had done before her.

You really think the poorest living in council houses could get a
mortgage to buy it? And once that council house was sold - and not
allowed to be replaced by Thatcher - one fewer house for the less well
off.

But carry on with your fantasies about the socialist who was Thatcher.

Umm, it was the Labour party who first mooted right-to-buy, y'know.

And that the money raised from the sale of council houses would not be
allowed to be used to replace them and or build more?
That is the crucial difference.
Which the next Labour government did not change.


I'm a great believer in anyone being able to afford to buy their own
house, BTW. But it's not going to be suitable for everyone.


--
bert

On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 23:34:02 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 11:00:10 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Many were living in council houses who could easily afford to buy on
the open market. As they'd been there a long time and their
circumstances improved.

That sounds like a good reason to remove the life-long guaranteed
tenancies, and make them more needs-based.

Or make them pay an economic rent.

Makes a lot more sense to encourage them to
buy the house they are living in so they get to
look after it a lot better than they do with any
place they are renting.

That's the theory but it's not working is it.
we now have the lowest number of people buying their first home
because they just can;t afford it.
Sure there's jobs in London but few can come here to take them up.
The average persons wage is to low to be able to by a property
or even to consider such a thing..

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Many were living in council houses who could easily
afford to buy on the open market. As they'd been
there a long time and their circumstances improved.

That sounds like a good reason to remove the life-long
guaranteed tenancies, and make them more needs-based.

Or make them pay an economic rent.

Makes a lot more sense to encourage them to
buy the house they are living in so they get to
look after it a lot better than they do with any
place they are renting.

That's the theory but it's not working is it.

Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

we now have the lowest number of people buying
their first home because they just can;t afford it.

Irrelevant to the fact the Maggie allows vast numbers
of people to buy the council house they were renting.

Sure there's jobs in London but few can come here to take them up.

That is complete and utter bull****. If that was true
there would be a desperate shortage of people for
those with jobs in London and there isnt.

The average persons wage is to low to be able
to by a property or even to consider such a thing..

Sure, but they are quite capable of renting and do that.

On Friday, 20 May 2016 05:43:45 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Many were living in council houses who could easily
afford to buy on the open market. As they'd been
there a long time and their circumstances improved.

That sounds like a good reason to remove the life-long
guaranteed tenancies, and make them more needs-based.

Or make them pay an economic rent.

Makes a lot more sense to encourage them to
buy the house they are living in so they get to
look after it a lot better than they do with any
place they are renting.

That's the theory but it's not working is it.

Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.
So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.



we now have the lowest number of people buying
their first home because they just can;t afford it.

Irrelevant to the fact the Maggie allows vast numbers
of people to buy the council house they were renting.

Yes and now there are less councils houses for rent.
Simple isn't it, I;'m suprised you don;t understand such a simple thing.



Sure there's jobs in London but few can come here to take them up.

That is complete and utter bull****. If that was true
there would be a desperate shortage of people for
those with jobs in London and there isnt.

So why are we so short of medical staff ?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...her-four-years

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.
So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

The main idea was to get rid of as much local authority housing as
possible. Selling it to the tenants just a clever way of masking this.
Plenty of the Turnips of this world were very jealous of those who had a
decent council house.

--
*CAN AN ATHEIST GET INSURANCE AGAINST ACTS OF GOD?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 20 May 2016 05:43:45 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Many were living in council houses who could easily
afford to buy on the open market. As they'd been
there a long time and their circumstances improved.

That sounds like a good reason to remove the life-long
guaranteed tenancies, and make them more needs-based.

Or make them pay an economic rent.

Makes a lot more sense to encourage them to
buy the house they are living in so they get to
look after it a lot better than they do with any
place they are renting.

That's the theory but it's not working is it.

Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.

The real point is that they look after that house a hell of a lot
better when they own it than they did when they rented it.

So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

Nope, because there were no new council houses being built when
Maggie started flogging them to those who were renting them.

we now have the lowest number of people buying
their first home because they just can;t afford it.

Irrelevant to the fact the Maggie allowed vast numbers
of people to buy the council house they were renting.

Yes and now there are less councils houses for rent.

Doesnt matter, those who where renting them are
still in them and are looking after them much better
than they did when they were renting them.

Simple isn't it,

Yep, you have the same number of people in the same
number of houses, just a lot more of them looking after
them a lot better because they own them.

I;'m suprised you don;t understand such a simple thing.

You're the one that doesnt have a clue about the basics,
presumably because you are completely blotto, as usual.

Sure there's jobs in London but few can come here to take them up.

That is complete and utter bull****. If that was true
there would be a desperate shortage of people for
those with jobs in London and there isnt.

So why are we so short of medical staff ?

Because not enough of the locals are prepare to put in
the years of study required to be allowed to do those jobs.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...her-four-years

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.
So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

The main idea was to get rid of as much local authority housing as
possible. Selling it to the tenants just a clever way of masking this.

How odd that that was Labour policy as well.

And that was before anyone like Blair got within
a bulls roar of turning Labour on its head too.

Plenty of the Turnips of this world were very
jealous of those who had a decent council house.

And they clearly must have infested Labour too.

On Friday, 20 May 2016 14:54:03 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 May 2016 05:43:45 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Many were living in council houses who could easily
afford to buy on the open market. As they'd been
there a long time and their circumstances improved.

That sounds like a good reason to remove the life-long
guaranteed tenancies, and make them more needs-based.

Or make them pay an economic rent.

Makes a lot more sense to encourage them to
buy the house they are living in so they get to
look after it a lot better than they do with any
place they are renting.

That's the theory but it's not working is it.

Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.
So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.



we now have the lowest number of people buying
their first home because they just can;t afford it.

Irrelevant to the fact the Maggie allows vast numbers
of people to buy the council house they were renting.

Yes and now there are less councils houses for rent.
Simple isn't it, I;'m suprised you don;t understand such a simple thing.



Sure there's jobs in London but few can come here to take them up.

That is complete and utter bull****. If that was true
there would be a desperate shortage of people for
those with jobs in London and there isnt.

So why are we so short of medical staff ?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...her-four-years

Migrants making use of the NHS.

On Friday, 20 May 2016 16:30:10 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.
So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

The main idea was to get rid of as much local authority housing as
possible. Selling it to the tenants just a clever way of masking this.
Plenty of the Turnips of this world were very jealous of those who had a
decent council house.


********.
Have you never noticed the number of BMWs and Audis parked on the verges/gardens of council houses?
These people can clealry afford to buy a house and should be thrown out.

On 21/05/2016 07:58, Rod Speed wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 20 May 2016 05:43:45 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Many were living in council houses who could easily
afford to buy on the open market. As they'd been
there a long time and their circumstances improved.

That sounds like a good reason to remove the life-long
guaranteed tenancies, and make them more needs-based.

Or make them pay an economic rent.


This is such a circular and largely pointless discussion. You either
believe everybody should have a decent secure home at an affordable cost
as a matter of right. Or you don't. Obviously questions arise around
some of the terms, but that's basically it IMHO.


Makes a lot more sense to encourage them to
buy the house they are living in so they get to
look after it a lot better than they do with any
place they are renting.

That's the theory but it's not working is it.

Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.

The real point is that they look after that house a hell of a lot
better when they own it than they did when they rented it.


Some notable problems with that generalisation. A good chunk were used
as private rental properties. A large part of the 'looking after' still
remained the responsibility of the landlord, especially for the
non-traditional construction housing. Many of those who bought could
barely afford the mortgage, let alone improvement and maintenance work.

But, of course, a good many - mainly the low-rise - did benefit from
proper maintenance that the landlord couldn't provide.

So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

Nope, because there were no new council houses being built when
Maggie started flogging them to those who were renting them.


That's true, but state sponsored building happened elsewhere. %s:

https://flic.kr/p/HhpdjF

LAs stopped building because they lost the ability to borrow. Post-war
mass council housing was never paid for with government money. It was
paid for with LA loans.

Those loans, in the early 80s, shifted to Housing Association *grants* -
many higher than 100% at the beginning. The Tories didn't abandon the
notion of a supported housing sector at all - they just shifted it away
from the hated LAs.


snip

--
Cheers, Rob

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 21/05/2016 07:58, Rod Speed wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 20 May 2016 05:43:45 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Many were living in council houses who could easily
afford to buy on the open market. As they'd been
there a long time and their circumstances improved.

That sounds like a good reason to remove the life-long
guaranteed tenancies, and make them more needs-based.

Or make them pay an economic rent.

This is such a circular and largely pointless discussion.

Bull****.

You either believe everybody should have a decent secure home at an
affordable cost as a matter of right. Or you don't.

It is nothing like that black and white except for a socialist.

Obviously questions arise around some of the terms, but that's basically
it IMHO.

Why have you got such horrible opinions ?

Makes a lot more sense to encourage them to
buy the house they are living in so they get to
look after it a lot better than they do with any
place they are renting.

That's the theory but it's not working is it.

Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.

The real point is that they look after that house a hell of a lot
better when they own it than they did when they rented it.

Some notable problems with that generalisation.

We'll see...

A good chunk were used as private rental properties.

Once they have bought it, they are welcome to
do what they like with them and they obviously
have to be living somewhere themselves.

The vast bulk of those that were private rental
propertys would have become that once the
original owner decided to buy something
else as well, and to rent out where they had
lived when Maggie allowed them to buy
what they had previously been renting.

A large part of the 'looking after' still remained the responsibility of
the landlord,

But now a landlord that is going to look after that
properly a lot better than the state would ever do.

especially for the non-traditional construction housing.

Irrelevant.

Many of those who bought could barely afford the mortgage, let alone
improvement and maintenance work.

Easy to claim.

But, of course, a good many - mainly the low-rise - did benefit from
proper maintenance that the landlord couldn't provide.

That the state chose not to provide.

So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

Nope, because there were no new council houses being built when
Maggie started flogging them to those who were renting them.

That's true, but state sponsored building happened elsewhere. %s:
https://flic.kr/p/HhpdjF

Irrelevant to his stupid claim that Maggies great
idea comes to a grinding halt one day. It never did.

LAs stopped building because they lost the ability to borrow. Post-war
mass council housing was never paid for with government money. It was paid
for with LA loans.

Separate matter entirely to whether it made sense
to sell council houses to those who were renting
them are well below the real value of those houses.

If that was such a bad idea, have fun explaining why
both the majors decided that that was the thing to do.

Those loans, in the early 80s, shifted to Housing Association *grants* -
many higher than 100% at the beginning. The Tories didn't abandon the
notion of a supported housing sector at all - they just shifted it away
from the hated LAs.

So the plowthing lied about that too.

On 22/05/2016 11:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 21/05/2016 07:58, Rod Speed wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 20 May 2016 05:43:45 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Many were living in council houses who could easily
afford to buy on the open market. As they'd been
there a long time and their circumstances improved.

That sounds like a good reason to remove the life-long
guaranteed tenancies, and make them more needs-based.

Or make them pay an economic rent.

This is such a circular and largely pointless discussion.

Bull****.

You either believe everybody should have a decent secure home at an
affordable cost as a matter of right. Or you don't.

It is nothing like that black and white except for a socialist.


No, quite a few people believe that.

Obviously questions arise around some of the terms, but that's
basically it IMHO.

Why have you got such horrible opinions ?


Why is that 'horrible'?

Makes a lot more sense to encourage them to
buy the house they are living in so they get to
look after it a lot better than they do with any
place they are renting.

That's the theory but it's not working is it.

Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.

The real point is that they look after that house a hell of a lot
better when they own it than they did when they rented it.

Some notable problems with that generalisation.

We'll see...

A good chunk were used as private rental properties.

Once they have bought it, they are welcome to
do what they like with them and they obviously
have to be living somewhere themselves.


Of course, unless it was children of the tenants, who made
'arrangements' for their parent(s). Seen that happen . . .

Also, the new owner could sell to a BTL landlord, who will just use it
variously as an investment dump or a massive revenue stream.

The vast bulk of those that were private rental
propertys would have become that once the
original owner decided to buy something
else as well, and to rent out where they had
lived when Maggie allowed them to buy
what they had previously been renting.


That's not generally how it happened. LA tenants have always been able
to buy, by the way. It's not a Thatcher invention - in fact, she opposed
it originally.

A large part of the 'looking after' still remained the responsibility
of the landlord,

But now a landlord that is going to look after that
properly a lot better than the state would ever do.


No - a private landlord/owner generally has to defer to LA programmes.
At huge cost to the LHrs if the LA can get the cash to do them in the
first place.

especially for the non-traditional construction housing.

Irrelevant.


Not for the many LHrs in system built housing.

Many of those who bought could barely afford the mortgage, let alone
improvement and maintenance work.

Easy to claim.


There's quite a body of academic literature, but for now:

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-n...l-leaseholders

But, of course, a good many - mainly the low-rise - did benefit from
proper maintenance that the landlord couldn't provide.

That the state chose not to provide.


No, not at all, at least the local state - why would they 'choose' not
to carry out planned maintenance? Google CCT, housing, and best value.


So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

Nope, because there were no new council houses being built when
Maggie started flogging them to those who were renting them.

That's true, but state sponsored building happened elsewhere. %s:
https://flic.kr/p/HhpdjF

Irrelevant to his stupid claim that Maggies great
idea comes to a grinding halt one day. It never did.


LA home building came to a very abrupt halt.

LAs stopped building because they lost the ability to borrow. Post-war
mass council housing was never paid for with government money. It was
paid for with LA loans.

Separate matter entirely to whether it made sense
to sell council houses to those who were renting
them are well below the real value of those houses.


It is relevant in the sense that LAs never got to see the RTB receipts.
For what they were worth.


If that was such a bad idea, have fun explaining why
both the majors decided that that was the thing to do.


Because from the late 70s, the UK political class has been strongly
aligned to a pro-market neo-liberal economic programme. '97-2010 was,
IMHO, even more rabid and ideologically wedded to market capitalism than
the Tories. Privatisation of state assets aside - that was staggering.

Those loans, in the early 80s, shifted to Housing Association *grants*
- many higher than 100% at the beginning. The Tories didn't abandon
the notion of a supported housing sector at all - they just shifted it
away from the hated LAs.

So the plowthing lied about that too.


--
Cheers, Rob

RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Many were living in council houses who could easily
afford to buy on the open market. As they'd been
there a long time and their circumstances improved.

That sounds like a good reason to remove the life-long
guaranteed tenancies, and make them more needs-based.

Or make them pay an economic rent.

This is such a circular and largely pointless discussion.

Bull****.

You either believe everybody should have a decent secure home at an
affordable cost as a matter of right. Or you don't.

It is nothing like that black and white except for a socialist.

No, quite a few people believe that.

Those into socialism. There is no such 'right'

Obviously questions arise around some of the terms, but that's basically
it IMHO.

Why have you got such horrible opinions ?

Why is that 'horrible'?

So its a hairy opinion ? Nothing humble about you.

Makes a lot more sense to encourage them to
buy the house they are living in so they get to
look after it a lot better than they do with any
place they are renting.

That's the theory but it's not working is it.

Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.

The real point is that they look after that house a hell of a lot
better when they own it than they did when they rented it.

Some notable problems with that generalisation.

We'll see...

A good chunk were used as private rental properties.

Once they have bought it, they are welcome to
do what they like with them and they obviously
have to be living somewhere themselves.

Of course, unless it was children of the tenants, who made 'arrangements'
for their parent(s). Seen that happen . . .

Just because that sometimes happen says nothing
useful about a general policy question like that.

Also, the new owner could sell to a BTL landlord, who will just use it
variously as an investment dump or a massive revenue stream.

It would be stupid to never sell any council house to the
current tenants because that might happen to that house.

The vast bulk of those that were private rental
propertys would have become that once the
original owner decided to buy something
else as well, and to rent out where they had
lived when Maggie allowed them to buy
what they had previously been renting.

That's not generally how it happened.

Sure, but your original quibble isnt what generally happened either.

LA tenants have always been able to buy, by the way.

But nothing like as easily as it was once she got her scheme implemented.

It's not a Thatcher invention

No one ever said it was.

- in fact, she opposed it originally.

And later realised it made sense and implemented it.

A large part of the 'looking after' still remained the responsibility of
the landlord,

But now a landlord that is going to look after that
properly a lot better than the state would ever do.

No - a private landlord/owner generally has to defer to LA programmes.

Like hell they do with the general wear and tear maintenance.

At huge cost to the LHrs if the LA can get the cash to do them in the
first place.

especially for the non-traditional construction housing.

Irrelevant.

Not for the many LHrs in system built housing.

Most of them weren't done like that.

Many of those who bought could barely afford the mortgage, let alone
improvement and maintenance work.

Easy to claim.

There's quite a body of academic literature, but for now:

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-n...l-leaseholders

Just because some fool journo claims something...

But, of course, a good many - mainly the low-rise - did benefit from
proper maintenance that the landlord couldn't provide.

That the state chose not to provide.

No, not at all, at least the local state - why would they 'choose' not to
carry out planned maintenance? Google CCT, housing, and best value.

Dont need to google anything, they choose not to
do it because they dont have the money to do that.

So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

Nope, because there were no new council houses being built when
Maggie started flogging them to those who were renting them.

That's true, but state sponsored building happened elsewhere. %s:
https://flic.kr/p/HhpdjF

Irrelevant to his stupid claim that Maggies great
idea comes to a grinding halt one day. It never did.

LA home building came to a very abrupt halt.

Not because of what Maggie did.

And he clearly said one day, implying that it hadn't yet.

LAs stopped building because they lost the ability to borrow. Post-war
mass council housing was never paid for with government money. It was
paid for with LA loans.

Separate matter entirely to whether it made sense
to sell council houses to those who were renting
them are well below the real value of those houses.

It is relevant in the sense that LAs never got to see the RTB receipts.
For what they were worth.

Because Maggie didnt believe that the govt should be building
houses for anyone. That that is best not done by govt.

If that was such a bad idea, have fun explaining why
both the majors decided that that was the thing to do.

Because from the late 70s, the UK political class has been strongly
aligned to a pro-market neo-liberal economic programme.

That wasnt true before Maggie was the govt with Labour.

'97-2010 was, IMHO, even more rabid and ideologically wedded to market
capitalism than the Tories.

That is long after the time being discussed.

Privatisation of state assets aside - that was staggering.

Only for those easily staggered.

Those loans, in the early 80s, shifted to Housing Association *grants*
- many higher than 100% at the beginning. The Tories didn't abandon
the notion of a supported housing sector at all - they just shifted it
away from the hated LAs.

So the plowthing lied about that too.

On Saturday, 21 May 2016 07:58:21 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


That's the theory but it's not working is it.

Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.

The real point is that they look after that house a hell of a lot
better when they own it than they did when they rented it.

That goes for most things whats new ?


So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

Nope, because there were no new council houses being built when
Maggie started flogging them to those who were renting them.

exactly so the numbers of council houses were reduced, which is one of the reasons we have a housing shortage.


Irrelevant to the fact the Maggie allowed vast numbers
of people to buy the council house they were renting.

Yes and now there are less councils houses for rent.

Doesnt matter, those who where renting them are
still in them and are looking after them much better
than they did when they were renting them.

Doesn;t matter as they are now owned by them and not the council who now can not rent them out again so how they treat the homes is irrelivent.

That is complete and utter bull****. If that was true
there would be a desperate shortage of people for
those with jobs in London and there isnt.

So why are we so short of medical staff ?

Because not enough of the locals are prepare to put in
the years of study required to be allowed to do those jobs.

Plenty of people about willing to become MPs for the next 4 years,
perhaps you should ask them why they don;t want to become nurses.


http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...her-four-years

On Sunday, 22 May 2016 07:40:31 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Friday, 20 May 2016 16:30:10 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Of course it is with those who still live in that particular house.

But no new council houses get built to replace them that's the point.
So this great idea comes to a grinding halt on day one.

The main idea was to get rid of as much local authority housing as
possible. Selling it to the tenants just a clever way of masking this.
Plenty of the Turnips of this world were very jealous of those who had a
decent council house.


********.
Have you never noticed the number of BMWs and Audis parked on the verges/gardens of council houses?
These people can clealry afford to buy a house and should be thrown out.

The thing is the cars are so cheap to buy on a monthley outlay you can have 2 or 3 for just one months rent on a flat in london.
And with the traffic in london you'll spend more time on the car than in you flat ;-)