|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 29, 2024 0:30:07 GMT
Except that, as pointed out by wikipedia and explained here www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22077190‘Half the proceeds of the sales were paid to the local authorities, but the government restricted authorities' use of most of the money to reducing their debt until it was cleared rather than spending it on building more homes. The effect was to reduce the council housing stock, especially in areas where property prices were high, such as London and the south-east of England’ The BBC news article further points out that from 1990, only 25% of the money made from sales was returned to councils and wikipedia points out that the councils were forced when selling homes, which sold for as little as 30% of their market value as all rent paid was considered part of the purchase price, to offer no deposit mortgages to every buyer. To claim as you do that any council could have built new stock but chose not to is patently absurd. I never claimed that - I said: 'Any Government since 1990 could have allowed Councils to use the proceeds of Council House sales to build new social housing'We have had 8 different Governments since Thatcher was in power any one of whom could have changed the rules. Well, i suppose any of them COULD have Except that Maggie’s had already taken the money and used it to as she put it ‘reduce the national debt’. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 29, 2024 5:58:12 GMT
I can blame other for NOT overturning Thatcher's actions - and I have done repeatedly on the other Forum I am on... Well pardon us for not following you around the internet. Whatever were we thinking? 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 29, 2024 7:33:03 GMT
I never claimed that - I said: 'Any Government since 1990 could have allowed Councils to use the proceeds of Council House sales to build new social housing'We have had 8 different Governments since Thatcher was in power any one of whom could have changed the rules. Well, i suppose any of them COULD have Except that Maggie’s had already taken the money and used it to as she put it ‘reduce the national debt’. Council Houses were being sold before Thatcher came to power and have continued to be sold ever since she left power - the regulations governing those sales are the responsibility of the Government in power at that time. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 29, 2024 8:44:02 GMT
Well, i suppose any of them COULD have Except that Maggie’s had already taken the money and used it to as she put it ‘reduce the national debt’. Council Houses were being sold before Thatcher came to power and have continued to be sold ever since she left power - the regulations governing those sales are the responsibility of the Government in power at that time. Never before on such a scale, and never before with the revenues raised from such sales mandatorily ringfenced to prevent rebuilding of the Council / Social Housing Stock. The lack of Council / Social Housing availability to those genuinely in need of such because of that large-scale ideological sell-off (one might say sell-out) pushed more and more people (and continues to push them) into the arms of the massively deregulated Private Rented Sector where the (entirely mythical*) "market forces" drive up costs of Private Renting. * I say Market Forces are entirely mythical because they do not exist independently of the actions and desires of those who "control the market" (indeed ALL markets) - the "Makers of Regulations" - Governments. And it has been clear for at least 2 generations, and arguably longer, that nearly all Western Governments have sold their respective electorates down the river and now work almost exclusively in the best interests of "big business" - all of which is owned by Private Equity. That is why so much Government time, and Tax-Payer Money has been thrown at the exercise of permanently artificially inflating the UK Housing Market. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 29, 2024 9:12:38 GMT
Well, i suppose any of them COULD have Except that Maggie’s had already taken the money and used it to as she put it ‘reduce the national debt’. Council Houses were being sold before Thatcher came to power and have continued to be sold ever since she left power - the regulations governing those sales are the responsibility of the Government in power at that time. Yes, they were, but the articles I have already referenced show that such sales were minimal, and the councils had no obligation to finance the mortgages of the former tenants or other purchasers. All through this thread the ONLY thing I've been trying to stress is the fact that Thatcher and Thatcher alone destroyed the council housing stock and with it the council direct labour organisation she so utterly despised. I am fully aware that successive governments under Major, then Blair, then Brown, then Osborne under Clegg's heel did fuck all to change that, but that does nothing to modify the fact that Thatcher created the problem we have today, and she did it for ideological reasons. The council direct labour force was a massive creator and employer of skilled craftsmen, and throughout my and my wife's family several incomes were provided by such positions, and much public work was done. I don't expect rabid capitalists to understand the point of having a skilled labour force paid from public expense but a few hours spent studying the degree of craftsmanship in the stonework woodwork and doors of public libraries, theatres and the like from the thirties to the sixties compared to the shitholes built by private firms tendering with backhanders will explain much of what I mean. My grandfather's and great uncles generation came back from the war and launched themselves with enthusiasm and no small amount of pride into those council funded skilled trade jobs, and taught school leavers those same trades. Thatcher threw the boys those men taught straight into the dole with as little concern as when she stole my school milk and shut down this country's research into the mechanism behind the lethality to those impacted of COVID 19, for it was she who closed down the entire state funding of research into the way the animal cell membrane was doomed into allowing virulent pathogens to invade Thatcher turned us from a nation of manufacturers into the nation of retailers of other nations manufactured goods Napoleon contemptuously described us as being, and all for profit in the hands of her stockbroker belt chums and foreign state industry whom she allowed to buy up tbe country. Yes others continued where she left off. Blair introduced capitalism into the NHS which was a step even Maggie feared to take, but all that proves us he was more of a money grubbing bribe trousering right wing bastard than Maggie's odious son who almost ended his days in a way my 1973 incantation to Satan after the woman threw me on the dole asked for. Yet you seem to see only some saint ..... |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Mar 29, 2024 10:56:20 GMT
This might put things into perspective, my mother camer here from Itally in the late 1940s and my dad came here as a prisoner of war. When i was born in 1957, my parents owned theior own house in South Street cambridge which isnt there anymore, then moved up. The south street house wasnt great but it was theirs. They never relied on the state for owt, never claimed anything, and were proud of that.
My mother looked down on council house residents. TGhey owned their own home by financial management.
Council housing should be there in an emergency, not as a way of life leading too all sorts of problems. Through my NHS career i got to know Fegg Hayes in Stoke in the 1980s, shocking, everyone milking the system, drugs, violence, including house bombing of drug dealers, bricks, broken bikes left in the road. A palpable atmosphere of fear.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 29, 2024 11:14:56 GMT
I don't know, but from what I gather the policies of the Thatcher government caused a great deal of hardship for the majority of people, have they worked out for the better for most people in the long run I am guessing that is the point in question, a bit like constant austerity, was it all for the greater good? I am not so sure, as for Mrs Thatcher's followers of fashion maybe they didn't see the bad side of it all, so have no perspective of any of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 29, 2024 11:45:19 GMT
Council Houses were being sold before Thatcher came to power and have continued to be sold ever since she left power - the regulations governing those sales are the responsibility of the Government in power at that time. Never before on such a scale, and never before with the revenues raised from such sales mandatorily ringfenced to prevent rebuilding of the Council / Social Housing Stock. all of which any subsequent government could have reversed had they chosen. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 29, 2024 11:50:50 GMT
Never before on such a scale, and never before with the revenues raised from such sales mandatorily ringfenced to prevent rebuilding of the Council / Social Housing Stock. all of which any subsequent government could have reversed had they chosen. Yeah, get those shots in on that dead horse - I am sure it makes you feel better that you can hit a none-moving target. But still somehow manage to not understand the root cause. Had Thatcher not done what she did no subsequent government would need to reverse them. First Cause is the ONLY REAL cause. Thus all of this IS ON Thatcher... ...end of. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 29, 2024 12:31:46 GMT
all of which any subsequent government could have reversed had they chosen. Yeah, get those shots in on that dead horse - I am sure it makes you feel better that you can hit a none-moving target. But still somehow manage to not understand the root cause. Had Thatcher not done what she did no subsequent government would need to reverse them. First Cause is the ONLY REAL cause. Thus all of this IS ON Thatcher... ...end of. All The Best Bit pointless having all of those subsequent governments then, wasn't it? Loon.🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 29, 2024 15:42:15 GMT
Never before on such a scale, and never before with the revenues raised from such sales mandatorily ringfenced to prevent rebuilding of the Council / Social Housing Stock. all of which any subsequent government could have reversed had they chosen. With first half the funds raised under her directive, and then 75% of the funds raised being withheld from the councils forc d to sell their assets, and the money used by her government to suit her dogma, would you care to suggest where those successive governments would have acquired the funds to DO what you suggest any of them could have ? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 29, 2024 17:45:29 GMT
all of which any subsequent government could have reversed had they chosen. Yeah, get those shots in on that dead horse - I am sure it makes you feel better that you can hit a none-moving target. But still somehow manage to not understand the root cause. Had Thatcher not done what she did no subsequent government would need to reverse them. First Cause is the ONLY REAL cause. Thus all of this IS ON Thatcher... ...end of. All The Best Governments reverse the policies of previous governments all the time - that is why we have elections. If subsequent governments choose not to reverse the housing policy put in place by Thatcher then it's pretty wise to assume that they all agree with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 29, 2024 17:46:40 GMT
all of which any subsequent government could have reversed had they chosen. With first half the funds raised under her directive, and then 75% of the funds raised being withheld from the councils forc d to sell their assets, and the money used by her government to suit her dogma, would you care to suggest where those successive governments would have acquired the funds to DO what you suggest any of them could have ? the 75% was used to pay of Council debt - they could have allowed Councils to take on that debt again. It was a political choice by each Government. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Mar 31, 2024 0:48:10 GMT
Failed to understand what you can't get unemployment benefits until your 18? And the other one not a unemployment benefit it's a Grant from the local Authorities. Do you understand that? The story refers in one paragraph to a household where more than one child is entitled to an 'educational plan' The only link I can find to anything of that type is here www.gov.uk/children-with-special-educational-needs/extra-SEN-helpIt makes it clear any person up to the age of 25 can be assessed under this scheme It makes it clear one outcome of that assessment is a payment, direct to the parents if the impacted children These payments are not means tested. Are any of these words too long or complicated for you to understand ? If so I can arrange for you to be assessed under the adult equivalent of the programme. This will I hope help you see how big the hole is that you are digging. But to Pacifico I do have a question, or at least a thought to put As I mentioned in my other post I know exactly how these schemes work. I have experienced them and their many failings and shortcomings as one of literally millions of parents whose children have at some point been 'assessed' as having a special educational need. In Sarah's case the assessment and the assistance were utterly worse than useless. But ironically Sarah's final triumph over her problems - assisted by privately funded aid paid for from my freelance arms manufacturing has given her access to a teaching opportunity where she seems almost uniquely able to connect to kids with sight, hearing and learning difficulties. From that she also has exposure to children and parents using the same assessment system None of them get financial support to that degree I wonder, how big is the Pakistani community in Middlesbrough Because it seems to me the only way a family might get more than one child so disabled as to warrant that level of assessment expenditure is for their parents to be the product of multi generational incest such as only first cousin marriage practiced across several generations so as to maintain a family's wealth across multiple dowry obligations can produce And only one ethnic group go in for that, and we all know who they are Dear John can't you comparend that it's A local Authority grant not a welfare benefit has stated at the being of the link and I've said. |
|
